How Conservative is Princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
41

<p>"But the real reason that people want "gay marriage" is because it neccessarily suggestst an equitablity between a hetrosexual couple and a gay couple and the two are not equal. Two men will never be able to produce a child naturally and as such can never be equal to the relatioship between a man and a woman."</p>

<p>Well, so what, though? A man married to an infertile women will never be able to produce a child naturally. Two 70-year-olds will never be able to produce a child naturally. What does that have to do with what the state "should" or shouldn't recognize?</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
I find it funny how so often on these forums ppl just bash conservatism, but when actually engaged in a non-emotional debate ppl just choose not to respond. I guess it is easier to call someone a "bigot" than to actually refute thier points.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't kiss your own ass too soon my dear Dbate, you conveniently ignored my second point. And answer Pizzagirl's, too.</p>

43

<p>I'm not saying I agree with this, but I think what happens is that it would be too complicated for the state to determine which hetero couples can and can't have kids (due to age, infertility, etc) and even if they could, it would be impossible for the state to accurately determine which hetero couples intend to have kids so they just bless all hetero couples because they're like well at least there's some chance in there somewhere that they'll have a kid.</p>

44

<p>I am just chiming in as a third party.</p>

<p>Dbate,</p>

<p>The reason 'liberals' decry 'conservative' viewpoints while maintaining that they respect all viewpoints is because they view conservative visions of social justice as impeding on the rights of others (a gay man's right to marry, for example). It's a bit of a paradox, granted, but it comes with the territory and makes sense to many people.</p>

<p>IMO, though, the whole political scene in America has become too riddled with paradoxes to sustain itself without major reform. Conservatives, strictly defined, center their ideology on a belief in a small government. The so called 'social conservatives', though, believe in larger government interference in peoples' personal lives. This contradicts the fundamental notion of conservatism and has been brought into politics in the name of God, which is now complicating American politics and political distinctions.</p>

45

<p>The majority of self proclaimed liberals are some of the most closed minded political correctness nazis that walk the face of this earth. First off, you can be anti-gay marriage without being homophobic or a gay hater or whatever your terms are. Furthermore, you can be anti-affirmative action without being a one dimensional racist. And most importantly, you can be a rock solid conservative without basing your political, social, and economic beliefs on religion. There are many scientific arguments that you could use in being anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion. If you are religious, you do not necessarily have to be a conservative. If you are religious, you do not necessarily have to believe in all that the religion states. Take what you can from it but do not believe everything word for word. If you look at religion like that, then you will see that it can be a very useful thing to hold onto. Nevertheless, religion does not have to be your basis for other beliefs, such as social beliefs. I don't see how some of you are considered smart when you have so many logical fallacies in your arguments against conservatives...</p>

46

<p>Why should the state's recognition of my marriage have anything to do with eirher my ability or my plans to reproduce? When I got my marriage license from my state, the state wasn't passing a judgment or encouraging me to reproduce. It didn't come with a discount on diapers. It simply acknowledged that in legal matters I had chosen this other adult to be my partner. This is all such a silly excuse because if the state really cared about only Hetero married couples reproducing, then they should make out of wedlock pregnancy against the law and forbid birth control. Since they don't, it's pretty clear that the state is neutral as to whether any given herero couple procreates. Therefore you can't pull the card that "gays can't procreate" as justification for not letting them marry.</p>

47

<p>Yes We Can.</p>

48

<p>If you read my post you would see that the reproduction arguement was to show that gay couples andstraight couples are not equal, and as such should not be viewed as equal by allowing same sex marriage. It should grant civil unions that give them the same legal rights, but to proclaim marriage would denote an equitablity that is entirely impossible.</p>

49

<p>Marriage is/was religiously affiliated. Allow religion to have its union, but allow the state to do what it wants with respect to civil unions.</p>

50

<p>But what I'm saying is why should it be relevant that gay and straight couples are not equal?! In fact, not equal in what way? And do you have any legitimate and secular reason for picking on that particular aspect where they are not equal, or simply personal bias? Oh yes, we live in a secular nation and yes, religion is a personal thing.</p>

<p>The argument that marriage started off as a religious thing simply does not hold water. Things change, and that's what conservatives can't handle. Marriage has been made into law and has been determined as available for people of all races and religions, and if marriage can be granted to agnostics and atheists even if they refuse God's blessing or any religious involvement in the process, why shouldn't it be granted to people who are gay, even if it's against all that religion preaches?</p>

