<p>^Support your claim that we live 20 years less than heterosexuals. Support your claim that we’re more likely to contract diseases. And you can’t use right-wing anti-gay articles to do it. Those aren’t support, they’re propaganda and lies. </p>
<p>And I LOVE the people who use “activist judges” in their argument, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the powers of the Judiciary. Our own Constitution says they have the power to interpret the laws that are passed, and can revoke them if they are found to be unconstitutional. All those “activist judges” are the ones doing their job and interpreting laws and (like what will soon happen to Prop 8) revoke the ones that are unconstitutional or illegal.</p>
<p>For those who think homosexuality is a choice, it’s not a choice. If you believe that, you’ve been brainwashed and you’re gonna have a rude awakening when you get into the real world. The belief that it IS a choice is more of that right-wing anti-gay propaganda I mentioned above, that’s why I said tiff isn’t allowed to show support for our lives being 20 years shorter by using anything they say – you can’t trust anything they say. </p>
<p>@Cuse - I realize this might blow your mind but the reality is that a lot of scientists are coming to the conclusion that humans might be naturally BISEXUAL and then a combination of prenatal and early environmental factors work together to create our sexuality. Consider this: perhaps people are biologically gay because if the parents die out, there’ll be a gay uncle or relative to finish raising the child and ensure the continuity of the species. Sithis hit the nail on the head, your science is flawed.</p>
<p>“And I LOVE the people who use “activist judges” in their argument, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the powers of the Judiciary. Our own Constitution says they have the power to interpret the laws that are passed, and can revoke them if they are found to be unconstitutional. All those “activist judges” are the ones doing their job and interpreting laws and (like what will soon happen to Prop 8) revoke the ones that are unconstitutional or illegal.”</p>
<p>Making up things that don’t exist in the constitution is doing their job. They are supposed to enforce the constitution. Not make up rights that don’t exist. Activist judges create rights. That is not their job to make up rights. If marriage were a right, why didn’t the founders include it?</p>
<p>The discrepancy isn’t control of certain traits (or the lack thereof). The discrepancy is in the permanence, the reasoning, and the consequences (see previous posts).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t about marriage as a right (at least, not the framework within which I’m arguing). Rather, it’s about discrimination based on sexual preference. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, these restrictions don’t bear the same permanence or consequences that bans on homosexual union does. It’s fallacious to liken them to one another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regional variations aside, handgun restrictions apply either universally or specifically to individuals who made choices to abuse them. Again, not the same thing as discriminating based on sexual preference, unless you’d like to argue that homosexuals somehow “abused” their sexuality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, it’s not a “monopoly.” Secondly, again, the reasoning is that such measures protect public safety. Thirdly, who else is to prescribe such measures for general prosperity if not the accepted legal structure? This is not the same thing as discriminatory statutes against individuals with certain sexual preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one goes around seeking government approval. No one gets married simply for the slip of paper. It’s about the benefits marriage confers, benefits which are denied to individuals based on the arbitrary standard of sexuality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, don’t twist my logic fallaciously. The discrimination against homosexuality is de jure and explicit. The so-called “discrimination” against the poor, if there is any, is a manifestation of safety laws. There’s no legislation denying the poor the right to drive based solely on their economic status, but there is legislation denying homosexuals unions based solely on their sexual preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think marriage of any sort (straight or gay) is a constitutional right, but that’s beside the point. Homosexuals are still denied the same benefits as are heterosexual couples based on sexual preference, amounting to nothing less than discrimination. When people say they’re denied “rights,” I imagine they use “rights” liberally, referring not to some specific enumerated right, but rather rights retained by individuals and rights to the same benefits as other members of society. To that end, the second half of your paragraph contradicts the first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, that poll was taken over 6 years ago. Secondly, the issue is much deeper than simply a “yes” or “no” answer to same sex marriage. I would hazard that an overwhelming majority would qualify their answer with something like “yes, but” or “no, only if.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the point I’m making. I could provide you with polls, but I can’t weed out the inherent bias, nor can I fully represent the true stances of individuals who took the polls. The issue is far too complex to gauge with simple “yes” or “no” answers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is all relative. The youth is MORE likely to support same-sex marriage than the generations prior. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weren’t you also the one who argued that they should be happy that they could at least exercise the right to vote, the right to protest, and the right to litigation? Why take the contrarian stance when they actually exercise such rights?