#239987 - 04/11/2004 12:47
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
That exercise is left to the reader...
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239988 - 04/11/2004 13:21
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: pgrzelak]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
That exercise is left to the reader...
Now I have to get exercise to read the bbs? Sigh.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239989 - 04/11/2004 18:47
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!
When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.
Easier said than done, I'm afraid. As has already pointed out, "other people's well-being" is very subjective. You and I both have clear ideas of what someone's "well-being" is, and they aren't the same. Even beyond that, though, there is a line we all draw between how adversely someone is affected and the personal liberty of the person doing the affecting that we draw to determine if we should permit the action. Murder? Clearly the aggressor should be stopped. Putting someone down and using harsh words against them? We let that go, even though it clearly affects people's well-being. How about not giving money to those in need? That begins to get into the grey area of whether the government should step in. On one hand we value people's rights to spend the money they make the way they wish, on the other we want those who are starving to be fed. We kind of draw the line in the middle, so that some needs are met without a person having to forfeit their entire earnings. But almost no one is happy with where that line is drawn; there are advocates for moving it in both directions.
I think the determinations of both what is “well-being” and what affects it largely separate the left from the right. Many of the accusations that get hurled at the left from the right are due to these fundamental differences of worldview, and I can only assume the same is true about insults the right hurls at the left. Most people that I know who are against homosexual marriage don't hate anyone, but they do believe it will contribute to an overall decline in our country's "well-being". Yes, you don't understand or agree with that perspective and feel that denying homosexuals the right to get married is a greater blow to "well-being". I'm not trying to argue the merits of either perspective here, but both are seeking greater human "well-being", not to diminish it. Or in other words, both sides feel that they are carrying out your statement exactly, and who is to judge which side is right? You can say "the people do", but that only works if you're sitting in the majority. You know as well as I that sometimes the majority is wrong, but what else do we have? In many ways our system is designed to lessen the “tyranny of the majority” (one example is supposedly the electoral college), but in the end, as long as we view morals as subjective (and I agree they are with regards to how they affect the law), the laws of the land will have no choice but to follow the subjective morals of its people.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239990 - 04/11/2004 19:00
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
But there is a subtle distinction between civil debate and flamethrowing
There have been a couple of occasions in which members of the BBS have contacted me privately to continue or extend a rather heated discussion. This was done for the purpose of avioding the apperance of an attack or providing more fuel for a volatile topic. In these cases it has allowed us to explore issues that probably would have generated more negative discussion than positive, but in a postive way. To me this points out the intense level of responsibility I've felt on this BBS toward civility and respect.
That's not to say that everyone feels this respect or gives it, but I doubt there are many places on the web where people go as far as people do here to respect one another.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239991 - 04/11/2004 19:18
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
That goes back to what I mean about the Golden Rule (which is an ideal we can only aspire to, not achieve), and its converse. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality. I never wanted an abortion, any more than I want a gay marriage, so I made damn' sure I never needed one, but I helped others who did because of *my* belief that the higher good there is that no child should be born that isn't wanted. Again, those against it (either abortion or gay marrige) are surely entitled to their beliefs, and some respect for those beliefs; just don't inflict them on me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239992 - 04/11/2004 19:21
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
That goes back to what I mean about the Golden Rule (which is an ideal we can only aspire to, not achieve), and its converse. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality. I never wanted an abortion, any more than I want a gay marriage, so I made damn' sure I never needed one, but I helped others who did because of *my* belief that the higher good there is that no child should be born that isn't wanted. Again, those against it (either abortion or gay marrige) are surely entitled to their beliefs, and some respect for those beliefs; just don't inflict them on me.
