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.
If you truly think that morality is relative - you are a sucker who will fall for anything that some snake oil salesman peddles. You have no moral rudder and no reference to measure the validity of one idea over another. Belief in moral relativism is a sure sign of decay for any society. We are in trouble if too many think as you do.
Very scary and closed minded statement. Morality is very relative, especially regarding time, but also location. Your moral compass does not navigate society, society navigates your moral compass.
We all know this will be over turned in time, which illustrates how morality is relative. Just like 60 years ago when June Cleaver wore ankle length dresses because exposing knees was just not morally acceptable on TV.
Just like 60 years ago when June Cleaver wore ankle length dresses because exposing knees was just not morally acceptable on TV.
And Ricky and Lucy slept in separate beds because how dare we even insinuate that married people were actually having relations. Shameful! *clutching my pearls*
Morality can't be defined? I guess you have no use for any of our laws because they are mostly based on common ideas of morality. Morality is the basis for law - without it all laws could mean whatever anyone thought - morality is what makes people generally agree that law is reasonable.
If you truly think that morality is relative - you are a sucker who will fall for anything that some snake oil salesman peddles. You have no moral rudder and no reference to measure the validity of one idea over another. Belief in moral relativism is a sure sign of decay for any society. We are in trouble if too many think as you do.
Funny that you'd accuse me of "falling for anything some snake oil salesman peddles," when you have fallen for the religious indoctrination - which supports only YOUR morals, as YOU and your ilk interpret an ancient book. Morality in specific terms cannot be defined, as clearly proven by the fact that you and I disagree on its meanings. Laws are not based on some abstract morals, they are based on cause & effect of each action in rational or tangible terms.
- Killing is wrong because it ends the life of an unwilling victim.
- Rape and molestation is wrong because it forces sexual acts on an unwilling victim.
- Theft is wrong because is causes the loss of money or goods from an unwilling victim.
- Drunk driving is wrong because it can physically harm unwilling victims on the road.
See where I'm going with that, and can you make a direct (i.e. not some personal opinions on morality or religious beliefs) comparison for gay marriage?
Very scary and closed minded statement. Morality is very relative, especially regarding time, but also location. Your moral compass does not navigate society, society navigates your moral compass.
We all know this will be over turned in time, which illustrates how morality is relative. Just like 60 years ago when June Cleaver wore ankle length dresses because exposing knees was just not morally acceptable on TV.
Yup. And I'm glad you brought up cultural differences too, since I think we can all agree that some cultures have different moral standards than we do. For example, it's considered morally correct in some cultures to marry children, multiple partners, or to have arranged marriages. It's also morally acceptable in some cultures for men to wear dresses/skirts, but here in the good old USofA you might be called a deviant freak for that.
You are forgetting that it is homosexual supporters who are trying to change the laws
Incorrect, at least in many states. Here in California, the law NEVER stated that marriage was only to be between a man & woman... people like you changed the laws, by voting to outlaw something that wasn't illegal in the first place. Why do you think gay weddings were allowed, during that period before Prop 8 passed? Those were 100% legal according to state law, signed and approved by the Mayor of San Francisco (and officials in other cities) himself. So you've got that all backwards, otherwise these state bans wouldn't even be necessary - now would they?
No - I cannot tell you the exact moment that I chose to be straight - I did not write it down when I did. But I could choose to be gay right now and likewise several years down the road could not tell you that I did so on May 9, 2012 at 12:51 a.m.(for the record - I have chosen to remain "straight" - no one get any ideas!) unless I specifically made a record of it. Your question has no validity - it is based on a ridiculous premise that one would neccesarily remember this decision - and you are only asking it to avoid confronting the fact that being homosexual is a choice.
I'm still waiting on the general timeframe (+ or - 5 years) in which you decided that you would be attracted to the opposite sex. If being gay is a choice, you must remember when you decided to become straight. Right?
No one is forcing anyone to adhere to any religious beliefs. The only forcing going on concerning homosexual marriage is the homosexual marriage supporters forcing people to accept their deviant lifestyle choices.
Your case for being tolerant is getting weaker by the minute, especially when you use words such as "deviant lifestyle choices." Straight out of the homophobic's handbook, that is!! Get some new material already.
Nobody is asking you to accept their relationships, they are only asking you stop blocking their path to personal happiness. I don't accept Jesus as my savior, but that doesn't mean I would bar you from practicing Christianity... and if you don't want to ban other religions (hopefully you don't), does that mean you embrace them as the true path to salvation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Marriage is not a right - this is where your argument fails. Gay people do not have a right to be acknowledged as a married couple. If they wish to have the privelege of being married they need to follow the laws like everyone else does - and those laws in most states require that the parties getting married be of opposite genders.
We do all have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness... they also have the right to marry whomever they like, as allowing gay marriage WAS following the law in many states prior to these bans. Every American also has a right to be treated equally under the law, and if the laws are determined unjust they historically have been amended. When a straight husband can visit his wife in the ER, while a gay partner of 20+ years cannot, simply because the government won't recognize their relationship as legally valid - I wouldn't call that equality, would you?
Incorrect, at least in many states. Here in California, the law NEVER stated that marriage was only to be between a man & woman... people like you changed the laws, by voting to outlaw something that wasn't illegal in the first place. Why do you think gay weddings were allowed, during that period before Prop 8 passed? Those were 100% legal according to state law, signed and approved by the Mayor of San Francisco (and officials in other cities) himself. So you've got that all backwards, otherwise these state bans wouldn't even be necessary - now would they?
You really don't understand the recent history of gay marriage in California very well. The marriage law in California prior to Prop 22 defined marriage as between a man and a woman but was unclear about how California would view same sex unions formed in other states. Prop 22 clarified this and ensured that only man/woman unions could be called marriage in the state - all others would be considered civil unions. In 2005 a San Francisco superior court judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional - which gave the mayor of San Francisco the crazy idea that same sex marriages were now legitamate - and thusa you had those gay weddings - only in San Francisco. Those "marriages" were not legal - and the judges ruling did not change Prop 22 for the entire state. Later on Prop 22 was ruled unconstitutional by the california Supreme Court which prompted Proposition 8's language which would amend the state constitution. Same sex marriages were not ever legal in California until challenges to Props 22 and 8 were successful. Gavin Newsome lending legitamacy to those marriages does not mean anything - he was acting unlawfully - and he knew it. It was all a show to garner support and undermine the will of the people. One would think that as someone who lives in the area where all this took place - you would be better informed about the history behind it - but I suppose I am asking too much?
Yep, that and of course the inevitable "it's a slippery slope to bestiality, incest, and child molestation" argument. All you can do is laugh when it reaches that level of absurdity. I have plenty of gay friends, but I've never known any of them to start looking at children, relatives, nor pets and random barnyard animals with a hint of lust in their eye.
I know, it's ridiculous. Earlier tonight I was on the Yahoo! Answers forum, and some idiot (might have been a troll, not sure) was asking for advice on getting two gay tutors at her son's school fired - because supposedly she was afraid these "dangerous perverts" were going to molest her kid. WTH?? I do some tutoring myself, and as a straight woman should I not be allowed to tutor male students? Unbelievable this mentality still exists today.
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.
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.