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course individuals want the legal structure to recognize their union for the sake of the financial and political benefits. And of course individuals are going to complain when they’re unjustly denied such benefits based on arbitrary standards. To limit union to “one man and one woman” is tantamount to denying homosexuals the right to such unions based on their sexuality. If they aren’t heterosexual, they’re explicitly denied marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we were to argue on moral grounds, the stance against homosexuality is even more shaky. Firstly, we’d have to define what constitutes “moral.” What our religion prescribes? America is founded on the principle of separation of church and state, and, as such, to say that religions condemn homosexuality is to have no bearing on the political issue. What’s “natural”? As it’s already been discussed, species throughout the animal kingdom have demonstrated homosexual tendencies. Homoeroticism dates back to insects, fish, monkeys, and apes. Is it a large subset of the population? No, but it’s still “natural” nonetheless. And safe? There’s nothing about homosexuality that explicitly makes it dangerous. I’m reluctant to believe your claim in the first place, but, even if it were true, it’s not homosexuality that’s shortening their lifespans. Genes that contribute to higher probabilities of exhibiting homosexual tendencies may also contribute to higher probabilities of contracting other illnesses. Homosexuality itself has nothing to do with lifespan. You could make the same argument about left-handed individuals. South paws have been statistically shown to live shorter lives than right-handed individuals. It’s not like left-handedness explicitly shortens one’s lifespan, nor is it “unnatural.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On what grounds are we asserting that it’s “abnormal?” Surely not religious, as few people would call atheists “abnormal.” Surely not biological, as species throughout history have exhibited homosexual tendencies. In fact, Kinsley showed that no one is 100% heterosexual, nor is anyone 100% homosexual. Individuals consider both sexual preferences cognitively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t confuse “affecting others” with “public safety.” Just because something affects others doesn’t mean it’s for the sake of public safety. And what’s more, if we’re to deny homosexuality on the grounds that people oppose legislated morality, we’d be forced to revise many of our laws protecting individual liberties. Allowing women the right to vote and allowing a black man the same opportunities as a white man are statements of morality enforcing the idea of equality. However, there are individuals who believe that women are subservient to men and that black men should not receive the same rights as a white man. Are we to revise our laws simply because we don’t want to enforce our idea of morality on these people? Of course not. Almost all laws prescribe morality in some form or fashion, explicitly or implicitly.</p>
<p>That said, the idea of denying homosexuals the same benefits as heterosexuals may seem morally sound to others, but it contradicts the ideal of anti-discrimination based on arbitrary standards.</p>
<p>Christianity isn’t the only religion that believes in God! It could be for Hindus or Muslims alike.</p>
<p>That section of the pledge doesn’t bother me at all and I think people who are even still bringing up the debate are complete drama queens! But to shut them up, it should be taken out of the pledge.</p>
<p>I love people like you. You go on and on about how gays shouldn’t complain about the government discriminating with respect to marriage, because the government has the power to do that when it comes to non-rights. </p>
<p>Then you whine that it’s “wrong” for an individual to call someone ignorant for “morally opposing” something that is uncontrollable and has NOTHING to do with morals. Are you kidding me?</p>
<p>You defend a majority from the slightest form of name calling (which, in this case, is totally appropriate - anyone opposed to homosexuality IS ignorant about sexuality) and then completely dismiss discrimination against a minority. You really expect us to believe you’re not biased?</p>
<p>I’m going to have to ask you to take your own advice and read the opinion based on that last sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, you should read the links that you post because the first one clearly states that your assertion of shortened lifespans is based upon faulty statistics. Second, even if you were to find incontrovertible evidence proving what you claim, those still aren’t legitimate ends for anti-gay marriage laws. Even if gay marriage faced a universal banishment in this country, would that stop homosexuals from contracting such diseases through sexual contact with a partner of the same sex and possibly shortening their lifespans? No, because people would continue to engage in such contact with one another, just without a contract of marriage. Therefore, banning homosexual marriage would not serve that intended end whatsoever since it would serve as no form of deterrence for the millions of people who engage in those acts. If the counter-assertion is that people would be more likely to become gay in a country in which gay marriage is recognized, then that just seems specious. </p>
<p>For that matter, we could very well stop black people from marrying with your logic, based on statistics which state that AIDS is more prevalent amongst African-Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m guessing the first sentence is supposed to say “isn’t” doing their job, or else this is an internally conflicted argument.</p>
<p>There are no studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. And if it is from birth, why are there so few case of it? Just because there are studies doesn’t make it so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well there we have it! Definitive proof! Since TheAscendancy hasn’t met anyone like this it isn’t possible! We can end all the discussions and scientific research!</p>
