<p>Yes, prove what you claimed could be a possible defense for anti-gay marriage laws. You stated that it could be a possible defense and I stated would be irrational to use such logic for that ban. You can say that it sounds like it’s something that I think you believe all day, but that still wasn’t my intent and I never said such a thing or anything resembling such a statement. You make such rude comments whenever people misinterpret your comments, yet now you’re misinterpreting someone else’s comments yourself and you were still very rude about it when you started presenting your thoughts. Settle down. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, just stop inferring on statements because it’s not working out. I made that statement to say that the logic is faulty on those grounds. I’m not even sure I understand the third sentence. Of course they’d be qualified as black if they’re African-American, or are you using AA as an acronym for something else? </p>
<p>African-Americans clearly have contracted HIV through all means listed more than any other ethnicity, according to the 2007 chart. I could look up more recent stats, but eh…</p>
<p>Of course, more cases were contacted through homosexual means, but that doesn’t hurt the argument that HIV contraction is much more prevalent in the black community than any other.</p>
<p>It doesn’t bother me that “under God” is in the pledge of allegiance. What does bother me is that, in elementary school, we were FORCED to say it. If you chose not to say the pledge of allegiance, you were put in “time out” for recess. In the same token, if a Hindu kid would try to say “Under Vishnu”, or a Buddhist to say “Under Siddartha”, a Muslim to say “Under Allah” or a Jew to say “Under Yahweh”, it would be considered inappropriate and would subject them to ridicule.
A common criticism I’ve heard as to why Under God should remain is that many religions believe in God, not just Christianity. If this is the case, every child should have the option to “fill in the blank” as I described above which would be appropriate for their religion.</p>
<p>“What does bother me is that, in elementary school, we were FORCED to say it”</p>
<p>There was a girl that would stand, and just stare at the flag as we said the pledge in elementary school. I’m not religious, I still said it, I didn’t understand the meaning of the words, nor did I care at the time. But in hindsight, I realize that girl in elementary had different beliefs and ideologies. </p>
<p>My middle school teacher, mentioned this topic. He said that if we didn’t agree with the Under God part, that we didn’t have to say it. However, we were still expected to stand up when everyone else was saying the pledge and take off our hats and hoods if it was on. I think this is a better way to go about it–rather than force someone to say it.</p>
<p>^^^That’s why I think people don’t understand that it is WE the people. Not Him as the people. The president is not the only person who “controls” America. It’s the civilians, the legislative, the judicial, along with the executive branches. We help make America as it is today.</p>
Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, etc are simply the word “God” in another language. For example, “Allah” is not the “muslim god”, it is the Arabic word for god. In Egypt, the Christian Egyptians refer to god as “Allah”, because they speak Arabic. </p>
<p>So I don’t think it offends non-Christians to have to use the English word “God” in an English-speaking country. Of course, everyone is free to recite the Pledge in any language they like, be it Arabic or ancient Hebrew. </p>
<p>Personally I think a better argument would be whether the words “Under God” should be in it at all, not which language god is in. But I can understand why some people are offended by it, although it doesn’t bother me. </p>
<p>Also, no offense, but some of you really need to relax. There is no need to write an 800 word essay ranting and/or insulting other people who you don’t even know online. Sure, the 1st Amendment gives you the “right”, but for godsake, chill out.</p>
<p>The thing about the whole controversy is that it literally means–God. God from a higher power. If it said something such as, Under a Deity, I think it would have been a different story. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean God from Christianity, but any type of Deity that somebody believes in. Whether it is religious or not.</p>
<p>Allah yes, YHWH, Siddartha, and Vishnu no. The latter three refer to a specific person/god by name. Shiva, Vishnu, and Ganesha all refer to a god in the Hindu faith, but the three could not be used interchangeably. They refer to a very specific deity. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, YHWH is the proper noun name of god in the Jewish faith. The proper Hebrew word for god is elohim. YHWH is often confused for being the literal translation of god, but it is not. YHWH was often used to replace the word elohim to show that their god was the mightiest of all gods, and held dominion over all others.</p>
<p>EDIT LINE--------
