Gay Marriage thread...

College Confidential Community
181

<p>The "legal" issue of marriage should be separated from the Church. Both heterosexual and gay couples should be able to apply to the state for the license--be it a civil marriage or a civil union--or just call it whatever you like, when you get a license, you get certain state and federal benefits; then, if you want to have a religious blessing on your union, you can go to the church of your choice for such a blessing. Many churches will only bless the unions of a man and a woman, but a growing number of local Christian congregations offer blessings to same sex couples. Further, the Clergy should, in my opinion, no longer pronounce the blessing "...by the power vested in me by the State of Oklahoma....." </p>

<p>CollegeFreak, Many proponents of same sex marriage are people of faith. Being "religious" does not preclude being for recognition of same sex unions. Many "liberal" Christians interpret the very same passages "conservative" Christians use to condemn homosexual behavior, as condemning violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons.</p>

182

<p>this thread is getting laborious. i motion to kill it.</p>

183

<p>then y dont you just let it die instead of reposting so more ppl will see it!</p>

184

<p>We should do more voting to kill in the US . . . or, at least, get the chance to vote against it. Eh? Nothing like a good natured troll job, no?</p>

185

<p>For it.</p>

<p>Banning gay marriage is a form of discrimation against of group of people. Hmmm, where have we seen this before? Slavery, religious persecution, womens' rights. At one point, African-Americans and women were not allowed to vote--and homosexuals can't get married? I'm surprised that there are still many women and African-Americans who are against gay marriage, when at one point they would have been in similar right-limiting situations.</p>

186

<p>
[quote]
Great news for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, 9-11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh and their crew!

[/quote]

Great, are we comparing homosexuals to mass murderers and terrorists now? Since when were gay or lesbian people a threat to homeland security?</p>

187

<p>The poster was responding to Mzlover4's post about evil being a cultural invention. There was no comparison drawn between homosexuals and "mass murderers". Read before you write.</p>

188

<p>Seth, </p>

<p>from one Canadian to another, thanks; that is exactly what I was addressing: </p>

<p>does evil exist in reality, or is it a cultural invention?</p>

<p>These sorts of problems are common to those who respond to their cherished arguments based on their anger/emotions rather than on thoughtful and meaningful analysis. I was not addressing gay marriage in one way or another, I was responding to the unsupported assumption that evil is not real, since I believe it is the one thing that is clearly and indisputably real and explains Stalin, Hitler and their ilk.</p>

189

<p>I don't mean to derail the discussion, but of course evil is cultural. There is no need to explain away group behavior gone awry. I doubt we'll see a time when Hitler is accepted by the majority, thank goodness, but he had plenty of support at the time and not everyone in Nazi territory was either evil or repressed.</p>

190

<p>At what point are prohibitions against rape merely cultural norms?
Rape is evil and wrong in its totality, however and whenever it is applied. No?</p>

<p>Do you mean to say that rape is not absolutely wrong, and thus evil, but is rather just the way we've decided to go about it for the time being?
Is there some brave new future in which “good people” will be able to decide that prohibitions against rape were passé and yet remain “good people” while casually raping another person?</p>

<p>If not, how is it that it will never be considered "good", by humanity at large, to rape someone? Of course people rape, but no matter their reasoning, they always know that the act itself is wrong and thus they conceal their bad act(unless they are delusional, which again proves the point…we know they are delusional). </p>

<p>In the future,
1. Will cowardice be considered a virtue?
2. Will betraying a friend be the right thing to do and worthy of praise?
3. Will lying become the norm in human interaction—and will it be thought a good thing?
4. Will compassion be replaced by sadism as a good human attribute? </p>

<p>Can you answer yes to any of these questions? and if not, why not?</p>

<p>Of course, there have always been people who behaved in these wrong/immoral ways, but that merely proves the point, doesn't it: we know it was wrong (though some deluded themselves into thinking it was for a greater, yet false, goal). How do we know that it was wrong? Should we look back and say, “well, this is just our current standard, we shouldn’t judge the Nazis”?</p>

<p>How did the German people en mass know, quick on the heals of the revelations of the extent of what had happened, that what the Nazis had done was wrong and inhuman (meaning, specific acts of wrong doing...not to say simply being German was wrong)? It is a suspension of morality that allows evil acts to occur, not a “difference” of morality.</p>

191

<p>Fountain - I hope that we can understand the amazing difference between doing something with the intention of destroying the basic humanity of another person (such as rape or murder, which are, IMO, two of the worst things that can happen to someone) and cultural norms about private human behaviour. It was once considered immoral to not be at church all day on Sunday. This changed once we realized that not being at church 1) doesn't per se make you less religious and 2) is not evil directed at another person. We find it immoral to prohibit women from voting; other countries see this differently. There is a sharp, intuitive line between the sheer evil of human behaviour which is designed to dehumanize others (slavery, murder, rape, imprisonment for political protest, beatings, punishments which involve having your neice raped, etc) and those which are merely designed to regulate other's benign actions (which person you can marry, how long you are at church, what you can wear) - actions which are simply not directed at another person, where, in fact, third parties are entirely incidental to the action. A third party (or many) are needed for rape, murder, theft, and genocide. No third parties needed for marriage (that's two people involved), for regulating what someone wears, someone's education, voting status, etc.</p>

