Pledge Of Allegiance: "One Nation, Under God"

[TheAscendancy]

<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>I think you’re confusing the social contract with written legal statutes. The social contract is determined solely by the constituents of society. If a fringe group staged a coup d’etat, they would rewrite our legal codes and our constitution, but it wouldn’t change the ideals in the social contract with which the members of society agree. As such, they could write laws denying political liberties to anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes, but the ideal within the social contract upholds political equality and non-discrimination. Naturally, revolution follows.</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>Not the stances themselves, but the controversy surrounding the stances. If there weren’t an implicit (well, actually, explicit) right to life, euthanasia wouldn’t even be in question. The fact that the debate exists implicitly acknowledges the existence of a fundamental ideal, and the contrarian stances are an attempt to qualify said ideal.</p>

<p>

Which only matters to those who consider political discrimination a concept worth considering at all.

</p>

<p>Political equality is an ideal in the social contract, which means it matters to the people who agree to said contract.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

I think you’re confusing the social contract with written legal statutes. The social contract is determined solely by the constituents of society. If a fringe group staged a coup d’etat, they would rewrite our legal codes and our constitution, but it wouldn’t change the ideals in the social contract with which the members of society agree. As such, they could write laws denying political liberties to anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes, but the ideal within the social contract upholds political equality and non-discrimination. Naturally, revolution follows.

</p>

<p>Not at all. I’m arguing that the relevance of the social contract for practical purposes is its presence in the legal code. If it is successfully suppressed, it is irrelevant. All that matters is action.</p>

<p>

Not the stances themselves, but the controversy surrounding the stances. If there weren’t an implicit (well, actually, explicit) right to life, euthanasia wouldn’t even be in question. The fact that the debate exists implicitly acknowledges the existence of a fundamental ideal, and the contrarian stances are an attempt to qualify said ideal.

</p>

<p>No, because the right to life is what is being discussed. The question here is whether the right to life is an ideal at all, and, if so, what restrictions there are. This is particularly true in the realm of euthanasia, which by definition is against the right to life. So although some issues are qualifications of the ideal, any discussion about the ideal does not necessarily presuppose that it is correct.</p>

<p>For example, in the case of gay marriage, “discrimination” is not the ideal being discussed; discrimination based on sexual orientation is. The reasoning behind opposing gay marriage is frequently so complex that it doesn’t even qualify as a discussion about discrimination in general, but rather how “discrimination” relates to a particular concept or group. Taken in that context, discrimination based on s.o. is actually in question, not discrimination as a whole, taken as a given and being qualified.</p>

<p>

Political equality is an ideal in the social contract, which means it matters to the people who agree to said contract.

</p>

<p>But not to those who simply reject it. And where is this concrete social contract, out of curiosity?</p>

[Rtgrove123]

<p>I haven’t read any of this debate. However, to answer the initial question, I have zero issue with the words of the declaration of independence. Then again, I’d also love to see as state-run Christian church in the USA.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

Not at all. I’m arguing that the relevance of the social contract for practical purposes is its presence in the legal code. If it is successfully suppressed, it is irrelevant. All that matters is action.

</p>

<p>If it were suppressed, popular revolution would follow. You can’t suppress the ideals in the social contract.</p>

<p>

No, because the right to life is what is being discussed. The question here is whether the right to life is an ideal at all, and, if so, what restrictions there are. This is particularly true in the realm of euthanasia, which by definition is against the right to life. So although some issues are qualifications of the ideal, any discussion about the ideal does not necessarily presuppose that it is correct.

</p>

<p>If the debate were about whether the right to life is a fundamental moral premise, it wouldn’t be about euthanasia. It’d be a matter of whether an individual could kill another person on whim. However, that’s not the case. Euthanasia is just another qualification on the right to life. No one is arguing that any person can be killed without reason, but rather that it may be more humane to end the life of those with terminal illnesses and whatnot.</p>

<p>

For example, in the case of gay marriage, “discrimination” is not the ideal being discussed; discrimination based on sexual orientation is. The reasoning behind opposing gay marriage is frequently so complex that it doesn’t even qualify as a discussion about discrimination in general, but rather how “discrimination” relates to a particular concept or group. Taken in that context, discrimination based on s.o. is actually in question, not discrimination as a whole, taken as a given and being qualified.