<p>My apologies if you took my whimsical point as incontrovertible anecdotal evidence. But that’s beside the point, really.</p>
<p>But let’s speak theoretically for a moment. Could you look at a fat, bald, middle-aged man and cognitively tell yourself you’re going to be attracted to him? Did you cognitively tell yourself you were going to be attracted some women but not others? Did you ever cognitively decide you would never find women attractive? Highly doubtful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t find this contradictory at all? You don’t want anecdotal evidence, yet you also deny scientific studies. Are you trying to deny evidence altogether? </p>
<p>Are there any studies proving it is? No. How can you assert that it’s a choice when you’ve nothing with which you can back up your claim.</p>
<p>On the other hand, studies that prove homosexuality ISN’T a choice DO exist. Are we going to dismiss that now? Just because there are studies doesn’t make it so? Then I don’t know what you look for when you want proof.</p>
<p>I don’t know how this turned into a debate about homosexuality but I’m going to say one more time what I believe.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you should believe what you believe. However, does permitting gays marriage affect what you do? You can try and tell people your beliefs but screaming and arguing with pro-gay marriage supporters is NOT going to change how they feel.</p>
Well that’s a self-defeating argument if I ever saw one.
And also, from the Mental Health America(also known as the National Mental Health Association) says
“Some people believe gay people are born gay, while others believe they choose to be gay. Most researchers believe sexual orientation is complex, and that biology plays an important role. This means that many people are born with their sexual orientation, or that it’s established at an early age.”
[Mental</a> Health America: Questions and Answers](<a href=“http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=DE495F3B-1372-4D20-C80A80760D330B9C]Mental”>http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=DE495F3B-1372-4D20-C80A80760D330B9C)</p>
<p>I still have yet to ever hear a sound argument against gay marriage, even after reading the (poorly formatted) previous pages.</p>
<p>Don’t read my posts in any way other than they are written. I write what I mean. If I had thought they were equivalent I would have said so. Please don’t infer anything. You will simply be incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was never an argument that I made. I simply stated that laws are moral judgments (except inane things like zoning). People in general who support laws therefore support enforcing certain moral judgments on others. Your idea of a liberty is totally arbitrary because it relies on certain basic assumptions that are also totally arbitrary, although I believe in natural law, so…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they are not. They are attempts to enforce an arbitrary idea of equality. Do you see the bigger issue here? Furthermore, those laws rely on the institution of voting and “opportunities” to be intrinsically available to everyone. If one denied that assumption, then obviously the laws would be ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you on the last point. The first sentence is changed to better reflect the issue here – there are some people who disagree with the Constitution or what it entails on a fundamental basis. I for one rather we discarded the entire document and institutionalized religion. I view these outcomes as moral goods because the Constitution or what has been done as a result do not reflect my moral beliefs, and my idea of fundamental liberties is not reflected in those documents.</p>
<p>Therefore, yes, there are some arguments that we should change our laws for, or so I believe. You believe otherwise. Hence the political process. But laws are arbitrary because the reasoning underlying them is at some point arbitrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ideal of anti-discrimination is also arbitrary, as is your definition.</p>
<p>If you want to argue about the nature of morality, then, yes, all morality is arbitrary. Intuitive morality, rational morality, religious morality, politically implemented morality. There’s no reason one subset is more valid than the other. We’re epistemologically constrained in our attempts to make fundamental metaphysical assertions that might lend credence to certain moral tenets. However, should we fail to form any fundamental moral premise, we’d be thrown into existential nihilism. </p>
<p>As such, we’ve agreed upon certain ideals, admittedly arbitrarily, which we seek to uphold. Our notions of normative ethics naturally follow from the premise we’ve built. It’s true, from a cosmic perspective, it doesn’t matter if I kill a man on a whim, but from a philosophically pragmatic viewpoint, meaningless murder fails the test of universality and utility within the human context. As such, we’ve formulated such premises as the right to life and the right to protection from meaningless death. </p>
<p>And among such premises is the idea of equality and non-discrimination. Yes, like all morality, such ideals are ultimately arbitrary, but to deny them, as in the case of denying homosexuals the same benefits of heterosexuals, is to contradict the fundamental moral tenets upon which we base our society.</p>
<p>On what grounds are we asserting that it’s “abnormal?” Surely not religious, as few people would call atheists “abnormal.” Surely not biological, as species throughout history have exhibited homosexual tendencies. In fact, Kinsley showed that no one is 100% heterosexual, nor is anyone 100% homosexual. Individuals consider both sexual preferences cognitively.</p>
<p>Homosexuality is hardly typical. I would say off the top of my head less than 10% of people are gay. Statistics suggest less than 2% of Americans consider themselves gay.