And again we see the disconnect. I bet he believes the aborted baby is a life and the mother is forcing her beliefs on it 
None of these debates bother me in the slightest, oddly, because regardless of whether I agree I can see where the other side comes from with perfect clarity. It's the necessity of the Iraq invasion which no one has yet explained to me in a way I can understand so simply as this, for instance. There are others, but let's pick that one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239993 - 04/11/2004 20:00
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Daria]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
I can see where the other side comes from (my mind is that evil thing, "nuanced" like Kerry's), and as I noted, respect their views--as long as they don't try to impose their views on others. I just want the same degree of respect for my viewpoint, and the same recognition of its possible validity.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239994 - 04/11/2004 20:10
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
as long as they don't try to impose their views on others
But that's my whole point: that the law is the imposition of one person's views on another. Someone who thinks that they were justified in the act of murder is going to be held to the moral views of others that murder is wrong. By the nature of supporting laws and being a voting member of our society, you and I are both attempting to impose our moral views on other people.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239995 - 04/11/2004 20:20
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
To take gay marriage as an example, I think you're wrong. The "right" wants to prevent a couple from being married. The "left" wants to allow them to be married. The "right" wants to deny a choice, whereas the "left" wants to allow it. The "right" want to impose its morality on that couple. The "left" specifically doesn't want to. This strikes me as being an "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" proposition. I'm not saying that the "left" isn't guilty of trying to impose their ideals on others in other cases, but gay marriage affects no one besides the gay couple, especially assuming that you're in favor of allowing gay couples the benefits associated with traditionally married couples.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239996 - 04/11/2004 20:30
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality.
First off, the reason I personally don't want legal gay marriage is because I don't want the government defining marriage in a way that is not consistent with my beliefs. I don't believe that the government should be defining it at all, but if it does I'm not in favor of a definition different from mine. Those in favor of legal gay marriage are saying the same thing, only from the other side. They don't want marriage defined legally in a way that is different from their view, either. I am for civil unions, however, because I don't think that homosexuals should not have the same legal benefits I have as a heterosexual. Yes, Bitt is right about the “separate buy equal” argument, but I think it’s the best imperfect solution available, requiring concessions on all sides.
Now ultimately I believe that homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being, but I recognize that I cannot force people to be moral through the law. Moral living (in the sense that I believe there really is absolute morality, even if there’s no way to represent it in our laws) is a choice people have to make of their own volition, and only when immorality reaches a point of extremely ill-affecting others should the law step in.
So I am not against gay marriage in order to force people to live out my moral values, but because I don't like the government defining marriage in a way that does not hold to my beliefs.
As far as "abstract, self-defined higher morality", everyone’s sense of morality comes from someplace. Why is abridging someone's rights wrong? I don't disagree with the statement, but where does your sense of right and wrong come from? I admit mine comes from faith, but is that ay more "abstract" than someone who comes to a belief by reasoning apart from faith? Ultimately all of our morality comes back to something we just accept is true, whether that be from internal, self examination or adherence to an external code. Who can objectively say which is more valid?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239997 - 04/11/2004 20:32
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
Without wanting to restart a debate on this, I would like to point out that the opposite argument is true as well. The example could also be interpreted as the "left" wants to force the concept of gay marriage on the "right", that the "left" wants to impose its morality on society and that the "left" wants to change the laws to enforce and codify their point of view.
As with anything else, interpretation of the topic is specific to and the point of view / perspective of the interpreter. The concepts of "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" are all a matter of judgement and are relative to that interpreter's position at the time. There are no absolutes.
Note: This is not a comment on my personal opinion about gay marriage.
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239998 - 04/11/2004 20:43
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The "right" wants to prevent a couple from being married.
Now see, what I object to is taking the definition of something I believe and broadening it to include something I don't believe. For me, that's like the state coming along and defining "baptism" as "someone getting wet". To me that would be offensive and an overreaching of the state's powers.
Quote:
This strikes me as being an "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" proposition
I completely understand this, and I also understand why you think the right is denying gay couples a "right". Unfortunately, I don't think the left at all understands the perspective of the right, and so we end up getting labeled as being full of "hatred" and "homophobic". The truth is, we (or I at least) feel very much attacked by an overreaching State. I don't want homosexuals to be persecuted, and I don't think of them any lesser than myself.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239999 - 04/11/2004 20:44
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: pgrzelak]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I disagree. I mean, that may be an argument, but two men marrying each other in San Francisco doesn't affect anything besides the lives of those two people and, potentially, insurance companies.
