Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

What I think and is supported by your statment below:

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Marriage can also exist without that religious mumbo-jumbo, which caused some fairly violent opposition from both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists when it became popularized. Even if no church would marry gay people, they should still be able to get married and have a family under the civil law. Otherwise they're not human by law.

is that it is really about semantics, call a rose by any other name and it is just a weed, its the way the government works. If they didn't call it marriage no one would care and it would be easily allowed.

BTW make sure to put your children to death if they speak back to you, it's ordained in the same chapter of Leviticus as that in which they condem homosexuality.

Originally Posted by harold

BTW make sure to put your children to death if they speak back to you, it's ordained in the same chapter of Leviticus as that in which they condem homosexuality.

I think I met the kids that caused this law to make it in the books it the mall this weekend past. By the way I hope they get coal at the very least.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

I beg to differ with this point.

beg all you want. It's still a fact. Overpopulation is another danger to the survival of a species but that's not what we're talking about .

That's because at that time the Earth wasn't all that populated and nobles needed men to work their lands and fight in their wars. That is why older religions are in almost every case all about reproduction and against anything that will hinder it.

This is news to me. Which source has come up with this? It may be a theory but it's certainly not proven. Religion, however, has been shown to be older than governments and governing systems that would advent "nobles" and societal manipulation in such a manner as you've suggested.

But if the religious institutions are too rigid in "preserving the traditional values" they don't respond to real changes in conditions (like aids and overpopulation) and instead of being in a symbiotic relationship, they become a cancer afflicting their believers.

This is yet another debate entirely and I don't entirely disagree with you.

So according to you, if a heterosexual couple decided to get married and not have children (have the husband get vasectomy) that marriage should not be legal?

This is where reading my post entirely and understanding it comes in handy. Granted I spewed a ton of "crap" there but it still comes in handy .

"Biological design" is the general design of the species. It has nothing to do with artifical alterations to that design. The general biological design of our species requires a male and a female to reproduce.

he probably is quoting from the same source that you were using.

Originally Posted by harold

Lots of things do, that's called 'evolution'

Prove evolution. You can't. no one can. We see evidence of "adaptation" and call that evolution. I've had the greatest science minds in KSU admit to me that evolution cannot be proven. It's just been promoted so much that everyone accepts it as "fact" and "law". The only thing evolutionary scientists will refuse to budge on is whether or not the world was "created". Even the very core of the theory of "evolution" is available for change, just don't throw in intelligent design. Bottom line is they're both theories and they both have "evidence" that "suggests" the truth of each.

But we digress again. We're not talking about evolution or creationism here, we're talking about freedoms, laws, gay marriage and why gay marriage isn't a simple issue.

Procreation isn't about survival of the individual, it's about survival of the species,

I prefer the term 'reproduction' It's less religious and more to the point. No one said anything about survival of the individual that I'm aware of.

if some people can't/won't procreate due to their genetic programming then that's, very brutally put, nature's way of saying/deciding that they weren't meant to be and their genetic line dies out. (Not trying to be offensive here, it's just reality that nature in its randomness condems certain individual genetic lines, for example people born sterile)

1) the genetic programming still isn't truly proven by the stringent scientific standards though some would try to argue otherwise
2) You're absolutely right. If you want to bone someone within the same gender, you're not going to get a baby. Science helps circumvent this to some degree but again, my point is survival of the species.

And He came down from the heavens and told you that personally or did he upload a video to youtube that I might have missed?

And you're being stupid just because you are, or do you just think it's funny? No need for insults. I do honestly try to avoid them unless I feel one has been directed at me and I feel you're just intentionally being insulting here, probably because you think it's funny.

Study any major ancient religion. Not all of them specifically address homosexuality but many of them do. While the wording may be a little hard to understand, it's there.
Before I switched my major to computer science I was a world religion major at YSU and my opinion of what has historically ben considered offensive to "GOD" comes largely from this time in my life. My wording quite clearly should have conveyed even to the most average of people that it was a historical inference. If it didn't then I guess I've pretty much failed to make my points at all.

That's because morals on a society's level is determined by general consensus, not by an individual,

That's correct, and certainly not by 0.5 percent of the population either. But again, we're not getting the entire point here. I have contrasted the "religious rights" in my post here. You're only helping to prove my point. Gay marriage isn't a simple issue. It's very complex.

pedofiles think it's morally right to sleep with children,

1) You're comparing illegal behavior with legal behavior? apples and oranges. Homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT comparible. Don't insult the homosexuals like that.

2)and they've all come to your door and told you this personally? Sorry, but paybacks I guess. There may well be some who think that but generally most know it's immoral and wrong according to the psych professors at KSU.

Furthermore, you still have the right to your own views and moral stance in your own house and own decisions, ........Gay marriage does not conflict with your rights to teach children religion at all.

bullsh**! Political activists have ensured that homosexuality training is prominent in many schools. Major corporations are caving to the political pressure and requiring sensitivity training. Many churches in the u.s. have already faced lawsuits for preaching against homosexuality, some of them losing in the initial court case and winning only on appeal. There is a strong and active movement alive today to try to bypass any and every parent who choose to teach their children politically incorrect morals.

