[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gays have their absolute[/quote]
What absolute? The one where everyone has to be gay? Or the one where they want equal rights?
The masses also supported slavery and despised womens rights. While they got it right about Hitler, the masses are not always right.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gays have their absolute
What absolute? The one where everyone has to be gay? Or the one where they want equal rights?
Great. So now why aren’t the people of the state of CAlifornia, who voted “en masse” to oppose gay marriage, not allowed to impose their values? AFter all, it was nothing more than a majority vote that decided to go to war against Hitler, right? At least 51% decided we ought to put a stop to Hitler, therefore, it was the right thing to do, right?
The masses also supported slavery and despised womens rights. While they got it right about Hitler, the masses are not always right.[/quote]
Once again, you’re going in a direction you don’t want to go. If you deny that majority opinion is the foundation for moral standards, then you have to provide some other standards (the Bible, Natural Law, or whatever). You’ll be hard pressed to find one that includes the celebration of gay marriage.
Unless you simply base your morality on your feelings, which ruins your argument completely.
You can’t have your PC cake and eat it too.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The problem with using the Bible is not its use per se but when either side points to the provision in the Bible that supports their position like it definitively resolves the situation because it’s ‘the Bible.’ When that cannot be the case. Because, while it may be inspired by God, the Bible is an internally inconsistent document. And a document that men have also changed throughout the millenia. The changes are traceable.
Are you conversant with Hodges’ exegesis on the topic? How about Garrison’s or Wilberforce?
You’re all over the map with your assertions here and none can be addressed in just one fell swoop. You’ve discussed transmission and textual criticism, logical consistency, and (unwittingly) Biblical theology. Ultimately, if you’re not a Christian, you’re not going to believe the Bible and have no reason to. Either way, the central truths of Scripture are so clearly propounded that even the simplest among us can understand them. [/quote]
I DO believe in the Bible. I DON’T believe it can be appealed to as an absolute authority on any subject or looked to as an ABSOLUTE compass of what’s right and wrong. But I don’t have the stomach for a debate on the issue. That would be a thread in it’s own right, encompassing everything you just mentioned and more. One more interesting than this one, in my view. But I don’t have the time to discuss the issue right now.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s fine, just stop using abolitionism as your example of secular progressivism. The Bible was used heavily in the discussion over whether or not to abolish slavery. You can’t have it both ways. [/quote]
I didn’t argue that abolition was an example of secular progressivism - just progressivism.
[quote]Au contraire. The Muslims are already pushing for polygamy in the UK and Australia. I’ve provided links to this before, and at least one proponent of gay marriage on this thread has mentioned that it should be allowed.
What’s good for the gays will be good for everyone else. Marriage is whatever any group sees fit if we allow the definition to be plastic. [/quote]
Marriage is ALREADY plastic. Ask Hugh Heffner or even Push or Meesuspush.
One can argue for extending marriage to homosexuals without also agreeing to extend it to polygamists.
Relativists would HAVE no absolutes - hence they would not act in relation to someone else’s absolutes either. They would reject the very idea of absolutes. That is not to say that they think ‘everything is alright’. You misunderstand what relativism even means. It simply means that each situation must be considered when formulating a moral stance. It recognizes that differences is situational context require that different responses be formulated - otherwise, one is forced into contradicting one’s own morality. It does not mean that one does NOT formulate his or her own morality. One can reject the absolutism and insanity of Mohammed Atta without resorting to an absolutist agenda of one’s own. You ask according to whom? According to me, to you, to us - to those of us in THIS society who agree that it is wrong and are willing to defend that opinion. It may be true that Atta’s absolutist stance is correct according to his culture’s, but SO IS OURS. Hence, we are free to reject his stance.
We are discussing the difference between national and international affairs. A simple majority is not sufficient to deny a minority access to the same rights as the majority. At least a simple majority is necessary to send a nation to war. You can’t tell me you don’t see the difference between protecting a minority WITHIN a nation and going to war to protect a minority in ANOTHER NATION.
Not that we went to war to prevent the holocaust…
Completely agree. That’s pretty much my point. But what is ‘right’?
I agree it was progressivism, but if the same Biblical arguments were used in the public sphere nowadays, you’d all be screaming that a theocracy was on the march.
So everyone’s morality is different. If I decide to go around beheading people, I’m right to do it because my inner spark says to do so.
Well, we’ve agreed in the state of California that gay marriage is wrong.
That doesn’t help you out of your dilemma.