Wait. Maybe I'm seeing the other side's point now. At least the extremists'. If you allow for gay marriage and that requires that insurance companies provide for the other half of a gay marriage, then that allows that other half to be a stay-at-home parent, which means that they could continue to promote the gay agenda through child-rearing.
Yup. Now I see it. I underestimated the bigotry. (Not yours, Jeff, or that of the rest of you here.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240000 - 04/11/2004 21:31
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
...promote the gay agenda through child-rearing...
Huh? Okay... <backs away slowly> That took a weird turn...
All I said (or wanted to say) is that the absolutes I have seen on both sides of this debate are something that I find very difficult to accept. I do not think that hatred and prejudice are dominating all of the people against (although it is certainly there in the extremes), or that idealism and pontification are dominating all of the people for (although it is certainly there in the extremes).
As with any highly polarizing argument (other examples include abortion rights and gun control), it is very easy for people to lose track of the fact that it is not "us vs. them".
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240001 - 04/11/2004 21:56
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
Quote:
Now ultimately I believe that homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being.
Quote:
I don't think of them any lesser than myself.
Speaking as our token gay man in a long-term relationship that I would like to see become a marriage, I have a hard time reconciling these two statements. In fact, I would offer to fly down to San Antonio and buy you dinner so you could explain to me, face to face, how my relationship is detrimental to the national well-being.
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240002 - 04/11/2004 22:14
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
In fact, I would offer to fly down to San Antonio and buy you dinner so you could explain to me, face to face, how my relationship is detrimental to the national well-being.
I suggest all hungry college students reading offer a similar affront
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240003 - 04/11/2004 22:17
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
But that's my whole point: that the law is the imposition of one person's views on another.
It's the singular I cavil at here; for example, to take the devil's advocate position, I'd skip the whole "is abortion murder? Does life begin at conception?" arguement and stipulate that, after a lifetime of working with ( and sometimes being one..) children abused in various ways, I'd say: So, OK, it's murder; I'd rather smother them painlessly in the delivery room than leave them to the fates I've seen them experience...but I don't expect society to permit me to do that anytime soon; that's not permitted to be an individual decision, and probably shouldn't be. It can't be a simple matter of majority rules, either, however; in wartime Germany the laws supported genocide. Generally, I'd go with the 10 Commandments, with which most societies agree--although not always about their narrow interpretation--and that's where laws governing society belong.. But I suspect both you and I can visualize situations in which the dictates of our individual conscience would supercede the law--and where we'd be willing to take the responsibility for a decision, both personally, vis-a-vis our own belief systems, and with society. What I'm advocating is that we allow each other to live by our own belief systems and with our own consciences, as long as they don't actively infringe on each other. That, to me, is the essence of civil society.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240004 - 04/11/2004 22:27
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I have a hard time reconciling these two statements.
I see how you would feel that way, so let me try to explain. Before I do, however, let me say that I appreciate you engaging me in this, as I know it is a very personal subject for you. Please let me know if I cross the line here into being disrespectful toward you, if I haven't already.
I regard homosexual acts as sin, as I also do drunkenness, lust, materialism, and a host of other things that are found in our society, some of which I am very guilty. My beliefs come from earnestly seeking to follow the God as He is presented in the bible. I believe that it teaches all of the things I listed above (plus many others) are not what God wants from us and therefore are sin. Ultimately I believe the most important effect of sin is to separate us from God, and that separation can't help but have effects on society around us. If we were all in perfect harmony with God, then we'd have peace, understanding, and perfect love for one another. Alas, this is not the case, as I believe each of us has fallen away from God and chosen sin over Him.
That is why I believe homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being, alongside many other sins that aren't such hot topics of debate. The reason I say I don't think of a homosexual as less than I is because I am just as guilty of committing sin as any homosexual. I sin daily, and ultimately, just like homosexual sin, the sin I commit is detrimental to our national well-being. How can I think myself better than another if we are each just as guilty? In fact, in a very real since I am MORE guilty because I agree with God about what is sin and I do it anyway.