Proof?

assertations but ok, here goes .

3) Nobody forces you to 'accept' anything,

see above

you still get the right to politely voice your opinion and give notice to your representaties who make up the laws that regulate your society.

yea, try expressing such a disagreement on a talk show or some other public arena. Public pressure has made it so that even those who agree with you in the crowd will boo with those who are so eager to be politically correct that you'll never get your opinion voiced. Just look at the responses my post generated. SOOO MANY are so eager to jump on the politically correct band wagon and show the world they're sensitive to gay marriage that making snide insults is funny.

You just don't get to act on convictions anymore, these aren't the dark ages, witch burning is over.

1) and there in I lose my rights to freedom of religion and thus we're back to the same old point. Gay marriage is NOT a simple issue. You're taking away my rights to further your own and therefore violating your own arguments about morality, etc.
2) You're the onlyone talking about witches and burning. stick to refuting my post. don't insinuate anything I haven't said or suggest things into my conversation.

Nature's preferred way of procreation is females getting impregnated by as many possible men as possible to create multiple genetic lines

you're way off base here dude. MANY species will chose a mate for life. Not all granted. check out ducks for one. Go to the library for others . Natures way (and there are always SOME exceptions) is generally asexual reproduction and heterosexual reproduction.

2) I'm a hetero male of 29 but I'm in love with a woman that's 10 years older than me, naturally speaking that's not very good, since that will more or less eliminate my chances of procreation if I don't get a lucky break. Should I have the luck and happiness to be allowed to start a relationship with this woman, whom I love, would you find me immoral? If not, what's the beef with homosexuals, sometimes you really can't help who makes you smile.

so have children before she hits 50 .
again we're talking general biological design versus individual choice.


Please don't take offense at anything I post. Well, except the insults. I can understand being offended by insults. But hey, open the door or even give me the understanding that you're insulting me and I'll return the favor .

I enjoy good debate. Thank you for your view points.

Originally Posted by FUD

Prove evolution. You can't. no one can. We see evidence of "adaptation" and call that evolution. I've had the greatest science minds in KSU admit to me that evolution cannot be proven. It's just been promoted so much that everyone accepts it as "fact" and "law". The only thing evolutionary scientists will refuse to budge on is whether or not the world was "created". Even the very core of the theory of "evolution" is available for change, just don't throw in intelligent design. Bottom line is they're both theories and they both have "evidence" that "suggests" the truth of each.

Still it's the most likely theory so far, we just haven't been dropped here by some huge hand; have we?

I prefer the term 'reproduction' It's less religious and more to the point. No one said anything about survival of the individual that I'm aware of.

I didn't knew there was anything religious about 'procreation'? Given that no significant enough amount of the population is homosexual (what is it now anyway, 10%?), it reduces it to individual choices (just like people abstaining for the duration of their lives) which in turn makes it insignificant for the 'survival' of the whole species. Thus it's not detrimental. ('destructive' is a very interesting choice of words as opposed to for instance non-contributory)

1) the genetic programming still isn't truly proven by the stringent scientific standards though some would try to argue otherwise
2) You're absolutely right. If you want to bone someone within the same gender, you're not going to get a baby. Science helps circumvent this to some degree but again, my point is survival of the species.

just talking pure genetics here, like for instance people that are sterile, they can not conceive, at no point did I meant that homosexuality was genetics, might as well be, might not be, who cares. It's as much of a choice as a reality depending on the specific person and it in turn is not weighing on the survival of this species.

And you're being stupid just because you are, or do you just think it's funny? No need for insults. I do honestly try to avoid them unless I feel one has been directed at me and I feel you're just intentionally being insulting here, probably because you think it's funny.

Religiously speaking homosexuality has been considered an offense to the very being of those who pretend to speak for a supposed higher power they call 'God'. <-- now this I'd accept.

I find it funny how you'd react on evolution but just believe/presume that everyone should just accept the existence of a deity, let alone "God" (which is the christian representation of the highest power) without hesitation. All we truly know is that times ago books were written by human beings, upon those books religions grew and faiths were based, whom themselves were once again enforced(soft or hard) by other human beings during centuries to follow.

That's correct, and certainly not by 0.5 percent of the population either. But again, we're not getting the entire point here. I have contrasted the "religious rights" in my post here. You're only helping to prove my point. Gay marriage isn't a simple issue. It's very complex.

As long as you may practice your religion and believe what you want, how exactly are your rights violated? Determining the way the world is run is not an individual right, like the right to religion is.

1) You're comparing illegal behavior with legal behavior? apples and oranges. Homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT comparible. Don't insult the homosexuals like that.

the difference between legal and illegal is a legal distinction, not a moral one like you had put forth, don't put up a red herring. I just wanted to show that 'morals' are pretty fluid depending on whom you ask. 'Morals' in the broad sense are usually but not always the general consensus of what the most influential public group thinks.(which in turn is not always the biggest group)

2)and they've all come to your door and told you this personally? Sorry, but paybacks I guess. There may well be some who think that but generally most know it's immoral and wrong according to the psych professors at KSU.