[Composite</a> U.S. Demographics](<a href=“http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html]Composite”>http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html)
If it’s not common, it’s abnormal. I don’t really know how you can make an argument that homosexuality is normal, espcially since reproduction is the result of heterosexuality. I don’t think calling homosexuality normal- in terms that it is a typical occurance, is not a valid argument. </p>
<p>“Individuals consider both sexual preferences cognitively.”</p>
<p>Does that mean sexuality is a choice? </p>
<p>east89</p>
<p>“I’m going to have to ask you to take your own advice and read the opinion based on that last sentence.”</p>
<p>Read Choper’s book on constitutional law- it explains how Brown did not formally overturn Plessy. You can buy the last edition for $5. We spent a week discussing this in con law. The case said they were not equal. </p>
<p>“First, you should read the links that you post because the first one clearly states that your assertion of shortened lifespans is based upon faulty statistics. Second, even if you were to find incontrovertible evidence proving what you claim, those still aren’t legitimate ends for anti-gay marriage laws. Even if gay marriage faced a universal banishment in this country, would that stop homosexuals from contracting such diseases through sexual contact with a partner of the same sex and possibly shortening their lifespans? No, because people would continue to engage in such contact with one another, just without a contract of marriage. Therefore, banning homosexual marriage would not serve that intended end whatsoever since it would serve as no form of deterrence for the millions of people who engage in those acts. If the counter-assertion is that people would be more likely to become gay in a country in which gay marriage is recognized, then that just seems specious.”</p>
<p>1) I was outlining what argument could be made for a legitimate ends. Did I ever say I believed it was legitamte? Please point out if I said such. Someone asked what legitmate ends or public safety concerns related to gay marriage bans, I cited examples. Please show me where I said I support these arguments. Oh wait, I didn’t. You just assumed </p>
<p>That’s just one example of an increased rate of an STD among gays. And I would imagine this almost exclusively applies to gay men, since it is extremely difficult for women to transmit the disease among eachother, for obvious reasons. So if you assume half of all gays are men, that means 1% of the gay population contributes to 12% of the HIV population. Yes, I am sure lesbians have AIDS, but using common sense about sex I would imagine STDs are mostly a gay men problem. </p>
<p>"I’m guessing the first sentence is supposed to say “isn’t” doing their job, or else this is an internally conflicted argument. "</p>
<p>Supposed to be followed by a question mark. No real need to comment on that if you understood the comment. </p>
<p>Don’t go pretending I am supporting something I never said I was.</p>
<p>Exactly. Nihilism is absurd. But everything else is the assertion of one moral system over another. Thus your argument boils down to the same argument of those who disagree with you – my worldview should be enforced, whereas yours should not. This can come at a political level, such as the existence of democracy, or issue level, such as gay marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hardly. </p>
<p>1) One of the issues here is what our moral tenets should be. A society’s tolerance of certain behavior changes over time. What is therefore in discussion here is, in one way, what our societal values should be. One can look to the past, but one has the choice whether to continue the standard that was established.</p>
<p>2) Also under scrutiny is what constitutes those ideals. Does right to life begin at conception, which some consider the beginning of life, or not? Does right not to die meaninglessly include being euthanized without permission? What about with permission? Suicide? What does discrimination entail? Does it imply any difference, or simply one based on hate or prejudice? Many who oppose gay marriage believe that they are discriminating in the technical sense (i.e., some people “can’t do something”) but certainly not in the moral sense.</p>
<p>1.) Yes, homosexuals are free to live together, bed together, love together, and et cetera. Arguing that these “should be enough” is saying that equality is unnecessary, and that they should be happy for the scraps that they receive. Marriage is not an intrinsic right guaranteed by the US constitution, but equality is. Heterosexual people engaged in a lifelong bond are guaranteed certain rewards in the eyes of the law. Homosexual people engaged in a lifelong bond are not given these same rewards. It’s that simple.</p>
