Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

You are so offbase and bigoted here it is disturbing.

Well, one of us is trying to tell other people who they can marry based on his personal religious dogmas. I think the math is pretty simple.

Quote:

You seem to believe that your belief system (whatever it might be based on) is superior to mine because mine has its roots in my religious beliefs. Your belief system is presumably based on your own set of criteria and that's fine but your arrogance and condescension doesn't make your belief system anymore correct than mine.

Correct - I consider my viewpoint superior to a system that allowes religious dogma to be imposed on people of another religious belief without any other justification than the religious dogma.

I fully accept being refered to as a bigot as long as it is clear that the people I am not tolerant towards are those trying to impose their religious dogmas on ohters without any reason besides the religious dogma. I am not tolerant towards discrimination - and if that makes me a bigot so be it.

All I need to do is open the history books of both my country of recidence and country of citizenship to find a time where the viewpoint was like yours (the religious dogma of the majority was enforced strongly). Luckily both nations have moved on since those dark ages.

Quote:

Your comparisons are offensive and the last recluse of someone with a great deal of hatred in your heart.

Correct. I to hate discrimination (and hence people discriminating) and will call it when I see it.

Quote:

Whether you can see it or not you have much more in common with those despicable South African apartheid supporters than I do. You seek to prevent me from making my case by repeatedly referring to me in the most disgusting ways possible.

I accept that my comparison to the appartheit is to the strong side - obviously preventing gay marriages is not as bad as the appartheight. I used the example to tell you that just because you can make it law dows not mean it is not discrimination.

Quote:


According to you I condone racism, stoning, etc.  --- LOL you are desperate 

I already VERY specifically pointed out that I do not think you support stoning. I do not think you support racism. You support discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I fail to see why that discrimination is any better than racism.

Quote:

Quote:
Of course I am trying to impose my views on you - that is not something I am hiding. I am always willing to impose my view that religious dogmas should not apply to anyone but those following the religion.

So there you said it you are trying to impose your views on me.....I thought you were against that...oh wait you are only against me imposing "my dogmas" on others -- not you imposing your dogmas on me. Because only religiously based belief systems are wrong and should be opposed. It is ok to impose your obviously superior non-relgious based system on me because it is better. 

Religious dogmas are not necessarely better or worse than non religioous dogmas. But as they are based on belief they can only apply to the people with that belief. That is why you can't impose them on others.

Quote:

Your absolute self-righteous belief in your own moral superiority is very troubling. In case you don't follow history the most brutal and violent regimes in history were composed of people (non-relgious) who sought to impose their superior view of morality on others - Communists and Nazis.

Oh no, not the old "there are bad non-religious people". Yes there where (you are right about for example Stalin - the Nazis where a bit too confused to clasify them as either atheists or religious - probably because Hitler was simply a nutcase).

There are bad religious people and there are bad atheist people.

Quote:

Quote:
Please explain to me (besides religious dogma as that can obviously not apply to people who do not share your religion) why this is any different.

I've already done that -- classfications based on race are clearly prohibited by our constitution and classifcations based on homosexuality are not.

So you base right and wrong by only what is written in the constitution? Try thinking a bit for yourselves instead. The people writing the constitution had to do that, and they where not Gods, they where men and could not include everything.

Quote:

Furthermore there are longstanding reasons why marriage as an institution is protected in law (and not easily dissolvable) the care and rearing of children. Homosexual relationships are not capable of producing children and so are different under the law. Most marriage law in this country is designed around protecting the relationship with children.

I have this idea that there might also be various tax laws etc. Laws that marriagesd people can benefit from no matter if they have children or not.

Quote:

I can produce statements from african-americans denouncing the civil rights comparison between the rights of homosexuals with the rights of blacks that you are trying to make. They state it much better than I can.

Of course you can find black people discriminating against homosexuals.

Quote:

Furthermore your question assumes that in order to be valid a law must have non-religious justifications that meet your approval before they can be valid in your moral code. I ask you to say what is the difference between gay marriage and bigamy

Already commented on this (in short: the laws agains bigamy are indeed the majority imposing their dogma on the minority. But as I also noticed it bigamy is allowed, care has to be taken that the opressing treatment of women found in some cultures allowing bigamy are delt with.

Quote:

, incest,

Again, commented on this. As such there is no problem with people of close relation getting married as long as the following rights are protected:
1) The right of people not to be controlled by someone who has an emotionel power over them. This can be tricky to avoid - I am not claiming I would know how to do it - hence I can live with it being illigal.
2) The right of any child not to be born with increased risk to it's health based on inbreeding. Today with contraception this might not be as big a deal anymore.

Quote:

bestiality

Animal crualty law should cover this one - if the animal suffers (physical or stress etc) it is wrong.