r0kAng3l: Believing in a deity is in and of itself religious. You can’t tell an atheist to use god to signify the deity that they believe in.</p>
<p>You never addressed my point. If we were questioning right to life as a fundamental premise, why would we question it via euthanasia? Why wouldn’t we just question whether meaningless murder itself is wrong? Euthanasia remains a qualification. Even used in the eugenic context, it rests on the qualification that life begins at birth, not conception. Proponents of euthanasia, even in a eugenic context, wouldn’t advocate simply exterminating anyone without the ideal characteristics because there IS an implicit right to life. Yes, we could add endless qualifications that would, for all intents and purposes, distort, maybe even destroy our fundamental premise, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the premise exists and the qualifications are (initially) within its framework.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t spout mindless accusations. I’M not projecting MY beliefs. In fact, I’m a moral skeptic. I’m arguing from the viewpoint of our social contract, which explicitly assumes a vague ideal of right to life. Of course not everyone agrees with this ideal (I don’t either), but it’s in the social contract to which the constituents of society agreed – hence my viewpoint for this discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, it’s a matter of where non-discrimination starts and stops. If you were to ask those opposed to same-sex marriage about non-discrimination as a vague ideal, few would argue against it. It’s a qualification of non-discrimination in that proponents argue that bans on same-sex unions amount to discrimination and opponents argue that it does not; it’s a matter of drawing the boundaries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You never addressed this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny coming from a person arguing from an ethically relativistic standpoint, yet claiming to be a moral absolutist. Then upon what are YOUR beliefs founded? Arbitrary faith?</p>
<p>I’ve addressed the ideals in our social contract in terms of acknowledgment from society at large, and all you’ve done is claim that they’re arbitrary. Of course individuals can disagree with them, and of course they’re all ultimately arbitrary, but the fact of the matter remains: the constituents AGREE to them. As mentioned, without generally accepted moral premises, our debate wouldn’t center around euthanasia or same-sex unions, but it would rather be an attempt to rise above existential nihilism and determine the moral tenets upon which to found society in the first place.</p>
<p>Or maybe you just don’t understand social contracts and normative ethics?</p>
<p>I’m an Atheist and I think that a Deity can be used in any term, not just as a God. But I’m a relativist so I think that anybody’s opinion mattered. A Christian is no truthful than a Jewish. So in my opinion I think a Deity would work better than a God. For those who do not necessarily believe in a God, but believe in spirits, or nature, etc…</p>
<p>Very nice comparisons. All of these involve physical harm or breaking the law. As far as I know, being gay isn’t against the law and doesn’t cause harm. Like I said before, ignorance is a lack of understanding. If someone discriminates against or hurts someone based on a trait that is not criminal, I think it is safe to say that person is pretty ignorant.</p>
<p>
Why the quotes? I never said that.
The reason they feel that way shouldn’t matter. The fact that they feel that way shouldn’t matter, either, but apparently it does in this country. Prop 8 and the current “DADT Survey” show that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, it really doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right about that. I have no idea why it “just offends” people. People should have reasons for their beliefs. I’d never play Russian Roulette just because I had a feeling it would turn out well. I don’t think people should discriminate based on gut feelings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay? We have no proof that ANYTHING is okay, because okay is such an ambiguous term. I have no proof that heterosexuality is okay. I have no proof that toddlers are okay. The point is, I don’t bother or interfere with their lives, and I don’t make judgments against them other than the former are attracted to the opposite sex and the latter are young. What is your point here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you really thought it was ok to harbor those feelings, I think you would have said the group you are afraid of rather than calling them “certain people.” Huh? Maybe the moral of the story is to be careful when you’re walking around at night anywhere, around anyone. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of people that have and vocalize these beliefs commit homicide against homosexuals and cause tons of emotional damage to kids growing up gay. I would not say that they are harmless at all.</p>
<p>Well, according to smartyskirt01, yes, some kids are made to say it.