192

<p>If it is established that there is such a thing as an objective moral cause involved in something, there may well be an objective moral cause behind anything. It does not necessarily follow that there is an absolute moral cause to the question of marriage, especially if the historical cause of marriage is considered ancillary to the act of marriage itself, that is, children. </p>

<p>Marriage, it must be conceded, existed as a social institution to protect the most vulnerable among us, babies, children and adolescents, perhaps even in some dark part of our historic past, women. Having removed the care and protection of children as the raison d’etre of marriage some time ago, it seems we have come to the point that marriage is simply for publicly ‘honoring’ the union of two sexually active people (though, not three, or more as in the case of polygamy) and supplying them with certain extraordinary benefits denied to those who are either living independently or living in union with another party but without the benefit of sexual congress.</p>

<p>It is becoming more and more difficult to define marriage as a necessary institution at all once the protection and raising of children is no longer the motivation behind the institution of marriage. Some morn this; others celebrate it; children suffer it. </p>

<p>Since there are those who still marry with the intent of raising children and those who will simply end up having children while engaged in a sexual union (once people may have understood the “union” to be the uniting of two genders into one unit, as if one gender is incomplete without the other) marriage seems to have some “actual” reason to exist as an institution, otherwise, I see no actual social need for marriage other than the egotistical social demands of two people who chose to have sex with each other over the long haul. If it were about equality we would grant the rights of marriage to all people, whether involved in a sexual union or not.</p>

193

<p>"2. Will betraying a friend be the right thing to do and worthy of
praise?" </p>

<p>I wouldnt consider that immoral cuz it can be a good thing if the friend murdered his cousins sisters brother named Bob</p>

194

<p>On the off-chance that you are serious, let me point out that it would not be considered an assault to throw a friend out of a burning building even though it may harm him/her in the throwing. It would be a greater harm to leave them in the burning building.</p>

<p>If your friend is committing evil acts, it is not a betrayal to stop them but is rather a good act for all involved…if you believe in goodness. Simply put, that is not a betrayal, unless perhaps you swore to this friend that if they go upon a murderous rampage you would do nothing about it, but even then the greater good demands that you act to stop him/her and even, so to speak, save him from himself. No betrayal has occurred.</p>

195

<p>yes i was serious...i turned in my friend because he accidentally set fire to a stolen vehicle that we found out in the hills when we were offroading..would you consider this evil?</p>

196

<p>As I thought I made clear, </p>

<p>"If your friend is committing evil acts, it is not a betrayal to stop them but is rather a good act for all involved…if you believe in goodness. Simply put, that is not a betrayal..."</p>

<p>What is more important, is what your conscience tells you...IMHO, it always has a bead on what is right or wrong and should be trusted (in sane people).</p>

197

<p>


You have said that only an absolute sense of evil explains Hitler. So, Hitler is evil. You have also said that sane people do what's good by following their conscience. It follows logically that that sane people following their conscience are doing what is good (this is the contrapositive). Combine these two assumptions: that Hitler was doing what he believed to be good, that sane people do good by following their conscience, and that Hitler was evil in an absolutist sense and you can come to only one conclusion . . . that Hitler was not sane. So, according to you, the insane should be held responsible for their challenge? Even the Supreme Court of the United States of America permits the clinically insane to walk free.</p>

<p>Methinks your affinity for the absolute is on shaky ground . . .</p>

198

<p>You have (at the very least):</p>

<ol>
<li>Desire
2: Conscience</li>
<li>Will</li>
</ol>

<p>There is no assumption that Hitler was doing what he believed to be good. I don’t pretend to know what Hitler thought. I know that what he was doing was morally wrong, it is unambiguous. I have yet to meet a single person who takes the position that the immoral acts he committed were moral. </p>

<p>There are those who insist he did not commit the acts he is known historically to have committed based on an ideology they maintain, but to my knowledge they do not believe such acts are moral acts, that is, genocide, murder, torture, and rape of the innocents. </p>

<p>How do even those who maintain hateful ideologies know that these specific acts are morally wrong? I’ve yet to hear a defender of Aryan supremacy defend genocide, they just deny it occurred. </p>

<p>You make moral decisions everyday, when you make your decisions are you making random choices? Is it a crap shoot for you? Do you take a stab in the dark? If not, why not? How did you know which was right and wrong? I assume you do know, as you assume those around you know. </p>

<p>Imagine a world where you assumed that those around you did not know the difference between right and wrong. If you can, you are not picturing the actual world we live in.</p>

<p>If you have lied in your past, did you feel guilt for having lied? </p>

<p>How about stealing?</p>

<p>Deceiving?</p>

<p>Acting a coward?</p>

<p>Betraying a friend?</p>

<p>To have a conscience and to know right from wrong does not make for an absolute moral choice, because it is still a choice. You get to decide. When it comes to right and wrong, you are still free to choose, as was Hitler.</p>

199

<p>I hearby dub thee "Freud." Go to the back of the line, science has a few words for you.</p>

200

<p>I have a confession:</p>

<p>I hate liberals.</p>

<p>I hate conservatives too.</p>

<p>Why? Because they fail to understand each others' way of thinking.</p>