Gay Marriages

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname What is relativistic about it? Homosexuality is not wrong. Marriage is defined as the union of two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a state institution and it should be defined by the state. As you said, one morality in such a gray area should not be forced on another. Therefore, your morality (which is a religious viewpoint, unless you have some other ethical theory on which you base this) should not be forced on a homosexual in a nation where state and church are separate entities.

What's relativistic? Precisely that which is homosexuality. If it is not wrong, is it right? This sense of moral ambiguity then presupposes than there is no right or wrong. If there are no moral principles then what is to separate man from animal? Marriage, aside from its political purpose and definition, is something that has existed symbolically in any society as the fusion and unity of opposing forces to bring about and sustain life. I am not enforcing nor telling gay people how to live, I am merely giving my opinion on the matter. We use morality in our everyday lives applying it to this or that thing, group or person. I am not forcing my morality on anyone, thus stating it is not right by using moral standards. Under a "democratic government", even the idea of "right" or "wrong" become a matter of majorities.

Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. A society’s toleration can be either coercive or non coercive. Since coercion is the exclusive province of the state, the state’s intolerance is necessarily coercive. There is, of course and there must be a non coercive intolerance. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance, whether coercive or non coercive, always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse What's relativistic? Precisely that which is homosexuality. If it is not wrong, is it right? This sense of moral ambiguity then presupposes than there is no right or wrong. If there are no moral principles then what is to separate man from animal? Marriage, aside from its political purpose and definition, is something that has existed symbolically in any society as the fusion and unity of opposing forces to bring about and sustain life. I am not enforcing nor telling gay people how to live, I am merely giving my opinion on the matter. We use morality in our everyday lives applying it to this or that thing, group or person. I am not forcing my morality on anyone, thus stating it is not right by using moral standards. Under a "democratic government", even the idea of "right" or "wrong" become a matter of majorities.

Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. A society’s toleration can be either coercive or non coercive. Since coercion is the exclusive province of the state, the state’s intolerance is necessarily coercive. There is, of course and there must be a non coercive intolerance. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance, whether coercive or non coercive, always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises.

Two paragraphs of pure nonsense. The masses can frown on whatever they want to but homosexuality is ammoral and is only put in a moral context when the overtones of religion come into play. Separation of church and state. There is no logical reason to have anything against such legal marriage. Those who oppose homosexual marriage should not argue if it was illegal for two people with green eyes to marry or, better yet, two individuals with Down syndrome to marry. Why? Because you cannot not decide to favor one genetic difference over another. If you cannot see how such "genetic favoritism" can prevent societal progression, then you are blinded with your priests pubic hairs.

And I would like to add that I hope everyone here acquires leprosy.

[jahannam]

hmmm, I hadn't been posting for a while.
and I See a lot of confused people here.
as they say in Armenian:
AMEN MART AZAD EH !
I think it's the word "marriage" that's creating all of this mess.
call it marriage, call it what you want... the UNITY of two people who want to be together for the rest of their lives is no one else's business.
whether it's legalized or not, there's gonna be homosexual couples who are in love and who wanna UNITE.

it's human nature.
I don't see why it's so hard for you people to understand.
people don't CHOOSE to be gay, they are BORN gay.

[anileve]

I’d have to go with Arvy, Loser, Aries and Jahannalitynam. And Anon I am shocked, is this part of your transformation as well? Loser and Arvy beautiful posts. Aries, don’t worry the new generation is still somewhat influenced by the morals of the older, but that is dramatically changing, our kids will be a lot more open to many taboo issues.

I think the problem of any form of prejudice is fear. The cliché states we fear what we don’t understand. In this case many see it wrong, because it hasn’t touched them in any way. Once the situation becomes personal, somehow we are quick to identify and shift gears. I’ve noticed that people who have close gay friends, or know of gay relatives are more inclined to understand and are more open-minded. Perhaps we always want the world to function in the way we want to see ourselves not in the way reality is. I don’t know about you guys but I have yet to find one normal person.

