There was a misunderstanding here. I thought you were saying the opposite. I apologize.HG131 said:
California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted
- Thread starter Furious Styles
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's actually been proven to not be the case by several studies. The only thing I've ever heard is that children raised by gay parents don't believe in as rigid gender roles (though I admit to not having links). There's also something seriously flawed with the idea that nature and evolution "intends" something. These aren't living, thinking things. Another issue is that we find all sorts of things that are "natural" to be bad, like disease and natural disasters.Mrhappyface 2 said:
90% of species murder each other indiscriminately without thought. It's natural. So should we overlook that as well? What about rape? I'm certain not all those animals mounting each other are necessarily doing it consentually. What about interspecies? Dogs hump just about anything, so perhaps humans should be allowed to reciprocate? And of course, Animals don't pay an awful lot of attention to age, just whether a female is breedable or not.. well physiologically speaking, a human female is technically breedable at 13 years of age, sometimes younger. So you are saying, by that logic of "the animals do it! it's natural" that we can go ahead and do any of the things listed above as well right?AcacianLeaves said:
See the thing is, human beings are greater than our animal counterparts. We have a defined morality, we contemplate our actions, we perceive our world on a different level. So what we define as natural and allowable is only determined by the society that exists in that moment.
If this was ancient Rome, young bisexual relationships would have been all the norm, in fact almost a requirement if you wanted your friends to respect you. Of course, so was owning slaves... should we bring that back too? You know, since Rome had it all figured out on the sexual front? In Rome, feeding criminals to wild animals for sport was accepted... how about that?
My point here is merely to point out that EVERY argument has a valid counter argument from a certain perspective.
The point is that the issue of gay marriage should never have been the subject of a vote in the first place according to constitution. The whole referendum was invalid, meaning the votes were too: they essentially had no right to vote on it (or at least, they had no right to impose their views on others).Heeman89 said:
It isn't an issue of what they think being wrong (although I'd say it was), just that those thoughts have no place in state legislation on a human rights issue.
It'd be like if people voted for a president who later turned out to not be a US citizen (like what people tried to say about Obama), the election would be declared invalid (along with the votes) because it is prohibited by the constitution. it wouldn't be a case that those who voted for them were wrong, just that that candidate should never have been standing (much like abolishing gay marriage). Although frankly I'm not too sure as to what would actually happen in that situation, the US electoral system is a bit confusing.
Which ever way you look at it, it the constitution prohibits it (which is up for debate in itself) the result should not stand. The only valid point you made is that this is one guy's interpretation, which is why the whole process isn't over by a long shot.
The fact is that stuff like this happens all the time and there isn't nearly so much bitching or fuss, people are only objecting because of the inflammatory subject matter.
In any case there are sure to be appeals and further overturns of previous decisions
And don't be so puerile as to suggest we don't vote on anything, don't throw your rattle out of the pram.
Unconstitutional.... not really, the constitution is more then the bill of rights and some of it is very clear that the federal government can levy taxes in whatever way it wishes. If they wanted to create a break they can write it into the tax code and it is constitutional. Now that whole 14th (I think that is the right one) amendment ensures it has to be a even and equal tax break and we can argue if the tax code is currently constitutional based on that but I think it is moot as the correct answer would be: UPDATE THE TAX CODE.zehydra said:
That has also been the ONLY say government has over gay marriage, the fact that the tax codes where not capable of dealing with the whole 'gay marrage' problem. In particular the decrease of revenue that would suddenly happen when we allow a whole group of people to get tax breaks. This is the only real reason the government could have against gay marriage, it isn't allowed to take a 'christian moral' stance or claim that certain people are 'less then others' for any reason... the only excuse the government has is financial....
Still the correct answer to this problem was to: UPDATE THE TAX CODE!
I guess it all goes back to moral choice then, and where you draw you moral line. Like in abortion, whether or not you think it is right to suck the brains out of a 7 month old baby in the womb or not. Morality would be easier if everyone saw everything the same way. I don't believe it is a natural function of the body to find other guys attractive. I know a guy who said that he used to have slightly gay feelings, but he just said no to them and then he hasn't felt any since. But ask a guy who likes girls to bring that under control now...Xojins said:
Actually perspectives and "From a certain point of view" are ENTIRELY relevant.
Otherwise the ENTIRE WHOLE of humanity would have to agree with YOU and YOUR opinion.
If I choose not to associate with pedophiles its because I PERSONALLY ME view what they do as DISGUSTING.
SOMEONE ELSE, say, a pedophile, may see what they do as JUST fine.
An observer from outside the entire situation who looks at sex as just animalistic urges to procreate will see it as two human beings of varying ages performing a natural act.
So before you go calling "from a certain perspective" a "dick move", try to extricate cute little internet memes from the equation and recognize that the only reason we have these conversations in the first place is because reality is not black and white. It's called Philosophy and Ethics. And it is WHY we are able to find people having sex with little kids to be unacceptable and why some people find males having sex with males or females having sex with females to be unacceptable.
I'm always reminded of the so-called Freedom of Speech, where it seems we are all free to say what we want as long as we meet specific conditions FIRST, and that such speech harms no one, and that such speech is not deemed inflammatory or distracting, and that such speech can still result in getting your ass fired from a job.
Yet, we have "freedom of speech"...
Otherwise the ENTIRE WHOLE of humanity would have to agree with YOU and YOUR opinion.
If I choose not to associate with pedophiles its because I PERSONALLY ME view what they do as DISGUSTING.
SOMEONE ELSE, say, a pedophile, may see what they do as JUST fine.
An observer from outside the entire situation who looks at sex as just animalistic urges to procreate will see it as two human beings of varying ages performing a natural act.
So before you go calling "from a certain perspective" a "dick move", try to extricate cute little internet memes from the equation and recognize that the only reason we have these conversations in the first place is because reality is not black and white. It's called Philosophy and Ethics. And it is WHY we are able to find people having sex with little kids to be unacceptable and why some people find males having sex with males or females having sex with females to be unacceptable.
I'm always reminded of the so-called Freedom of Speech, where it seems we are all free to say what we want as long as we meet specific conditions FIRST, and that such speech harms no one, and that such speech is not deemed inflammatory or distracting, and that such speech can still result in getting your ass fired from a job.
Yet, we have "freedom of speech"...