<p>2.) Arguing that there’s no breach of equality because everyone has the option to marry someone of the opposite gender is absurd, and could be equated to arguing that religious freedom means everyone who wants access to practice Islam is welcome to it, but other religions are off limits. In short, freedom doesn’t mean the allowance of one option “for everyone.”</p>
<p>3.) Marriage is a religious institution; I’m sure that some will disagree, but I’ll grant you that proposition. If the catholic church feels that same sex unions aren’t legitimate, they’re free to that belief. The sword cuts both ways though. If an established and verified religion (such as the Episcopal Church, or Reform Judaism) states that they support same-sex marriage, they’re welcome to THAT belief. The government does not have the right to deny one group’s religious liberties in this regard, and is in violation of the first amendment in this case. To stave off an argument in advance, allowing same sex marriage does not provide the reverse corollary to the religions that do not recognize same sex marriage; they cannot be legally obligated to perform them, and therein their rights are not impinged.</p>
<p>4.) Homosexuality has a biological root, and when I read some of these arguments against it in my head, I picture the poster wearing a helmet and chewing on their tongue as they speak.<br>
4a.) Just because something is an overwhelming minority does not mean that it isn’t naturally occurring. The homosexual:heterosexual ratio is greater than all of the following:
Redheads:Dark Hair
Ovum:Sperm
Uranium:Hydrogen
Prime Numbers:Composite Numbers
Luminous matter (anything, anywhere, at any time that you can see):everything else. </p>
<p>TLDR: minority argument is bunk.
4b.) Ultimately, we will probably never prove to the point of 100% certainty that homosexuality has a biological origin. That’s how all of science is though. We don’t know with absolute certainty that the Earth orbits the sun; all signs so far point to yes, and we’re pretty damn sure that that’s the case, but we ultimately can’t be 100%. Science is about finding correlations, and providing evidence for or against the causative effect of the involved propositions.<br>
At this point, there’s plenty of evidence that there is some biological cause to homosexuality. There are OBSERVABLE physical differences in the brain, observably different chemical interactions, observable correlations with in utero environment…the evidence is there. At this time we can’t change the environment prebirth to “make” someone develop with a predetermined sexual orientation, and I’m comfortable saying that I doubt we ever will. The formula might even be there, but our standards of scientific research regarding living subjects (especially humans) are just far too strict. That said, the fact that we can’t replicate something in a lab at this specific moment in history is irrelevant to the discourse. We can’t (yet!) create dark energy, regrow limbs, or cure many diseases, but this doesn’t mean it cannot be done.</p>
<p>4c.) I’ll be brief with this one, but arguments that the occurrences of homosexuality in animals are irrelevant because we aren’t animals is criminally idiotic. We’re animals. Yeah, it hurts your pride. Deal with it.</p>
<p>So are we to deem something abnormal just because it’s not in the majority? And are we to deny these so-called “abnormal” people the same benefits that the majority of other people enjoy? People over 7 feet tall are in the small minority, but do we deny NBA players their rights because they’re “abnormal”? </p>
<p>And regarding reproduction: does that make condom use “abnormal”? Or the morning after pill? How about pulling out? Clearly, individuals don’t engage in sexual behavior simply to reproduce.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s not to say it’s a choice. Assuming you’re female, have you ever found a woman attractive? Maybe not enough to arouse sexual desires, but attractive nonetheless. As a guy, I find some men attractive and others not. No, I don’t find them attractive enough to be sexually attracted to them, but the point stands. I’m not 100% heterosexual, nor is anyone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I won’t even address the biases of the statistcs. However, I’m sure you understand that any form of sex can result in STD’s. The phenomenon isn’t strictly applicable to homosexuality. And that’s not to say homosexuality causes these STD’s either. AIDS is more prevalent among African Americans, but being African American doesn’t cause an individual to contract AIDS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we attempt to assert some moral subsets over others, but should we appeal to ethical relativism, there would be no debate at all. We’d be relegated to perennial indecision due to individual disagreements over the validity of certain moral tenets.</p>