If there are no normative standards, then you can’t reconcile this statement with the one above. If society agrees on something, then that is what goes. There are no rights of the minority. Things have to be decided somehow, don’t they? If we can’t look up right and wrong in the Bible, or Qur’an, or whatever the Hindu books are, then we put it to a vote and decide what most people want. You can’t say the minority has rights because that is an absolutist statement that you can’t defend using relativism.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The masses also supported slavery and despised womens rights. While they got it right about Hitler, the masses are not always right.
[/quote]
Freedom to do whatever you want, provided you’re not:
a) Forcing it on anyone else or;
b) Harming anyone
Agree or not?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I didn’t argue that abolition was an example of secular progressivism - just progressivism.
I agree it was progressivism, but if the same Biblical arguments were used in the public sphere nowadays, you’d all be screaming that a theocracy was on the march.
Relativists would HAVE no absolutes - hence they would not act in relation to someone else’s absolutes either. They would reject the very idea of absolutes
So everyone’s morality is different. If I decide to go around beheading people, I’m right to do it because my inner spark says to do so.[/quote]
Well, you have everyone else’s inner spark to contend with.
Great - but it invalidates the rights of a minority.
[quote]
Wirewound wrote:
We are discussing the difference between national and international affairs.
PRCalDude wrote:
That doesn’t help you out of your dilemma.[/quote]
It does. The constitutional mandate to protect the rights of the minority does not necessarily extend outside of the United States.
Our constitution and Bill of Rights say that there ARE rights of the minority.
That’s what the Constitution and it’s amendments are. People can vote to amend the Constitution - but not by a simple majority vote. Also, we aren’t a simple democracy - we have a Republic.
Wow - you had my respect in this argument until now. Your arguments don’t even make sense. I’m saying the minority has rights because we the people have decided that they do. We’ve also decided that it requires more than a simple majority to overturn this position.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I didn’t argue that abolition was an example of secular progressivism - just progressivism.
I agree it was progressivism, but if the same Biblical arguments were used in the public sphere nowadays, you’d all be screaming that a theocracy was on the march. [/quote]
I don’t care what means people use to get to a position with which I agree. If people want to use the bible to support their morality - that’s fine - as long as it’s not in conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights which clearly defend the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I think some people need to read this article.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So abolitionists should have accepted slavery, since, at the time, the majority supported it? Because other people decided it should be so?[/quote]
What? Read your own post, moron:
I’m sorry, I just cant get on board with the arbitary morality that believes a certain way because other people have decided it as such (such as others deciding race is a heightened category, and therefore deserves equality, but sexual preference is not, and therefore does not).
My point was that this notion that you “can’t get on board with” underlies nearly every statute that treats someone differently. And if you “can’t get on board” with that, you essentially prefer lawlessness.
Abolitionists decided to challenge existing laws. That has nothing to do with your broad, mindless statement.
You don’t have much of a point, except to keep recycling dull arguments over and over and over.
Every law can be challenged - and? Every law “has been decided by somebody” and not a one of us suggesting gay marriage is bad has suggested otherwise.
Laws change all the time - so what?
The debate is - and has been - over whether the change, in whatever direction, would be a good thing. We’re way past your fantastically mediocre banalities suggesting “hey, laws should be able to be changed”.
Actually the argument is whether it is a bad thing. If it makes no difference, then why not allow it? Just because the Government allows something, doesn’t mean it’s original worth is diluted.
I don’t know about you thunderbolt, but I don’t associate marriage with the law. I see it as two people forming a meaningful relationship with each other until death separates them. But maybe that’s just me.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Article 16
i Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.[/i]
By not calling it marriage, you essentially brand them as second class and deny them the right to marriage.[/quote]
Care to reference the law? Note to readers: it is the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights.
Setting aside the controlling nature of this “law” - or lack of it - notice that the Subsection (i)(1) expressly references certain categories that may not be discriminated against. Notice what is missing.
Now, even if we indulge the juvenile fiction of the UN Declaration of Human Rights being our supreme law - someone, anyone get Makavali a clue - there isn’t one single “violation” of it by refusing to acknowledge gay marriage or polygamy on its face.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Actually the argument is whether it is a bad thing. If it makes no difference, then why not allow it? Just because the Government allows something, doesn’t mean it’s original worth is diluted.[/quote]
Righto, and if it does make a negative difference, then don’t allow it. Essence of the whole thing.
I do - marriage is a public institution that has particular and beneficial societal advantages outside of the personal choices of the individual. Marriage is not just a purely private relationship, and it never has been.
You can think it a purely private matter - have at it. But that is a radical departure, so don’t try and argue that somehow the “publicization” of marriage is somehow unnatural or a departure from the nature of the institution itself.