And obviously I voted yes, what other people do is none of my concern. If 50 year old men marry 18 year girls and some wives are still physically abused nowadays, I don’t see how a heterosexual marriage is healthier than a homosexual in that case. If it doesn’t affect you, than let it be and work on establishing morals and ethics in your own home.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse What's relativistic? Precisely that which is homosexuality. If it is not wrong, is it right? This sense of moral ambiguity then presupposes than there is no right or wrong.

It's right. There is nothing ambiguous or relative about it. It is a natural expression of two people who love each other to join their lives together in a formal manner. It is the most beautiful thing that two people can share. regardless of who they share it with and what genitalia those people are equipped with.

If there are no moral principles then what is to separate man from animal? Marriage, aside from its political purpose and definition, is something that has existed symbolically in any society as the fusion and unity of opposing forces to bring about and sustain life. I am not enforcing nor telling gay people how to live, I am merely giving my opinion on the matter.

Your opinion is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't dictate what it is or is not moral, nor does it dictate who will or will not love another, and who that other will be. Nor should your opinion dictate state policy.

Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. A society’s toleration can be either coercive or non coercive. Since coercion is the exclusive province of the state, the state’s intolerance is necessarily coercive. There is, of course and there must be a non coercive intolerance. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance, whether coercive or non coercive, always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises.

This is exactly what is wrong with democratic government, which I believe you have pointed out many times. Instead of being guided by reason, it is guided by mass-mindedness. Ignorance, such as that displayed here in this thread, is dictating the personal lives of US citizens and discriminating against them in a way that is expressly forbidden in other legal areas.

You have no grounds from which to argue that homosexuality is immoral. If you say that it is unnatural, I can produce studies showing homosexual behavior in many species other than humans, species that are not considered to be moral agents. If you argue that it is detrimental to society, then I will point out the solidarity and love exhibited by the gay community, a sense of pride and unity that the rest of us should envy and strive to have in ourselves. If all of society had their attitude, the world would be a far more wonderful place.

[Anonymouse]

Well of course homosexuality is "right" and not "immoral" because with moral relativism anything goes. There is tolerance on our secular campuses today for almost any belief or practice in this day, but intolerance towards those who disagree with a said belief or practice. Professors are forced into humiliating "sensitivity training" sessions if they criticize homosexual behavior. The rationale for the prohibition of non-coercive intolerance against homosexuals and other egregious things is the desire to avoid offending members of, for example, a particular sexual orientation. There is, of course, no interest at all in wanting to avoid offending members of a different religious orientation such as a Muslim, or a Christian. Tolerance as practiced by "liberals" is basically intolerance of those that disagree by being labeled as "bigots" or "homophobes", or the like.

The modern "liberal" agents of moral intolerance are quick to point in horror to the medieval church’s unhealthy collaboration with the state by which the former coercively enforced standards that should be limited to the latter. I don't defend this collaboration. However, it should be expected that these same modern "liberals" that are horrified at the collaboration of church and state in past Christian eras will now invite the arm of a godless, secular state Leviathan today to coercively enforce intolerance against those who cry out against depravity in the modern society.

[Anonymouse]

Basically, intolerance is the norm in any society.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by anileve I don’t know about you guys but I have yet to find one normal person.

The idea of "normal" is merely the average of everyones eccentricities. And you can quote me on that.

And, thanks for the support, anileve.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The idea of "normal" is merely the average of everyones eccentricities. And you can quote me on that.

And, thanks for the support, anileve.

Gee, you're so wise, and "tolerant" and "unique". I want to be just like you.

[Anonymouse]

Oh wait, on second thought I can't be like you, I'm a mouse studying to be a rat.

So yea, homosexuality is right and heterosexuality is wrong. How dare anyone uphold traditional principles. We here at Liberal Inc. believe in the intolerance towards those that disagree, and our spokesman is Arvestaked.