But whether you’re required to say it or are allowed to just stand silently, the “under god” part should be taken out. Separation of church and state???</p>
<p>@panther Furthermore, it’s virtually impossible to “Prove” ANYTHING in the scientific setting. The Problem of Induction makes it so… all that can be done is to lend “support” to some hypothesis. That’s why it’s hillarious when all these anti-gay/anti-evolution/anti-GW people say to “prove” our points but also infuriating… because the truth is we can’t “prove” them, we pretty much can’t prove ANYTHING, but we CAN use the Four Canons to lend enough support for a hypothesis that it becomes the leading “Theory.” They say it because they know too few people realize that and by not being able to “prove it” to them, then we lose… even though we really don’t.</p>
<p>Because people agree with the idea that meaningless murder is wrong. For you to infer from that a general “right to life” ideal is held is to assert that people have a particular justification in mind. Someone may not believe in a “right to life,” but rather in the moral problems raised by meaningless murder; for example, it would produce utilitarian harm. At no point is the actual ideal asserted or brought up because it’s not necessarily part of the thinking.</p>
<p>Even if it were, you are simply stating that one instance defines it. Obviously, not so. “Right to life” is something that requires qualifications to even be defined at all, and is in fact defined by those very qualifications. Once circumstantial qualifications are provided, the right changes from an ideal to something split into specific situations and aspects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true. Let me repeat what you are saying as it sounds:</p>
<p>“I believe in viewing these issues this way, and therefore everyone does.”</p>
<p>1) Euthanasia and eugenics is literally whether people have the right to live. No one here established that eugenics does in fact rest on the assumption you mention. I don’t know how you could possibly claim that. Euthanasia is literally the question of whether someone has the right to live. That IS the issue itself. Do I have the right to be here? It’s not a qualifications. It’s one facet of an issue that has profound implications on an objective level.</p>
<p>2) You do not speak for everyone who supports euthanasia and eugenics. So your statement that they believe X with justification that X is consistent with your beliefs is obviously idiotic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just don’t get it. You are projecting your beliefs in this very section. You are arguing based on a social contract that YOU are establishing in a particular way.
The social contract is thus far intangible, and therefore cannot explicitly state anything, unless you would be so kind as to provide the concrete social contract. Furthermore, the social contract requires the society to be at least vaguely aware of its existence or to somehow indicate that they are willing to live by it, the prerequisite of which is clearly not simply that they live in said society. You presume too much assent where it simply does not exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, no. You are missing the entire point. </p>
<p>Let me try to illustrate this with something more strange.</p>
<p>You believe that animals and plants are people.</p>
<p>I come up to you and say, “Oh, I eat meat.”</p>
<p>Then you say, “Okay. Well since animals are people, we are discussing the issue of murder. We are now simply putting limits on acceptable murder if we were to discuss the legality of eating meat.”</p>
<p>WRONG. Because this line of reasoning relies solely on your definition of murder and your framework, NOT on the framework on which others are relying. I don’t consider animals people, so the issue of eating them is not even close to one of murder. It doesn’t even make sense for me to talk about it that way.</p>
<p>Similarly, I could claim that gay marriage is discrimination or murder or lying or genocide and come up with whatever justification that I want, but if the people who oppose it do not view it as that particular issue at all, to them it’s not a matter of putting limits on anything at all. So your statement that they oppose discrimination and therefore are putting limits on non-discrimination is obviously worthless, because you haven’t established a link between gay marriage and discrimination within their framework. In other words, your statement makes as much sense as this one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does that make sense? No. Why? Because you don’t even view genocide as related to gay marriage.</p>
<p>By arguing that something does NOT amount to X, you are NOT necessarily putting boundaries on X. To claim otherwise is to implicitly state that they are arguing that Y form of X is acceptable when they are in fact claiming that it is not relevant in any way.</p>
<p>In other words, it’s not a matter of putting limits on acceptable versus unacceptable discrimination any more than my saying my computer not red is putting limits on the concept of red. True, perhaps, but irrelevant and vacuous, not to mention unproductive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did. I said that gay marriage in the minds of those against it is not always a discrimination issue. You seem to have a problem with this statement. What I am saying is that the common ground that you require literally is not present in the gay marriage debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. That is correct, at least it is the most simply way of saying that. I have reasons for my beliefs, but ultimately they require faith – as do all beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You assume that people are even capable of talking about these issues. This extends from philosophy into popular psychology. I agree that there are social norms; what I do not agree with is the idea that people in society always agree to them by virtue of being on that society, because that presupposes contentment with the society. </p>
<p>So, to summarize:</p>
<p>1) People do not always think in terms of social norms, even inadvertently. Some know they do. Some do but do not know it. Others do not at all, either knowingly or unknowingly. Therefore to discuss the social contract is to assume that it exists, which is a conclusion that I have not yet seen proven. The fact that people agree on issue X, e.g. meaningless murder, means exactly that to me unless proven otherwise. So please demonstrate empirically to me that it is part of a larger issue, without poll numbers, which apply only to that particular issue or ideal. Show me.</p>
<p>2) Discussing whether something is consistent with an ideal is not to put limitations on that ideal in all cases because that mentality presupposes that it is related in any way to that ideal.</p>
<p>Asserting that there is implicit acknowledgment of a right to life says nothing about the justification. Justifications are of secondary concern; a religious person might uphold such an ideal because it violates his doctrinal beliefs, and a pragmatist might uphold the same ideal because it fails the test of utility. Regardless, we end up at the same place: agreement regarding the belief that meaningless murder is wrong. To say that people do not believe in a “right to life” but believe that “meaningless murder” is wrong (for whatever reason) amounts to nothing but semantics.</p>