Quote:

using your own critieria -- keep in mind that it can't be morality of course because based on your definition any use of morality is wrong. Unless you are prepared to claim your moral compass is somehow more worthwhile than mine.

My moral compass is based on the following:

Do all involved give their consent - and are they able to give their concent without any emotional constraints preventing them from giving their consent solely by their own free will, and with all information available to make their own choice.

If this is the case it is acceptable behaviour. If it is not the case it is not acceptable. If we can't reliable determine if it is the case or now we have to make laws balancing it as good as we can, probably siding with the supposed "weak" side.

And yes, I consider this more worthwhile than yours. As I already mentioned we did try it your way - and as far as I can tell from the history books we are better of now.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Unicus - I was speaking off the cuff, & your post reminded me, I should have done some fact checking before posting. No harm no foul.

No worries mate.

Quote:
I did find the quote quite interesting though, specially the part about the warriors, I had never thought about that.

It is an interesting conept.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

Homosexuality is not against the law however, in case you weren't aware, homosexual activity is still against the law in many states.

What's against the law is irrelevant anyway.  There are lots of things that are immoral which are not illegal!

Actually Hal, Lawrence vs. Texas put an end to those laws.  They contrevene the US constitution and are therefore null and void.

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".
No, the state should not remain neutral, it should protect the freedom of it's citizens.

Quote:


No one's freedom is in jeopardy. This is just a red herring argument.  How many people have been jailed for co-habitating in gay relationships.  You are asking the government to take an affirmative step to sanction what many view as an immoral activity.  No one's freedoms are currently being infringed upon.  If you are trying to say that gays have a right to a state sponsored marriage, then I'd ask you to show me where that right exists in the our constitution. HINT: it doesn't.

And please don't start throwing the homophobe word around.  I do not hate nor fear any living person.  In fact my brother happens to be gay, and I love him none the less for it.  I do however, fear for his immortal soul!

You have every right to fear for his immortal soul. You have every right to fear for the immortal soul of all homosexuals. The problem is when you start to discriminate against homosexual in your laws.

I do not discriminate against them and not permitting state sanctioned marriages of gays is also not discriminating against them.  Marriage has always has a specific meaning throughout human history.  Everyone has always understood exactly what it has meant for thousands of years.  All of a sudden, a vocal minority wants to change that meaning to something else.

Let's take fellatio as an example.  It has a specific meaning.  It is not an act that can be performed on a female.  Shall we change the definition so that we don't deny women the right to experience fellatio.  It's absurd in the same way as trying to redefine what marriage is!

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The 'state' should remain neutral.

California is currently neutral. It's currently legal for same-sex couples to marry in Californai. This proposition would force the state to become one-sided again.

We should all be careful when legislating morality for others as we may find ourselves in the minority view at some point and find our beliefs outlawed.

Sorry, but the state is no longer neutral since the courts over-ruled the will of the people who voted against same-sex marriage previously as described earlier in this thread.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Sorry, but the state is no longer neutral since the courts over-ruled the will of the people who voted against same-sex marriage previously as described earlier in this thread.

It is the job of the courts to over-rule the will of the people when that will is unconstitutional.  In this case, it was, and the court ruled properly.  That is why Prop 8 is a Constitutional Amendment rather than a law.

Quoting Snark:

Quote:
I have no issue with any relgious belief set.  I have my own.  But I don't believe that my beliefs trump my neighbors and theirs certainly do not trump mine.  I would not presume to tell them that they must adhere to my beliefs, and I will be damned before I would adhere to theirs.

This is such nonsense.  You currently live under a judicial system that is steeped in religious belief.

What for instance is the basis of laws against prostitution?  To promote better health?

Or laws against bigamy, or marrying minors.

Or how about stealing or murder (except for fetuses of course, that's perfectly OK, and protected by  a fantasy right to privacy entirely manufactured by the courts).

The entire judicial system in this country (and practically all others) has it's root in religious dogma.

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
For me, this issue is quite simple.  I believe that homosexual activity is both unnatural and immoral; and I am far from alone.

Having the 'state' issue a license sanctioning an activity which a great many people believe to be immoral is simply wrong.

Please show me any other license that the government issues which promotes an activity that is considered immoral by so many.  The 'state' should remain neutral.

And please don't start throwing the homophobe word around.  I do not hate nor fear any living person.  In fact my brother happens to be gay, and I love him none the less for it.  I do however, fear for his immortal soul!

I am just spit balling for fun Hal.  Many people find Pornography immoral and wrong, I am not one of them.  However, in AZ nude dancers and porn stars who wish to work must carry an adult entertainment license.  Tucson attempted to pass the same law for topless dancers but it was defeated.  This means the state of AZ is sanctioning pornography.

In your opinion.

The supreme court has ruled on the dancing issue and determined that it is  in fact not pornography.

I cannot speak to the porn stars issue.  I was unaware that they are "licensed".