<p>However, the social contract of society is premised around certain ideals with which its members agree. Yes, these ideals are arbitrary, but the matter of importance is that they’re accepted by the constituents of society. So, to that end, yes, you can disagree with the moral premise of our social contract. You can even leave it if you find it completely irreconcilable. But the fact of the matter is that these premises remain in the social contract and the ethical judgments made afterwards of society will refer to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re arguing about the fundamental moral premise of our society. To change that, the constituents of society would need to agree to alter the conditions upon which they enter said contract, which is another can of worm altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are the ethical considerations that naturally follow our fundamental premise. But the controversies don’t change our premise. In fact, I’d argue that they implicitly acknowledge the existence of a fundamental, though admittedly vague ideal: that there is a right to life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The nature of discrimination is a large topic in itself. However, in terms of same-sex unions, we’re speaking of political discrimination, as in denying the same benefits to individuals of different sexual preferences.</p>
<p>Now for the original topic, under god in the pledge. Personally I don’t support the pledge at all; compulsory allegiance to our country undermines the very values on which it was founded. I find it loathsome and appalling that schoolchildren are led, daily, from such a young age that they don’t understand their recitation, to pledge fealty to a nation whose bedrock ideal is that the individual is free to form his (or her) own opinions, without fear of an authoritarian regime quashing them for their beliefs. I don’t pledge unwaivering allegiance to my country; I will not amend my beliefs and morals to that of my nation under the guise of nationalism. </p>
<p>In times such as these, this ideal matters more than ever. We must NOT support our country if it resorts to actions that we find appalling. We mustn’t stand for our country, regardless of its actions. We should stand for our own morals and beliefs, and support efforts to further these ideals; teaching children to blindly support a country through nationalism does nothing but encourage complacency. </p>
<p>Under god, as many others have stated, was not part of the original pledge. Originally written in 1892, it read:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
In 1954, president Eisenhower added the token “under god” bit. For those of you arguing that it’s innocuous sentimentalism without ties to religion, I respond with the president’s quote on his addition:
"“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”
The official 1954 House report had this to say, in regard to the intent of the “under god” addition:
“acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator.”
The intent of the addition was religious, and quite clearly supports monotheism. Endorsement of the pledge impinges on the religious freedoms of Polytheistic Americans, and it impinges on the rights of the nonreligious to their freedom from religion. Religion belongs in the individual’s private life, and endorsement (let alone compulsion) of the pledge in public schools is clearly a violation of the first amendment.</p>
<p>That’s why I would never embrace relativism of any kind; that is to say, I am certainly a moral absolutist. Yet at the same time I recognize the nature of my beliefs and those of others. If we lose sight of that, then the discussion can’t progress because people are operating under different basic assumptions that provide disagreeing but internally consistent frameworks. That is certainly an unproductive debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They only remain in the social contract so long as they are allowed to. If a fringe group took over the country and assumed control, the social contract would be completely rewritten. The point is that the social contract is open to change, even if it says that it cannot be – a Constitution with no provisions for amendments, for example. Of course, this is only relevant insofar as one places importance on the fact that members of society agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The Constitution is very vague in most moral issues, and clearly we are not literalists – gun restrictions? limitations on free speech? etc. So one can claim something that you find unconstitutional yet still find such a basis. On the other hand, there are those who disagree with the Constitution entirely. To them, the only constituents that matter are their ideological allies. And honestly, I understand that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The considerations define the fundamental premise. They do not necessarily affirm it. Any discussion in favor of euthanasia, for example, is a total rejection of the right to life, or puts limitations on it, in which case it’s not an ideal at all. I cannot claim that freedom of speech as an ideal is supported by putting restrictions on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which only matters to those who consider political discrimination a concept worth considering at all.</p>