</p>

<p>Again, non-discrimination is a fundamental ideal within the social contract. The issue of same-sex union is another qualification (though I argue there should be no abridgment based on sexuality). We aren’t arguing about whether discrimination should be morally valid, but rather where anti-discrimination starts and stops.</p>

<p>After all, we MUST have SOME fundamental premise from which we can argue, otherwise debates wouldn’t center around (relatively speaking) pesky issues like same-sex union or euthanasia – they’d center around whether we believe the right to life or non-discrimination are valid ideals. However, we’ve naturally accepted the premise of non-discrimination, and we’re arguing within the framework in this specific discussion regarding homosexuality and whether non-discrimination applies to this situation.</p>

[Itachirumon]

<p>@RtGrove</p>

<p>Um…We’re talking about the Pledge, not the Declaration, more recently we’re talking about gay rights. Of course when you say you’d like to see a state-run Christian church in the US… I suppose we can assume where you stand on that issue… and the issue of seperation of church and state…</p>

<p>Since I got off the topic a bit too I didn’t care back in 9th grade about it and thought it was only Athiests who cared… of course in the 9th grade with the exception of Trapt, I only listened to Country music and didn’t get involved in politics. I guess you know that changed pretty quick. I think ANY religious influence in government becomes dangerous, look at the Texas Board of Education fiasco, that’s disgusting, that kind of revisionism is absolutely nauseating and should be illegal.</p>

[Rtgrove123]

<p>^^^
Haha sry I meant to type pledge…but I was tired and accidently wrote declaration…my bad. Also, I am totally in favor of gay marriage. However, that has to be one of the only issues I am liberal on.</p>

[Itachirumon]

<p>^That’s… actually surprising if you want state-run/sponsored religion, I’m quite impressed.</p>

[quomodo]

<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>It’s my belief that supporting our country doesn’t equate to supporting its ACTIONS. Just because I’m patriotic doesn’t mean I agree with everything the US has done and is doing.
I’m fine to pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic. Allegiance, to me, doesn’t mean unwavering agreement–it means adhering to the principles upon which our nation was founded. And doing my best to ensure our country also adheres to those principles. I’m not sure if this entirely makes sense to you–I’m not writing this in an attempt to prove your opinion wrong, but just laying out my own beliefs and showing how they’re different from yours.</p>

<p>But I do take issue with the “under god” part. Sure, there are more pressing issues right now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss a slightly less important but still significant topic. I don’t really have a big problem with saying it, because I know I don’t believe it anyway–saying some words, which to me are empty, doesn’t make them true. However, I do believe it ought to be removed. Separation of church and state necessitates removal. If someone wants to pray to god to protect the US, or whatever, then he it’s perfectly acceptable for him to do that. But kids shouldn’t be MADE to say this in school. It borders on religious brainwashing.</p>

[east89]

<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>The problem there was the insertion of the word “upheld”, meaning to defend or support, to raise, etc. My purpose in making that comment wasn’t to act as if the case had obliterated the doctrine of separate but equal. That would be a dumb statement on my behalf, since the case only pertained to education and only said that the principle was unequal, and thus unconstitutional, in such a setting. Had it universally destroyed separate but equal, there would be no need for the subsequent court cases which dealt with segregation in public facilities, such as Heart of Atlanta v. US, or the case against the Wilmington Parking Authority, so it would be wrong for me to act as though that was the last defining case. </p>

<p>I mostly had a problem with the word choice in your statement, since I believed it was inaccurate to claim that the case “upheld” the principle, even though it overturned separate but equal in one facet of life, while not commenting on others outside of that matter. I believe it would be more appropriate to say that the case was the first major blow to the idea of separate but equal, although it did not demean the practice in respects to all aspects of life. The word “upheld” just doesn’t seem to fit at all.</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>At what point did I ever say that you supported those “legitimate” ends or believed them to be true? Please show me where I said that you supported that. Oh wait, I didn’t. You just assumed. </p>

<p>My purpose of responding was to show that these ends were not at all legitimate because such a ban could not properly achieve those ends. It was never my intent to show that whatever you believe–although I don’t know or care what you do believe–is false; the point of the post was to show why such reasoning was not legitimate reasoning on the side of anti-gay marriage. If I wanted to say that you were wrong for believing that, I would have said it, but I never assumed your beliefs. You presented possible rationale behind an opinion and I proceeded to poke holes in that logic. That still doesn’t denote me thinking that you believe those claims to be true.</p>

<p>Just as when one plays the devil’s advocate in a discussion, refuting what that person has previously asserted does not mean that the dissenting party is stating that the advocate necessarily believes in the ideas which he/she has stated. It’s just an attempt to demonstrate why certain logic does not work.</p>