<p>So, regarding semantics, taking your words, “because people believe meaningless murder is wrong,” I will not attempt infer any sort of justification behind such belief, but will instead simply acknowledge that people agree to its necessity. In doing so, we’ve established a fundamental moral premise in our social contract. We can call it the right to not be murdered meaninglessly, but, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll call it “right to life.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I’ve already stated, the viewpoint from which I’m arguing does not represent my personal views at all. I’ve already acknowledged the ultimately arbitrary nature of morality, and, as such, I’m arguing within a social contract framework. No, not everyone has to argue from such framework, but, without it, we’re left with nothing but relativism. So, unless we wish to devolve into fundamental, perennial disagreement, we must establish a framework within which we CAN debate. For the sake of practicality, I’ve chosen the contractarian premise, but you can’t seem to wrap your head around exactly what said premise entails.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we referring to the same idea of euthanasia? The euthanasia I have in mind only questions right to life for a specific subset of a population (those with terminal illnesses, those who will be born with inhumane diseases, etc.). It does NOT question whether an “typical” human being, presumably one such as yourself, has the right to live. It’s an attempt to define what constitutes “humane” and whether “inhumane” circumstances warrant a breach on the ideal of right to life. </p>
<p>If we were to argue that there ISN’T an implicit (or explicit) right to life, then 1) euthanasia wouldn’t receive the controversy it does and 2) we wouldn’t attempt to restrict it to those with terminal illnesses and whatnot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor do you speak for everyone who supports (or opposes) euthanasia/eugenics, so the very same statement applies to you. I’m simply stating what I’ve gathered to be the standard euthanasia proponent’s argument and justification. Of course, opinions vary and a proponent could very well support euthanasia simply because he dislikes the sight of sick people or the clogging of hospitals. Fringe elements are everywhere. However, this is simply what I perceive to be the “mainstream” justification, that it is an attempt to lessen the pain on the suffering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or perhaps you’re the one who simply doesn’t understand. I didn’t establish the social contract this particular way. If we were to poll everyone in our society and ask whether meaningless murder or political discrimination is wrong, an overwhelming majority of society would argue that they are. That’s how the ideals of our social contract are formed – not because I personally believe there is a right to life or protection from discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While legal codes do not perfectly mirror nor define our social contract, the ideals to which our society agrees are largely represented in our statutes. Of course, the contract itself is intangible and ultimately exists in the opinions of our societal constituents, but a legal document is an attempt to codify our constituents’ beliefs. As such, referring to (largely) accepted documents such as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the best way to gauge which ideals our social contract contains.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you missed my point entirely. That’s exactly what I said. If we were to pointlessly debate the semantics of the word “murder,” we’re essentially debating where murder stops and where murder starts. If I believed animals were people, then the definition of murder and the consequences it entails also apply to animals. If you believed animals were NOT people, the the definition of murder would stop at the Homo sapien boundary and not extend to cows or pigs. </p>
<p>But what have we done in our debate over just what constitutes murder and what doesn’t? We’ve implicitly acknowledged that (meaningless) murder is wrong.</p>
<p>This is the point I’m trying to make with same-sex unions and discrimination. As you’ve stated, opponents may not view bans on same-sex unions as an issue of discrimination at all (an absurd stance, might I add). Proponents (like myself) argue that such bans DO amount to discrimination. But in our argument, we’ve implicitly acknowledged that the vague ideal of anti-discrimination is valid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any stance would appear absurd if you substitute a word whose definition isn’t even remotely related to the stance. If I argued that both horses and cows have a right to eat grass, and that grass-eating constituted a fundamental right to them, the opposition might argue that the fundamental right of grass-eating only applies to horses, not cows.</p>
<p>You could just as well substitute the word “genocide” in for “grass-eating” in this argument, and of course it would appear nonsensical.</p>
<p>It’d read: both horses and cows have a right to genocide, and genocide constitutes a fundamental right to them. The opposition argues that the fundamental right of genocides only applies to horses, not cows.</p>
<p>Such a statement appears absurd because the definition of “genocide” isn’t remotely related to dietary measures of cows and horses. However, the definition of “grass-eating” IS. </p>
<p>Your stance amounts to arguing that “grass-eating” is just as unrelated as “genocide” when discussing the diets of cows. </p>
<p>If we were to define discrimination as differential treatment based on arbitrary standard(s) and genocide as the massacre of a subset of a population, then the definition of discrimination is MUCH more applicable to bans on same-sex unions than the definition of genocide. Opponents might attempt to qualify discrimination or argue that protections against political discrimination should not apply to homosexual couples, but 1) the applicability of discrimination is much stronger and 2) the argument still implicitly acknowledges that the vague of ideal of anti-discrimination is valid.</p>
<p>In fact, to deny that bans on same-sex unions does NOT amount to discrimination is absurd, based on the definition of “discrimination.” However, one might qualify that some types of discrimination are valid and that, specifically, POLITICAL discrimination against this subset is valid. However, there can be no denying that there IS discrimination. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To deny that bans on same-sex unions does NOT amount to discrimination is absurd (see explanation above). It’s about how far protections against discrimination should extend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course simply being a part of society does not preclude an individual from disagreeing with certain ideals. However, should an individual find such ideals completely irreconcilable, said individual would have no choice but to leave society.
