California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Beware of Democracy. It might just kill you.

CAN-O-WORMS!

Seriously, word your questions better. This is not something I'm going to answer.

I don't see what's complicated about that... love is love, who cares what form it takes? If a couple are in love, then given the way in which hatred is strangling this world and almost every culture on it today, that love should be encouraged and allowed to grow and blossom and continue. The only way this place is going to be ok is by love proliferating. If you're going to discourage it, then you're implicitly also encouraging hatred, violence, and bigotry. Which doesn't seem overly 'Christian'?

Well to correct you, I am not Christian. Are you?

There seems to be this belief that if a person is against something that others do then he is a bigot, narrow-minded, and hateful. It is not LOVE to allow a person to do what he or she wants, that is appeasement and contradicts love. As lovers we should guide each other. Not let each other do whatever enters our mind. What of Spiritual Love? I consider that higher than anything material.


Now what I meant about it being a can of worms was that basically saying "Why does it matter who loves who?" is that it doesn't separate that which is forbidden love, ie pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. It doesn't acknowledge vain love.


This still doesn't change that marriage is between man and woman. The practices might have changed throughout the centuries of our existence, but it has not changed the tradition and interpretation of marriage being between a man and woman.

It is for the government, and who decides what the government does? Well, individuals such as yourself. I suppose you are subscribing to the notion that voting is a fair way of settling disputes of interests though, correct? I can understand that view, however, what if a society did vote for a fascistic system or some such that were to your complete disapproval from a moral perspective while demanding your continued support(they can draft you, they can tax you, they can regulate your behavior to their approval, etc)? Does a system have the right to do that? If so, then the entire debate just boils down to preferences, just like people arguing over the best form of chocolate. If governments do or are supposed to have limits, then how do we define them, how do we formalize these limits? What should these limits be? Why?


Right, I would consider your rules excessive, and the reason I show you any favor(shown by attacking Kalister and such) is simply because of the underpinnings of your position. You aren't saying anything about right or wrong, but are just conceiving the entire situation egoistically with regard to the nature of democracy and thus are consistent with things hard for me to refute. If a government is owned by all, then its rulings can be towards any goal, no matter how cruel or stupid by its owners.


Tyrant is such a subjective term. I might very well call you that, but I already have stated before that we would disagree politically, and from the small bits of my leanings I have leaked in this thread, my own opinion on government would strongly contrast with yours.

Ok, perhaps I'll rephrase to clarify:

If a couple are in love (in a way that won't hurt one of the two, i.e. not paedophilia or bestiality et al), then given the way in which hatred is strangling this world and almost every culture on it today, that love should be encouraged and allowed to grow and blossom and continue. The only way this place is going to be ok is by love proliferating. If you're going to discourage it, then you're implicitly also encouraging hatred, violence, and bigotry. Which doesn't seem overly 'Christian'?

Should also point out, the quotation marks around the Christian are there to imply 'Christian values', rather than exclusively Christians as in 'I believe in God and Jesus etc etc'. Christian values being 'love, honesty, truth, kindness, charity' etc etc as they tend to say they're all about (and most - but certainly not all - are, Christian or not).


If that makes it any clearer?

Well, I disagree. Love is caring, not necessarily paternalism, or forcing opinions upon others. Do you claim to be smarter than the people who make their own decisions? Do you claim to have perfection in your own guidance? Do you claim that those you would empower are the same? I *would*, out of love, allow any individual to choose what they want to choose. Love does not impose upon others, but love tries to reason..... at least, that is my take on the theology of human love.


No, it doesn't. The culture has changed that, and the law is seeking to catch up to that culture.

1) Voting can settle disputes on that which is acceptable to society. Racism, bigotry, violence is not acceptable. Marriage is not a fundamental right given to people.

I actually support taxes. Obviously not heavy taxation however. Drafting makes sense if we are in a time of war and are limited in men. If there was mandatory enlisting I am not too sure if I'd agree with it, but if the government does I wouldn't complain as I wouldn't know anything else.

Now, it cannot force me to accept people and their wishes. Considering we live in a democracy which allows dissent, my views do not go against any principles.


2) My views do have a moral twist to them (it's hard to find any position that isn't), but I don't advocate forcing people to do what is unacceptable. Minimalizing the sale or consumption of liquor is not going to kill anyone, neither would removing drugs. Marriage is not a life or death situation. Because of such, I will vote for/on what I consider to be a proper issue/response.


3) People consider others with clearly opposite beliefs as "tyrannical" mainly because they do not understand it fully. It is an insult to be considered a tyrant for expressing one's belief. I wouldn't consider far-left liberals tyrants, unless they demanded I remove any trace of religion, or ideologies I hold to.

Not allowing something which has never been an issue before (and has generally been agreed upon) is not my idea of tyranny.








This is why I do not want to discuss these things on a thread like this. For one, it serves no purpose other than sharing how we feel about a matter, in this case love.

I just felt I needed to respond to her remark.

No.

I already made my point. I have love for society. My love for the family has me against allowing same-sex marriage. We most certainly see love by a different light.

I know a few same-sex couples with children, and yet another formerly hetero woman who has been living with her female partner for 7 years now, and her - straight - children are absolutely fine.

I just don't see that same-sex relationships need break up any family whatsoever, or why they should be denied the right to families themselves. Mass-murderers? Yes. Psychopaths? Yes. Paeodophiles? Yes. Lovely, normal, kind, friendly, honest, decent people who happen to love someone of the same sex? No.

You might know of homosexual couples who have children, great. The best of luck to them. I know plenty who are horrible parents, the same for the heterosexual couples though.

There shouldn't be a distortion to what has been considered true for millennia. That is family and marriage. Everything else, like what you propose, is new. It should go by a different title/name because it doesn't fit into the definition.

Fair enough - words are arbitrary, it's the principle that matters (at least as far as I'm concerned). Call it what you will, they should have the right to be legal couples 'married' by whatever word you deem necessary in the eyes of the law and God (if you so believe in God/s), and entitled to their ceremony and their matrimony and everything else marriage entails.

I cannot speak for Him, but I see same-sex marriage contradicting religion. He blesses a married couple with children. What blessings will be bestowed upon a gay couple?

No, I don't see it compatible with religion.

I'm sure my now-lesbian friend's children would protest that point...

That is because you and they would take things literal.

Perhaps... (I think this is getting silly now!! ).