But I stress that I am not against legal homosexual marriage because I think it is detrimental to our national well-being. If I were, I'd also have to be against a host of other things that would put me on the wrong side of the law as well.
And I'd absolutely be willing to talk face to face about all of this if we had occasion to meet, though I wouldn’t allow you to pay for the plane ticket.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240006 - 04/11/2004 22:41
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
I admit mine comes from faith, but is that any more "abstract" than someone who comes to a belief by reasoning apart from faith? Ultimately all of our morality comes back to something we just accept is true, whether that be from internal, self examination or adherence to an external code. Who can objectively say which is more valid?
Who can objectively say? No one. That should be the point. Subjectively, we either decide for ourselves or let others do so by fiat (or fatwah, or Papal decree: you pick...) My own come from a combination of early, traditional but liberal mainstream Protestant teachings, a study of comparative religions, and many years of reflection and experience. Am I convinced mine is THE answer? No, only for myself, and that's open to reconsideration--which is the main reason why I wouldn't presume to inflict it on others. At the risk of becoming repetitious, I ask only the same consideration from those others.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240007 - 04/11/2004 22:47
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
What I'm advocating is that we allow each other to live by our own belief systems and with our own consciences, as long as they don't actively infringe on each other. That, to me, is the essence of civil society.
I agree with you, and I truly only take hard stances on things when I think there is a high moral imperative. To that end, while I am here arguing against gay marriage, honestly it's not really a hot topic for me, and while I'll be dissapointed if/when it happens, I'm not going to view it as the end of the world. I understand the viewpoint of the otherside and feel like there's not much of a good resolution.
Abortion is another story, and honestly a topic I've tried to aviod debating here. But since it's been brought up several times in this thread, I suppose I'll give in this once. I feel very strongly that we are dealing with an innocent life, and to me that demands government protection. But it all comes down to that one premise; I totally understand that if we are not talking about a life, then the right to choice is absolute and the mother's rights should not be infringed. Regarding your argument of a humane mercy termination, I couldn't support that, but I understand what you're saying.
I think it is absolutely terrible, though, that anti-abortion legilation (such as dealing with partial birth abortions) has not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I can say, without a doubt, if it were my wife's life on the line or our unborn child, I'd choose her and feel it was the right thing to do since you're talking about one life verse another.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240008 - 05/11/2004 00:21
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
I think it is absolutely terrible, though, that anti-abortion legilation (such as dealing with partial birth abortions) has not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I can say, without a doubt, if it were my wife's life on the line or our unborn child, I'd choose her and feel it was the right thing to do since you're talking about one life verseus another.
We're in total agreement there, and of course no one contests that the mother's IS a life...but in the more extreme view, now codified in that law we were talking about,your stance is an instance where you *would* be contravening the law to save your wife, because that view holds that hers has no more validity than the fetus's...... I did use the extreme example (mercy killing) to emphasize my point, but won't pursue the abortion issue; it's just one more instance where I think it is and should be up to the individual conscience.
Edited by kayakjazz (05/11/2004 00:24)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240009 - 05/11/2004 01:24
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 03/08/1999
Posts: 451
Loc: Canberra, Australia
|
Quote:
I don't believe that the government should be defining it at all, but if it does I'm not in favor of a definition different from mine
Sorry, but that's actually a rather arrogant and self-important statement, isn't it? Your definition here is really your opinion, because you're defining something as 'morally' right or wrong based on your own moral beliefs. And then you're saying that any opinion but your own is wrong, and it's wrong of the government to support any opinion but that that is congruent to your own. Yes?
A good example of the problem inherent in this attitude is the decision of Germany to not introduce capital punishment. The population actually voted for it, but the Chancellor ultimately blocked it because "what is popular is not necessarily what is correct" (I can't find any precise information on this despite extended google searching - someone with a better memory for history can correct me on the specifics). While there are plenty of things that would be popular, and a majority might even define as right, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is necessary. And forcing your opinions onto others has always been the territory of tyrants.