<p>Seriously, if you go down this road, then all non-Christians should be banned from resting on Sundays since Christians created and owned the concept of a Sunday. And really, I'm insisting that God and religion should be taken out of government and everytime you post you are stuck in the idea that your religion should own government and everyone else. This fundamental difference is preventing all effective discussion, so I rest my case here.</p>

51

<p>@pizzagirl: I am not trying to pull any cards or argue with you about gay marriage, I'm just "forwarding" what I've heard ppl say about this issue in lengthy, tiresome debates in and out of class that are boring as hell and never get anywhere.</p>

<p>In any case, somewhat coincidentally, some of the things you just said came up in my politics precept a few weeks ago and the anti-gay marriage people said that the state doesn't really care if you have kids in or out of a marriage, but since it's more likely that you'll want/have kids in a marriage... stuff is there to "reward" you if you marry. And they don't want to ban things like birth control and abortion bc they want you to want your kids or else you won't take proper care of them and they'll be more likely to grow up to make lousy and unproductive citizens.</p>

<p>I personally don't see why everyone cares so much about talking about gay marriage. I hear stuff from one side and I hear stuff from the other and no one ever convinces anyone so I'd really rather just pay attention to things that affect my own life, even if they're as inane as finding a good deal on plane tickets home.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
"Seriously, if you go down this road, then all non-Christians should be banned from resting on Sundays since Christians created and owned the concept of a Sunday. And really, I'm insisting that God and religion should be taken out of government and everytime you post you are stuck in the idea that your religion should own government and everyone else. This fundamental difference is preventing all effective discussion, so I rest my case here. "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're not resting your case because you didn't have one. Your entire post was non-responsive to my arguement that there is not equality between gay and straight couples that you did not respond to, because the two couples are not equal and therefore do not have EQUAL rights.
Therefore the entire arguement that gay marriage is a right is completely false.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]

Not to insult you, but the fact that you are posting this shows the if you have read The Bible you did not study it within context of function nor of the state of Israel at the time, nor of the Biblical transition of grace.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, we are quite capable of understanding history. In fact, I have read the entire bible (christian private school requirement) and I have studied the historical context from which it emerged, as many non-believers have also.</p>

<p>
[quote]

The commandment was for the time before grace came through Christ The Lord, under Old Testament law people did not go to Hell they went to Sheoul, as such there was no punishment for transgressions after death so the body was punished on earth. After Christ came, He was the first to enter into Hell and as such paid the price for all the souls who had been killed physically on earth regardless of religion.
Logically it would seem unjust to allow all those murderers and such to just enter into Hell, so Christ bore thier punishment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're grouping non-christians in with murderers. You see, atheists don't believe that being of another religion is a sin. In fact, atheists find christians to be ignorant and dangerous because christians believe, now or then, that being of a different religion merited death. Just because God could not throw people of other religions in Hell before Jesus was around, doesn't give christians the right to murder them.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Did you ever stop to think why we don't kill people of different religions anymore? It is because grace came unto the world through the Blood of grace. Because of this grace there is no right for physical punishment on earth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, christians continued to kill non-christians for centuries after christ. Crusades? Reconquista? In fact, these christians invented modern torture. Therefore, I believe that it is modern systems of law and police forces that keep religious nuts from killing people, not some enigmatic grace.</p>

<p>
[quote]

On the physical level it was a method of protecting the purity of the Israelite people, other religions threatened the system of government that The Lord had established, to inject other religions into the nation (as was later done) brought the wrath of The Lord upon Israel (remember this is the period before grace), so they had to ensure that sin was purged from thier mist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you assume that other religions are impure, threatening, and sinful. If you break your argument down, you are simply creating rationalizations that allow you to believe that God was killing people for a good cause before christ was around. The athiest argument is that killing is never justified, and that other religions should not be seen as a threat.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
"You're grouping non-christians in with murderers. You see, atheists don't believe that being of another religion is a sin. In fact, atheists find christians to be ignorant and dangerous because christians believe, now or then, that being of a different religion merited death. Just because God could not throw people of other religions in Hell before Jesus was around, doesn't give christians the right to murder them."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From your quote I highly doubt you studied The Bible in a historical context, because then you would know Christians did not exist at the time that the actual commandments were written. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"Actually, christians continued to kill non-christians for centuries after christ. Crusades? Reconquista? In fact, these christians invented modern torture. Therefore, I believe that it is modern systems of law and police forces that keep religious nuts from killing people, not some enigmatic grace."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are showing that you neither understand the basic aspects of The Bible nor do you understand history. The crusades did not have a basis in The Bible, why? Because people could not read they only knew what the priests told them. If you know the history of the Church you would know that the Church was corrupt and wanted power. The ability to call soliders to war gave them the power to control kings. There is no Biblical motivation for the Crusades, if you really did study European history you would know this. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"Again, you assume that other religions are impure, threatening, and sinful. If you break your argument down, you are simply creating rationalizations that allow you to believe that God was killing people for a good cause before christ was around. The athiest argument is that killing is never justified, and that other religions should not be seen as a threat. "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again you don't know what you are talking about. The other religions WERE threatening to the ISRAELITES which is who the commandments were written for. Those of other religions would literally wage war upon countries and threatened the purity of the Israelites (they had the most distinctive religion that was predicated on monothesism). It is interesting how the athiest arguement is to never kill because we all know atheists have never killed anyone <em>cough</em> Russia <em>cough</em>.</p>