<p>Posting more links doesn’t really help the cause of arguing for that rationale, for the reasons stated in my other post, and still doesn’t change the fact that the first link from before still provides contrary evidence (I’m not questioning the validity of the new sources, just stating that you should have read the other source first before posting it). You can post links until you’re blue in the face, and it won’t change the fact that the ends which you stated won’t be achieved by banning gay marriage. And no, I’m not saying that you believe gay marriage should be banned because of those reasons.</p>

<p>You said they could be possible legitimate ends, and I stated that they weren’t. That doesn’t mean that I said “Tiff90 clearly believes this to be true”, and such a conclusion is an improper inference. </p>

<p>

Supposed to be followed by a question mark. No real need to comment on that if you understood the comment.

</p>

<p>I questioned that for clarity. Other vital rights, such as education, were also left out of the constitution, yet still determined to be a right of all American children at a later date.</p>

<p>

Don’t go pretending I am supporting something I never said I was.

</p>

<p>I never did. Don’t go pretending I said things that I never did.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<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>And your point?</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>There are studies saying homosexuality is from birth and studies saying it isn’t. Since there is no definitive agreement, I feel it is a choice. What have you got to back up your claim it isn’t a choice?</p>

[Itachirumon]

<p>^You “feel” well, luckily, science isn’t about your feelings. It’s not a choice and the only “studies” that say it are come from horribly biased sources.</p>

<p>But let’s have some fun here real fast – let’s say it IS a choice. What’s wrong with that? Religion is a choice and yet it’s protected by the Constitution because it’s something so close to people’s hearts that it would violate their basic humanity to deny them the choice of their religion. It would cause them irrepairable harm. You know what else causes irrepairable harm? Reparative Therapy! The disturbing practice they use to try to “cure” gays. Not only does it NOT work but in the BEST situation it only causes psychological damage (worst case, they just kill themselves, you know, no big deal). The few people who claim to be “cured” are either 1) Just repressing the feelings, 2) Were bisexual and just leaned more to heterosexuality or 3) Were never gay to begin with. My point is being gay isn’t a choice and even if it WERE it should be protected in the same way religion is, using the same argument. </p>

<p>You want MORE to back it up? In my Physio Psych and Psych of Women class, 3rd Unit gave us a little document from SCIAM:</p>

<p>Study Says Brains of Gay Men and Women Are Similar
Brain scans provide evidence that sexual orientation is biological
By Nikhil Swaminathan </p>

<p>It’s from June 16th, 2008 google Scientific American, read the article (it’s not long, just a few paragraphs, a page at most) and there’s my support.</p>

[panther124]

<p>BalconyBoy, you can’t ignore that your last post was completely ridiculous. The poster’s first point was clear. He wants to know, if you don’t actively choose to find certain women hot, why you think gay people choose who they find attractive. </p>

<p>By saying homosexuality is a choice, are you implying that gays are ignoring their “true” sexual attraction to women and are just sleeping with men to break the mold? If this is what you think (which is the only thing that would explain your reaction to the poster’s questions), then please tell us why someone would ignore real sexual attractions to sleep with someone they don’t find attractive, all the while facing discrimination in social situations and government situations. </p>

<p>And you’re going to say that you believe homosexuality is a choice because there are studies that say it is biological, and studies that say it is not definitively biological? That’s not a reason, that’s like claiming Eeny-Meeny-Miny-Mo! You want a reason some of us believe being gay isn’t a choice? Here’s my reason: I am gay, and when I was in middle school and parts of high school I actively tried to be straight and ignore reality. Needless to say, it didn’t work. Luckily I realized I was ok, and it’s dicks like you that can and should change. If you want to dismiss that as simply anecdotal, go ahead. Honestly, you have no right to dismiss anyone’s reasons for their beliefs after you’ve just told us yours.</p>

[justadream92]

<p>I could honestly care less, even though I’m Christian.
Even if it said under Buddha or Muhammad, it doesn’t mean that it applies to every individual’s life in this country. When ever did every single word from the national government ever apply to absolutely every individual? I think this debate is nonsense and there are other reasons why people should get hot and fired up about.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

If it were suppressed, popular revolution would follow. You can’t suppress the ideals in the social contract.

</p>

<p>Wrong – an attempted popular revolution would follow. This is assuming a society with no demographic changes as well. </p>

<p>

If the debate were about whether the right to life is a fundamental moral premise, it wouldn’t be about euthanasia. It’d be a matter of whether an individual could kill another person on whim. However, that’s not the case. Euthanasia is just another qualification on the right to life. No one is arguing that any person can be killed without reason, but rather that it may be more humane to end the life of those with terminal illnesses and whatnot.