</p>
<p>See above section regarding legal codes. Our laws operate within the framework of the social contract. Society must decide whether it agrees with the validity of certain laws via voting, litigation, protests, etc. If it does, then the ideals of our laws become part of our social contract. For example, 1776 American society accepted the ideals (right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) contained in the Declaration of Independence, and such ideals have since been incorporated into the social contract. This is easily evidenced by the constant reference to their existence when discussing controversial issues such as desegregation and euthanasia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Determining with a specific issue bears any relevance to an ideal is also part of the debate. If we establish that the issue IS related to the ideal, then we evaluate the issue on consistency with said ideal.</p>
<p>For this specific case, it’s absurd to argue that discrimination does NOT apply to same-sex union. However, we could still evaluate the consistency of our bans on same-sex union within the framework of our ideal of anti-discrimination by arguing that some types of discrimination ARE valid (an argument which I refute).</p>
<p>Quote:
Notice you state PROVING WHAT I CLAIM. Sounds like you think it’s something I believe.
Yes, prove what you claimed could be a possible defense for anti-gay marriage laws. You stated that it could be a possible defense and I stated would be irrational to use such logic for that ban. You can say that it sounds like it’s something that I think you believe all day, but that still wasn’t my intent and I never said such a thing or anything resembling such a statement. You make such rude comments whenever people misinterpret your comments, yet now you’re misinterpreting someone else’s comments yourself and you were still very rude about it when you started presenting your thoughts. Settle down.</p>
<p>Quote:
Sounds like you think I’m making an argument. All I was doing was providing a possible defense for DOMA. And aren’t a large portion of AA’s with AIDS black? Do you have a statistic handy which points to the percentage of straight, american blacks with AIDS?
Ok, just stop inferring on statements because it’s not working out. I made that statement to say that the logic is faulty on those grounds. I’m not even sure I understand the third sentence. Of course they’d be qualified as black if they’re African-American, or are you using AA as an acronym for something else? "</p>
<p>Hmmm…so saying “your logic is flawed” DOESN’T mean you think I am making an argument that I believe in…that doesn’t make too much sense. It was clear you thought I was making an argument based on “my logic.” You wouldn’t have said “your claim” or “your logic” if you didn’t attribute the argument to me. I don’t see why you’re holding on to this. If you didn’t attribute it to me, you would have said that argument or that logic. Word choice doesn’t support your side. Using your dismantles your claim. I don’t really understand how you can claim using “your” really didn’t mean you were associating the argument with my beliefs. Can you elaborate why you used your instead of that?</p>
<p>"African-Americans clearly have contracted HIV through all means listed more than any other ethnicity, according to the 2007 chart. I could look up more recent stats, but eh…</p>
<p>Of course, more cases were contacted through homosexual means, but that doesn’t hurt the argument that HIV contraction is much more prevalent in the black community than any other."</p>
<p>Didn’t I ask you for statistics showing AIDS among straight blacks and gay blacks? Did I deny AIDS had higher contraction among blacks? No. I said a large portion of blacks with AIDS are probably gay. That’s why I asked for a stat of STRAIGHT black men with AIDS. You didn’t provide those stats.</p>
<p>“It seems as if America totally neglects the legislative branch when criticizing the government.”</p>
<p>I believe Congress has a historically low approval rating, perhaps lower than any president. And of course people blame the POTUS: they make a much of promises during the campaign and rarely keep them.</p>