<p>You obviously know very little about history and therefore your understanding of religion is completely hampered. I think you should take up my suggestion that you read The Bible with historical commentary.</p>

55

<p>Posinous, I apologize if my post was rude, but I think you really should consider re-reading The Bible with the historical summaries because it elucidates alot of things. And don't assume that the things learned in class are neccessarily true you should evaluate things on your own. </p>

<p>If you know the historical aspects of The Bible then you know that about 60% is a history pure history and nothing that requires faith. The reason that this is true is because the Jewish scribes very much believed that people could learn things about God and his desires by looking at the past and recording the changing things that occur. Such as the transition from judges to kings and the eventual split of Israel into Israel and Judah.
Location of the historical timeline is extremely important in understanding The Bible.</p>

56

<p>Whoa, this thread has gone on a tangent. :)</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
It is interesting how the athiest arguement is to never kill because we all know atheists have never killed anyone <em>cough</em> Russia <em>cough</em>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is hilarious. No one has ever killed someone in the name of atheism. Russian Communism was as much a religion as Christianity or Judaism. It just was disguised in secular rhetoric. Communism simply replaces the subjugation of individuals to an omnipotent God with the subjugation of individuals to an authoritarian state. Sin is replaced by thoughtcrimes. Doctrines (Communist Manifesto/Bolsheviks stuff and The Babble) are set forth and anyone who opposes these doctrines are threatened with damnation. </p>

<p>It's the oldest argument that atheists kill people! Please, at least be original.</p>

<p>And while we're at it, why don't we compare social, scientific, and philosophical progress during the Dark Ages with progress during the Enlightenment? (Hint: The Enlightenment was a movement away from religious doctrine. And they don't call them the DARK Ages for nothing.)</p>

58

<p>Dbate is using such superficial points lol. It's true - no one has killed in the name of atheism. Many have killed for their religious beliefs, including Christianity.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
You're not resting your case because you didn't have one. Your entire post was non-responsive to my arguement that there is not equality between gay and straight couples that you did not respond to, because the two couples are not equal and therefore do not have EQUAL rights.
Therefore the entire arguement that gay marriage is a right is completely false.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dbate giving us a lecture about non-responsive posts? PLEASE don't make me laugh. Respond to me first:</p>

<p>1) So tell me - should infertile heterosexual couples be given the right to marry?
2) The two couples are not equal in what way? Chinese couples are not equal to Jewish couples.... should they be granted different rights based on race?</p>

<p>And then let me say that Dbate has this complete inability to see a response when it screams at him in the face. In response to your contention that religion owns "marriage" because it's a religious idea, I came up with the hypothetical suggestion to ban Sundays for non-Christians by the same principle. Anyone can see how ridiculous that this line of argument of "owning" "marriage" was in the first place.</p>

<p>And for God's sake, it's spelt argument. And no, it's not a typo when you've done it more than once.</p>

<p>Give me a non-religious case for banning of gay marriage and maybe you'll learn to spell properly for once.</p>

<p>Could we request the moderators to change Dbate's username? Letting him use that username misleads people into thinking he actually can debate - like FNC calling itself "Fair and Balanced". Now THAT'S a crime.</p>

<p>I will not reply until Dbate responds to the above points. Or can he?</p>

60

<p>Dbate, since you're so into the history of the Bible, why shouldn't marriage be defined as one man and multiple wives, as it is in the Bible?</p>