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.
The founding fathers believed in no moral law, except from the "God of nature", which is that killing people is bad, and hurting others to better yourself is bad.
But other then that, each man (and woman) should be left to their own devices.
Moral law, is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
So basically we agree on that....... although what it is termed as is up for dispute
It can be called moral law or not but it is essentially the same thing.... right vs wrong
Of course, gays getting married doesn't hurt anyone so I don't know what the problem is with some of the folks
Seeing how I'm gay, I just thought it was odd how people ascribed all these horrible things about what I wanted to do with my life. I found it hurtful how my plans to have a house in the burbs and raise kids was somehow going to bring about the end of society.
My friends and most of my family just treat me no differently. I'm just like all of you. I want to be with the person I love and I want to be a good father to my future kids.
Because I, like the founding fathers, believe that legislating morality is a terrible thing.
You really shouldn't tempt me like this.
Allow me to present Exhibit A - the most liberal of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, on legislating morality:
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."
Where do you people get these nutty ideas? High school civics class?
Cool thread. Let's all try to please civilly just answer the questions.
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1) I was about 16 when I started getting into politics. That was in 2005ish. I was for gay rights and marriage because that is just part of my generation I believe. I was not just conforming either though. When I thought about it, it seemed cruel to deny these people marriage.
2) I remember I thought seriously about when Bush/Kerry were running. Even though I was a high school kid, I seriously considered and thought it through. Saw nothing wrong with it. Also, growing up, my parents have told me many times I was going to get an arranged marriage and they will find a good boy for me. I didn't like the idea of being told who I can and cannot marry. So I know gays and lesbians feel the same way and I AM NO ONE TO JUDGE!
3) No change other than being more pro gay marriage every day.
Last edited by Theliberalvoice; 08-28-2012 at 11:08 PM..
Inevitably, since the question in the subject title has to do with our levels of moral reasoning, this thread will keep leaning toward a debate over morality itself.
I like when people say "my morality, your morality". So long as you have the same goal ("Freedom", "Justice", etc.), something we can determine simply by asking you, your disagreeing with someone means one of you is wrong and one is right. It's objective, not subjective.
We must first agree on a goal. Our "values", as we like to call them, and even this term is sometimes misused, once again to lenify our consciences so we can continue to believe all personal opinions on morality are equal. The most commonly heard one that people usually agree on is "freedom". But if this simply means doing whatever you want, that will inevitably include taking away someone else's freedom. So what about "Freedom is doing whatever you want that doesn't take away from another's freedom", yes? Sounds perfect... But then, there are already exceptions the vast majority of us agree on. Speeding comes to mind. One person going 70 through your city is not hindering your freedom. He/she may be annoying you, worrying you, or scaring you. But they're not hurting anyone.
So we look at what the risks of their speeding are, in terms of how it may affect us. Opening this door means we can do the same with everything else.
So we must add on more goals than just freedom. What did we allow to impose exceptions on our original goal of "freedom"? Harm and risk for others. I think the consideration of this is a decent foundation for what we consider morality. And so long as we're punishing people for speeding or shooting a gun in public and not harming anyone, we are being hypocrites when we say "One should not legislate morality."
All that being said, I challenge anyone to find identifiable harm in homosexuality or gay marriage in and of itself. If you can't, you're neither trying to legislate morality or "your morality". You're just trying to legislate a personal opinion in general. And no, that's not what we need to do.
We've had a discussion of how the public came to accept the idea of homosexuals arrying so rapidly, but I am posing this question on a more personal scale:
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. Bonzo! A good one..... erm.. When I was a kid I never found the jokes that other children told about "Gays" funny, it didn't occur to me that because they loved people of the same sex that they were any different. They loved and that seemed fine to me. That thought just never went away.
With regards to same-sex marriage I suppose just read the last answer again. If they're in love why not?
2. When it first came up in the media i'd imagine.
3. Nope, no change in my stance. It seems as reasonable to me now as it ever has, quite reasonable.
I was always for same-sex marriage as a gay person myself, but in posting on these forums, and marrying someone I eventually had to run away from for my own safety, realized that marriage can be incredibly imprisoning for any couple, straight or gay. As a result I think the government has no place in the marriage business (same-sex, opposite-sex, or any kind) and think that we should just let communities, private organizations, and families come up with their own definitions. I also think that it solves closely-related debates like whether polygamy should be legalized (and how taxes would work for that). A perhaps less drastic solution I've come across on these forums, and also like, is the idea of having a marriage license expire (say, every 5 years) unless you renew it. I think a lot of people stay married because they don't want to go through the divorce process, and the need to renew a license would really help couples think about whether they want to stay married and would let them gracefully become unmarried without all the messiness of a divorce if that's what they wanted. I do still stand by the idea that whatever rights are there for heterosexual couples should be there for any other arrangement of consenting adults, so as long as there is special legal recognition for straight couples, there should also be for other types of adult relationships. And I do think the government has one role in marriage, and that is: legally protecting non-consenting sentient parties from being allowed to get married (i.e. (children, animals, forced adult marriages).
I can't remember ever having any feelings against gays and feel they have a right to marriage just as hetero's do. So no change in my stance from the get go.
I didn't have an opinion when I was young, the topic never came up.
When I was in high school I had a very good friend, a smart, talented guy who was very popular. He dated some, but no one ever steady. And then he shared with some of us that he thought he was gay. After high school, he went to college in New York, and came out that he was gay.
I went on to college, and became friends with another wonderful person who was openly gay. He was from California, and as he realized he was gay, he had always been open about who he was. He didn't make a big deal of it. It was just who he was.
And so when the issue of same-sex marriage came up, it was no-brainer. I thought of these dear friends, and I thought that of course they should be allowed to marry the partner they chose for their lives. I would celebrate them finding the right person, and making their relationship official, just as they would celebrate me and my marriage to the right person.
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.
