U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-22-2011, 10:47 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,671,040 times
Reputation: 1272

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Quit being a man ***** and answer the question.
Quit being an intolerant bigot and leave me alone to believe what I want.

 
Old 06-22-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,914 posts, read 19,088,364 times
Reputation: 9138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Quit being an intolerant bigot and leave me alone to believe what I want.
I'll take your refusal to answer the question as a sufficient admittance of being wrong.

Thanks for playing.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 11:13 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,671,040 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
I'll take your refusal to answer the question as a sufficient admittance of being wrong.

Thanks for playing.
You can take it however you want. Just please stop being so intolerant toward me and others that disagree with you.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,914 posts, read 19,088,364 times
Reputation: 9138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
You can take it however you want. Just please stop being so intolerant toward me and others that disagree with you.
Don't worry. When the bans on gay marriage are inevitably ruled to be unconstitutional, no one will care what you feel anymore because you won't have any power.

Cheers.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 11:56 AM
 
138 posts, read 218,354 times
Reputation: 112
you are being intolerant by not allowing me to legislate other peoples lives due to my own superstitious prejudices!!!!! U r nazi!
 
Old 06-22-2011, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
163 posts, read 320,724 times
Reputation: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
yes and no. Laws are based on morality--including anti-murder, anti-rape, etc laws. I am largely libertarian, and I do agree that we should not legislate down to the very minute details of morality. Based on that, I wonder why we would want to go and change an institution that has been in effect for as long as our country has been in existence. Why would we decide to force a new definition of marriage on people now?

Yes, my religion says homosexuality is wrong. If that were my only reason for condemning same-gender marriage it would be enough...but it isn't. I think society as a whole functions better with marriage as a strong institution--and redefining it as anything goes isn't going to help that.
You could argue laws are based on morality, but only to a certain degree. Some people find it immoral to eat meat, or to drink alcohol, or even to work on their sabbath, but these things aren't illegal. That's because morality isn't an all enfolding sheath. What's moral to me may not be moral for you. I don't find it morally reprehensible to drink, you may have such an objection for all I know. The law takes the position that each of us can exercise our morals, and it does that by not legislating anything on the matter. I'm free to be a drunkard if I want, and you're free to be a teetotaler in return. If it were the other way I around, and there was specific legislation on the consumption of alcohol, you would be free to live a life you felt was morally sound, but I would be denied a privilege based entirely on a code of morals I didn't even ascribe to.

Now, the law only intercedes for us on the matter of alcohol when it comes to the well-being of other people. You can't be drunk on the street being a public nuisance, you can't be drunk behind the wheel of the car and be a public danger. Your right to follow your moral compass is disrupted when it crosses into either public territory (IE: you don't have the right to menace the public by being belligerently drunk) or the private territory of somebody else (IE: you don't have the right to endanger someone else's well-being by driving drunk.) This is a good example of where the legislation got it right, then messed it up (prohibition) then managed to actually fix itself again.

So now that brings up homosexuality. If marriage is defined in the stricter sense (from what I gather, this is your position, that marriage should just be one man and one woman) then a certain section of the population is being denied a privilege based on a code of morals they are under no obligation to follow. If you contend that homosexuality is morally wrong, even if everybody could agree on that sentiment, that would in no way imply that gays are bound to honor that sense of morality.
The only restriction that comes into play is when marriage is defined so rigidly. If there is no legislation on the matter concerning a strict definition of the necessary components of marriage, everybody is free to find within themselves a morally sound solution and act on it. Naturally, these rights would only extend so far, and you couldn't, as was common place in the dark ages, simply conquer a village and take a wife from the survivors of your pillage. That's where the morality comes in, when other people begin to be affected. But as far as gays getting married, if you don't choose to marry someone of your gender, the fact that other people can would have no bearing on you.

Now for the idea of the definition of marriage. I find it odd that whenever this defense is used against the idea of gay marriage, the selected style of matrimony to defend is always the typical one man and one woman, monogamous relationship. The definition of marriage was already redefined when it become commonplace to just have one husband and one wife together. Historically, one man with multiple wives is the more popular option. It's circular logic to resist alternative lifestyles on the basis that they are immoral because they are alternative when they are only alternative from a seemingly randomly selected other alternative. If that makes sense. Basically, why is it that marriage as defined as a union of one man and one woman must be so steadfastly defended when this is simply a less common (historically speaking) alternative than the one man, many wives model, which is so seldom defended?

I'm aware that this is a flimsy argument. It's defining something in terms of its negative space. Monogamous marriage isn't X because polygynous marriage also isn't X. That being said, I think it's still an important point to make, since it points out that there's nothing special about a monogamous marriage that needs defending. If I was you, Calvinist, I would also be careful about cautioning against "forcing a new definition of marriage on people now." Like I said, there's no forcing, if anything, doing away with strict definitions of marriage removes the coercion, and lets people define marriage in their own way. And second, that style of argument is easily spun into a resistant to all change dogmatic style. For example, you could make the same argument against civil rights for blacks or women. "Why should we force a new definition of gender/racial equality on people now?" We make mistakes. History has shown us that. To have your argument be reducible to "Well, it's always been this way, so it must be right" is to be on shaky logical ground, indeed.

I'm curious to know why you believe society functions better with marriage as a rigidly defined institution. Or rather, what you believe constitutes a well-functioning society. As well as how you reconcile being libertarian with being opposed to gay marriage. So much of the libertarian philosophy is "hands off" but you support the government intervening on behalf of the church to define marriage, as is outlined by the church. That seems very much at odds with libertarian beliefs, to me. Could you explain?
 
Old 06-22-2011, 12:43 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,671,040 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandBanana View Post
you are being intolerant by not allowing me to legislate other peoples lives due to my own superstitious prejudices!!!!! U r nazi!
No....I'm not the one that is pushing for legislation. On the other hand we get stuff like this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Don't worry. When the bans on gay marriage are inevitably ruled to be unconstitutional, no one will care what you feel anymore because you won't have any power.

Cheers.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
306 posts, read 599,814 times
Reputation: 69
With more and more heterosexual couples living in cohabitation arrangements, you could argue that is also redefining the definition of marriage.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 12:53 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,671,040 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessep28 View Post
With more and more heterosexual couples living in cohabitation arrangements, you could argue that is also redefining the definition of marriage.
They could be seen as weakening it, yes. But they're not altering the definition of it.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
306 posts, read 599,814 times
Reputation: 69
Kind of off topic, but I recently subscribed to a magazine called Salvo (Salvo Magazine: Science, Sex, Society). The editors I believe are Orthodox Christians, but it's a very intelligent periodical that offers commentary on various societal and moral issues.

You may not agree with everything they say, but the couple issues I have read so far have given me at least a new perspective on some issues affecting society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top