It is a fool’s errand - and if you want radical change in the area of marriage, you better be able to defend your proposal better without being dishonest or so plainly misinformed about the issue you want so radically changed.
However, we feel about gay marriage, I don’t see limitiations on it being struck as unconstitutional at the federal level for a long time. The way the Supreme Court’s approached the issue has pretty much closed that door. The Court has said that marriage is not a fundamental right (which I disagree with). And that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, which I also disagree with. I think sexual orientation is at least a quasi-suspect class and any law discriminating based on sexual orientation should be evaulated under immediate scrutiny. Which of course means that the the law has to serve an important government interest and must be narrowly tailored to serving that interest. And the burden is on the government to prove it. But that’s not the law.
As it stands, anyone challenging prohibitions on gay marriage or any other discrimination based on sexual orientation has to prove the law is wholly irrational and has no realtionship to ANY conceivable legitimate purpose. And that’s an almost impossible burden. The slightest bit of evidence that gays are more promiscuous or the slightest bit of evidence that extending marriage to gays might damage the institution of marriage prevents any limitation from being wholly irrational. The Supreme Court is very reluctant to overule its own decisions. It does happen, but I don’t see it happening here for a long time.
Now you’re arguing that simple majoritarianism was what granted us the rights we have in the first place and that the minority has rights because the majority decided so. This, however, wasn’t even the case. Southern blacks had no rights even back then. We had to come to that conclusion later with the arguments mentioned above. We used a normative standard in that discussion.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Wow - you had my respect in this argument until now. Your arguments don’t even make sense. I’m saying the minority has rights because we the people have decided that they do. We’ve also decided that it requires more than a simple majority to overturn this position.
Now you’re arguing that simple majoritarianism was what granted us the rights we have in the first place and that the minority has rights because the majority decided so. This, however, wasn’t even the case. Southern blacks had no rights even back then. We had to come to that conclusion later with the arguments mentioned above. We used a normative standard in that discussion. [/quote]
I’m not talking about the past, and I’m not talking about the steps that put the precedent into place - I’m talking about the current process.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Wow - you had my respect in this argument until now. Your arguments don’t even make sense. I’m saying the minority has rights because we the people have decided that they do. We’ve also decided that it requires more than a simple majority to overturn this position.
Now you’re arguing that simple majoritarianism was what granted us the rights we have in the first place and that the minority has rights because the majority decided so. This, however, wasn’t even the case. Southern blacks had no rights even back then. We had to come to that conclusion later with the arguments mentioned above. We used a normative standard in that discussion.
I’m not talking about the past, and I’m not talking about the steps that put the precedent into place - I’m talking about the current process.[/quote]
Yeah. I know. I’m just trying to point out that these decisions weren’t made in a moral vacuum or from a relativistic point of view. A lot of the Constitutional delegates were Deists, quite a few were Christians, but there was a definite Enlightenment ethos that was informed by Judeo-Christian ethics.
As jsbrook pointed out, the way the Constitution is interpreted right now, gay marriage isn’t a right. Several things that the Left would call rights (such as healthcare) aren’t in there either. The Left, of course, rather than trying to go through the amendment process, is trying to ram their agenda through the courts.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
wirewound wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Wow - you had my respect in this argument until now. Your arguments don’t even make sense. I’m saying the minority has rights because we the people have decided that they do. We’ve also decided that it requires more than a simple majority to overturn this position.
Now you’re arguing that simple majoritarianism was what granted us the rights we have in the first place and that the minority has rights because the majority decided so. This, however, wasn’t even the case. Southern blacks had no rights even back then. We had to come to that conclusion later with the arguments mentioned above. We used a normative standard in that discussion.
I’m not talking about the past, and I’m not talking about the steps that put the precedent into place - I’m talking about the current process.
Yeah. I know. I’m just trying to point out that these decisions weren’t made in a moral vacuum or from a relativistic point of view. A lot of the Constitutional delegates were Deists, quite a few were Christians, but there was a definite Enlightenment ethos that was informed by Judeo-Christian ethics.
As jsbrook pointed out, the way the Constitution is interpreted right now, gay marriage isn’t a right. Several things that the Left would call rights (such as healthcare) aren’t in there either. The Left, of course, rather than trying to go through the amendment process, is trying to ram their agenda through the courts. [/quote]
Yes. But it goes beyond that. The way the constitution is interpreted right now, NO marriage is a right. A state could pass all kinds of laws greatly limiting and burdening marriage between two consenting heterosexuals. But none ever would. Can you imagine the uproar?