Dare To Ask Talk And News About Our Differences 
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I think it is acceptable to say that in today’s culture the age of consent is arbitrary, but it must be ‘set’ at some point. As this society becomes more ‘secular’ and (I use the term loosely) tolerant, some groups want society to be tolerant of their viewpoint. Take pedophiles, for example. Sex with children is wrong, period, but some in the field of psychology would say that it’s wrong not intrinsically but because of the negative and apparently arbitrary stigma associated with pedophilia. Even the word pedophile, in my mind, has a sick essence to it. Get rid of the value judgments placed on such behavior and the behavior becomes ‘normalized’ and thus OK. The homosexual movement comes to mind at this point. Maybe this post has a place in the religious section, because I think my point is pointless without pointing to an absolute moral lawgiver outside of society. If child sex is wrong because society says it’s wrong, then society can change to tolerate another view. Only some in the United States were intolerant of slavery, but society changed and tolerance for slavery as far as I can tell has become completely intolerable. Conversely, Corrie Ten Boom was ‘immoral’ for hiding Jews during the Holocaust because THAT society said it was wrong to do such a thing. So, with no ‘eye in the sky’ watching over us, no accountability to a Creator who will judge, these kinds of associations (homosexuality/incest/ pedophilia) are perfectly sound and will be used by those who are being restrained by society from acting as they wish in an effort to change society’s collective attitude toward their deviance.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,The phrase ‘and the pursuit of Happiness’ is NOT in the Bill of Rights. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator and an order in things. You are correct. I have the right to pursue happiness. Gays have the right to pursue happiness. They just may be denied the right to marriage. What if torturing babies for fun made me happy? Should I be allowed to pursue that? Maybe, but the law does not have to permit it. Therefore, the right to pursue happiness seems to be different than making something legal for happiness’ sake.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,The one-man/one-woman relationship seems to be the natural relationship. If sex is for procreation, then it doesn’t seem that gay sex is natural because procreation is not possible. This is purely a biological observation. Now, adultery is something else entirely. I think your argument is flawed because it seems you are suggesting that perhaps the one-man/one-woman relationship is not necessarily the default natural relationship because adultery exists. I do not think it follows that since adultery exists in one-man/one-woman relationships that that validates ‘gay marriage.’ On one side you have the physical differences and functions of the male and female; on the other there is the potential for the members of a heterosexual marriage to willfully break the marriage vow. The logic is flawed because the physical properties and functions of people are completely different from their behavior. If your agument is correct, then I might as well say, ‘mixed-race marriages are not valid because adultery exists in them.’ I’m not sure what you mean when you say, ‘I am getting sick of people trying to police something they obviously don’t understand[.]’ Who is policing anything? If you are suggesting that ‘gay marriage’ is illegal, I would disagree. ‘Gay marriage’ is not illegal, it’s just not recognized as legal, and therefore it does not exist under the law. What you are against here is not policing because there is no law being broken. What you are against, it seems, is people opposed to the recognition of ‘gay marriage’ who use the law to keep the institution of marriage as it is traditionally known to be. That’s your right, as is my right to oppose the view that ‘gay marriage’ should be recognized under the law.
Whether an offense mentioned in the Bible is ‘conspicuously placed,’ or how many times it’s mentioned, or not mentioned, does not remove the weight of the offense or remove its validity altogether. Also, you should consider not arguing that you will only listen when your particular view is upheld. This demonstrates you are closed-minded and not willing to argue on the merits of your position.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,Your response to this issue baffles me. You boldly assert that if gay marriage were allowed that guidelines should be enacted to prohibit polygamy. That could be the case. But if the definition of marriage is going to be silly putty in our hands, then I’d imagine the polygamists would and could start pushing the issue as homosexuals have and demand that marriage be defined to accept polygamy as legitimate. How would polygamy be stopped? By fighting politcally. Given your logic, why fault those who oppose gay marriage? The same ‘fault’ could be applied to gays and straights holding the view that marriage should be defined as monogamous. By accepting a new definition of marriage does, in fact, open the floodgates to all points of view to be addressed in the marketplace of ideas. And your argument ‘…[s]traight people can’t practice polygamy, and gay people can’t practice polygamy’ justifies the position of those who oppose gay marriage. The position is, ‘Straight poeple can’t marry members of the same sex, and gay people can’t marry members of the same sex.’ Equal rights.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,Thank you Chuck for your response. Now I will respond. (Part 1) I see your point but I think you have missed mine. I do not think that I’m posing a red herring. I think I’m asking the appropriate question first. If I understand you correctly, you are making a parallel between interracial marriages and homosexual marriages. It is my position that you are making a category error. The dictionary defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I would add given this definition that marriage is generally the foundation that a family is built upon, where procreation is made possible (though marriage is not a necessary precondition to procreation and marriage does not mandate procreation). I’m speaking in generalities. The family as defined here is the optimal institution for promoting a healthy society. The U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan puts it like this: ‘Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.’ I see nothing in these two definitions that would support an argument that would deny a man and a woman of different races to marry. All that’s required is that they be a man and a woman. I think it is a mistake to assert that because some misguided individuals looked at interracial marriages as non-marriages that their arguments could be and are being applied to homosexual marriages as well. You must find fault with the definition, not fallable humans.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,(Part 2) Therefore, I think we need to be clear what marriage is before one can ask the question, ‘Why do lesbian and gay couples want to marry?’ To do otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse. I don’t think it’s legitimate to answer why someone wants to do something before first discovering if that something is valid. The question you raise is legitimate but it does not follow that marriage should be redefined simply because the answer seems to necessitate it. You asked, ‘How on Earth can you equate a loving, monogamous relationship between two gay adults with incest or the deliberate sexual abuse of animals or electronic equipment.’ There’s a problem here. To illustrate, let me ask, ‘Why not?’ My motive is not to equate, but cast this issue in a different light. If I happen to love my dog so much so that I want to marry my dog, why should I be discriminated against doing such? Why should the definition of marriage be so narrow as to not allow me to marry my pet, setting aside any supposed sexual abuse laws against animals? Obviously this is an extreme example, and I did not intend to offend. I believe I’ve demonstrated that marriage is a particular thing. It’s not something that, by definition, discriminates. I don’t even think the word discrimination works here. It’s not that the definition of marriage is too narrow and should be inclusive of other relationships that humans can enter into, but rather marriage is by definition only one thing and anything else seems absurd. ‘Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make an ashtray food.’ If I knew any gay couples who wanted to marry and asked them why so, there’s a very good possibity that they will echo the same kinds of things you desire. I simply do not see how that will change my mind without committing mental suicide. As a note, I believe that the state should promote monogamous one-man / one-woman marriages for the state’s greater good. Referring back to one of my definitions, procreation is generally an aspect of marriage that is good for the state, and the country as well. These products of marriage, that is people, are potential contributors to the welfare of the state and the state should encourage to build families. The state should discourage the breakdown of the family unit. This is my philosophical standpoint.
User Detail :
Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA, Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,