I'd be more tolerant, if I were you.
Paul
_________________________
Owner of Mark I empeg 00061, now better than ever - (Thanks, Rod!) - and Karma 3930000004550
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240010 - 05/11/2004 02:04
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5546
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
I feel very strongly that we are dealing with an innocent life, and to me that demands government protection
I might be more inclined to agree with that sentiment if the government did indeed offer protection to that innocent life.
But denying abortion to a woman who requests it is almost certainly going to be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the "innocent life" itself. Receiving poor or more likely no pre-natal care, it may well be be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack addiction, or physical or neurological deformities. Should it survive at all, there is a very high likelihood of it being "raised" (if you can call it that) in a life of pure misery and hell.
Jeff, there are worse things that can happen to an "innocent life" than never being born!
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240011 - 05/11/2004 02:37
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
I might be more inclined to agree with that sentiment if the government did indeed offer protection to that innocent life.
But denying abortion to a woman who requests it is almost certainly going to be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the "innocent life" itself. Receiving poor or more likely no pre-natal care, it may well be be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack addiction, or physical or neurological deformities. Should it survive at all, there is a very high likelihood of it being "raised" (if you can call it that) in a life of pure misery and hell.
Jeff, there are worse things that can happen to an "innocent life" than never being borntanstaafl.!
..what he said...is what I'm talking about. And as I said somewhere else on the board, these are the folks who've cut maternal and child healthcare, not to mention making welfare mothers leave their kids in horrible childcare to take subsistence jobs....real family values!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240013 - 05/11/2004 03:21
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: PaulWay]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
And then you're saying that any opinion but your own is wrong, and it's wrong of the government to support any opinion but that that is congruent to your own. Yes?
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, if the government insists on being involved, I'm going to give my opinion. I do happen to believe that my opinion is correct, and if that's arrogant I guess I'll have to admit that I am. But I think I'm not alone, then. Most people who have opinions think theirs are correct, just ask those on the board who dislike Bush so much. I'll bet most of them voted their opinion when given the chance.
But even on top of that, I’ve already said that while I believe homosexual marriage to be wrong, since I can’t force people to obey my moral code I’d support civil unions as a compromise. As an aside, on this issue I was more with Kerry than Bush, though I realize this was a point of contention for many liberals.
Quote:
And forcing your opinions onto others has always been the territory of tyrants.
Once again, my stance has been that I don't want someone else's opinion forced onto me. I'll go for a compromise, but if it comes down to "marriage is x" or "marriage is y", then I don't see what's wrong with my backing my opinion.
Quote:
I'd be more tolerant, if I were you.
I try to do the best I can to respect other individuals in a culture of such diversity and still hold true to the faith that drives me. I probably get it wrong at times; I'm not infallible by any stretch of the imagination. What I strive for is to treat everyone with civility, even when our opinions differ. To me, that is the defining of tolerance.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240014 - 05/11/2004 14:06
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
I picked a bad time to jump into this conversation, as I have a software release to get out in the next few hours, but I just wanted to say I'd be back around later this afternoon to add some more thoughts to this discussion.
I know we've gone over this before, so I'd like to not rehash the same old material, but my point in offering to visit Jeff to talk this over in person it seems to me that the discussion of gay marriage often gets a bit abstract or theoretical (or theological?), and I want to remind you that beyond the abstract of "defending marriage", the place this issue hits home is in my home, and perhaps the homes of friends or family members of your own. Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own? Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?
Let's flip this around for a moment. Assuming that we can't be eliminated from the planet, what standard of behavior would you like gay men and lesbians to aspire to? Is it in society's best interest for us to be coupled, or not? Should we encourage fidelity, and stability in these relationships? If not, what's the alternative?
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240016 - 05/11/2004 14:39
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own? Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?
Well, obviously those of us who are married now know better and are trying to stop others from making a horrible mistake
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index