Nah, but movements like http://nambla.org/ are a pretty good indication.

bullsh**! Political activists have ensured that homosexuality training is prominent in many schools. Major corporations are caving to the political pressure and requiring sensitivity training. Many churches in the u.s. have already faced lawsuits for preaching against homosexuality, some of them losing in the initial court case and winning only on appeal. There is a strong and active movement alive today to try to bypass any and every parent who choose to teach their children politically incorrect morals.

while you might find that annoying, it still does not impede your right to show your children the religion of your choice, au contraire, if children know all sides of the story they at least can make an educated decision which is right for them. (By this I do assume that 'homosexuality training' is not what the dirty mind may think, but just the 'it exists and this is what it is, just like heterosexuality but opposite' type of sex-ed? ) You may disagree but you do *not* have the right to *force* your religion on your children, so in the interest of preserving their own individual rights, access to alternatives should not be impeded. It's always great if your children follow your believes but well, sometimes they don't and that's their right as individual.

assertations but ok, here goes .


see above

yea, try expressing such a disagreement on a talk show or some other public arena. Public pressure has made it so that even those who agree with you in the crowd will boo with those who are so eager to be politically correct that you'll never get your opinion voiced. Just look at the responses my post generated. SOOO MANY are so eager to jump on the politically correct band wagon and show the world they're sensitive to gay marriage that making snide insults is funny.

Don't go on Jerry Springer? I'm not sensitive to gay marriage, I couldn't give a fuck really, but I think it's but right that they get the same state-union possibility, which in itself has *nothing* to do with religion, it's just that all religions always try to claim it. It's not like they can marry for your church, is it?

1) and there in I lose my rights to freedom of religion and thus we're back to the same old point. Gay marriage is NOT a simple issue. You're taking away my rights to further your own and therefore violating your own arguments about morality, etc.
2) You're the onlyone talking about witches and burning. stick to refuting my post. don't insinuate anything I haven't said or suggest things into my conversation.

Your right to religion is being allowed to believe what you want and not be prosecuted for it by others. Am I missing anything? As for the witches: these women were burned due to conflicting morals. Being denied life or being denied equal treatment by your ruling entity, what's the difference?

you're way off base here dude. MANY species will chose a mate for life. Not all granted. check out ducks for one. Go to the library for others . Natures way (and there are always SOME exceptions) is generally asexual reproduction and heterosexual reproduction.

yeah well, mate != where the sperm lands, I don't think I have to explain that, do I? Even swans have been documented as 'unfaithful'. (and ducks regularly have rape-fests, which I guess is what you were hinting at )

so have children before she hits 50 .
again we're talking general biological design versus individual choice.

yeah well, *my* biological design seems to favor women who are a decade older than I am. How much of a choice is it really, it's not like I ever woke up and said, "ooh, gonna find me some 40ish tail today!". I gather it's not different for anyone else, regardless of orientation?

beg all you want. It's still a fact. Overpopulation is another danger to the survival of a species but that's not what we're talking about .

I made a valid point because you are saying that non-reproductive couples are anti-survival. I am saying that at current global natality rates they're beneficial to the human race.

This is news to me. Which source has come up with this? It may be a theory but it's certainly not proven. Religion, however, has been shown to be older than governments and governing systems that would advent "nobles" and societal manipulation in such a manner as you've suggested.

Some forms of religion are older than any complex governing systems, but Christianity and Islam are fairly new players on the scene. Christianity is based on Judaism and Egyptian mystery cults and Islam is mostly based on Christianity. This is a simplified statement but true enough and if you don't like it, take your complaints to Dr. R. Beck whose field of study for a few decades have been religions of that time period. Actually all of the modern religions that forbid homosexuality came AFTER we had systems where you had nobility and exploited masses.

"Biological design" is the general design of the species. It has nothing to do with artifical alterations to that design. The general biological design of our species requires a male and a female to reproduce.

In any case marriage is a union between two people. Whether they want to have children or not is incidental.

Originally Posted by honedright

Of course what I'm talking about are gun laws AND the "War on drugs."

A very clever choice Scott. It really is difficult to be consistent on those two.

I have always believed that we should be free of government interference so long as nobody gets harmed (including society). Your right to swing you arm stops at the tip of my nose. That's what true libertarianism means, and it includes not legislating morals, which should come from the home, church etc.

But the other side of the coin is responsibility. You need to be prepared to pay for any harm you do.

This is all the easy part, because the real test of libertarianism is how you use prior restraint. At what point does free speech become harmful to the point of being prevented?

The gun and drug issues tend to be a loaded deck, because there is a specific Constitutional right related to bearing arms and none to use drugs. A more balanced comparison might be your opinion regarding right-to-life and the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Ok, well I'll make my beliefs easy to understand I'm a God fearing right leaning Libertarion.

I believe that the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is the belief in society's right to prevent harm.

Some of your examples are on the edge. Like giving employers the right to fire you on a whim can be very destructive of society, and it eventually gets to the point where the employers own us all. The worst part is if they have that right you don't even have a right to sue them if they destroy you on a whim. Another example is that employers also get the right to practice extreme racism, since they can act at whim. So, to protect all your freedoms you can't put unlimited power in one place.