</p>

<p>Hardly. Euthanasia is not a qualification on the right to life; it is questioning whether there is such a right at all. Euthanasia is taking the choice to live away from the individual; it is not PAS. In some countries it is practiced as a financial decision and/or as eugenics. It now extends far beyond terminal illness. It is literally a debate over whether someone has the right to decide to live. You cannot get more fundamental than that.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you are simply projecting your own belief system on everyone. You assume the right to life and qualify it. That does not mean everyone views it the same way. One could argue against the right to life except in the case of nonsensical murder, which would be a qualification. So your assumption of our right is an arbitrary one, as it could be viewed that one such qualification on the non-ideal of right to life is against senseless murder.</p>

<p>

Again, non-discrimination is a fundamental ideal within the social contract. The issue of same-sex union is another qualification (though I argue there should be no abridgment based on sexuality). We aren’t arguing about whether discrimination should be morally valid, but rather where anti-discrimination starts and stops.

</p>

<p>But the people who oppose gay marriage do not view it as a discrimination issue at all. Therefore the social contract and whatever ideal against discrimination there is within the population at large is only as relevant as people are willing to make it to this issue. So again, you are arrogantly asserting your own framework over everyone. This is not a discrimination issue simply because you say it is such. It is a particular case that in many people’s minds has no relevance to a larger ideal of non-discrimination. </p>

<p>

After all, we MUST have SOME fundamental premise from which we can argue, otherwise debates wouldn’t center around (relatively speaking) pesky issues like same-sex union or euthanasia – they’d center around whether we believe the right to life or non-discrimination are valid ideals. However, we’ve naturally accepted the premise of non-discrimination, and we’re arguing within the framework in this specific discussion regarding homosexuality and whether non-discrimination applies to this situation.

</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>For someone who wants to talk about social contracts and the will of the populace in terms of ideals, you are not doing a very good job.</p>

[tiff90]

<p>"This is all relative. The youth is MORE likely to support same-sex marriage than the generations prior. "</p>

<p>Proof?</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>Once again, a person claimed gays don’t have any rights. I am saying why would you put up your rights to a referendum? And then ***** when you loose? If something’s important to you, would you place it in the hands of the majority?</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>You’re missing the point. Gov can restrict rights. Period.</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>No. Read back a few posts. The discussion centers on whether it’s a natural right. If it’s not a right, discrimination won’t come into play. You need one for the other to happen. Also, gays need to be considered a suspect or quasi suspect class to receive special consideration by the courts, and SCOTUS has yet to do so.</p>

<p>E89
“Second, even if you were to find incontrovertible evidence proving what you claim, those still aren’t legitimate ends for anti-gay marriage laws.”
Notice you state PROVING WHAT I CLAIM. Sounds like you think it’s something I believe.</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>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? </p>

<p>Those two statements sound to me as if you think I am making an argument based on things I believe, when I said something along the lines is a possible argument would be x. </p>

<p>If that’s not what you meant, I don’t think you would have used the phrasing “you claim” and “your logic.” I guess I am just playing devils advocate, but answering someones question does not mean you support it.</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>Panther:</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>Can you please point out anything I said that “dismisses discrimination against a minority?” The discussion, once again, is whether marriage is a right. There are plenty of forms of marriage that are illegal. Not just gay marriage. Like I said, for the law to exclusively target gays, it would need to read “the fed gov will not recognize the union between same sex couples.” DOMA targets a group of marriages that are considered immoral. I believe people consider it is immoral because the bible says something along the lines of man shall not sleep beside a man. I would bet something similar is in the koran. I mean, why do we consider murder, theft, rape and other crimes immoral? Because people just think they are wrong. And religions have banned the practices for ages. Look at how many of the ten commandments are banned by law. Morality is a component of law, and it is determined by majority rules. Just looking at a very liberal state like CA, the majority opposed it. I don’t think they need to explain why they think it is immoral, they just think it is. Probably because it’s not typical. You’d have to ask those people why they think it’s immoral, not me.</p>

<p>How is being opposed to same sex marriage make a person ignorant? Because they don’t agree with you? People constantly play that card in politics, instead of supporting their claims. Are people who are opposed to any policy in which you support ignorant then? Ignorance is a person lack of information. It seems to me there hasn’t been a single, conclusive study defining why people are gay that is accepted as factual. And there isn’t a second one confirming its results. Until there is any fact regarding the topic, both sides are ignorant as to the causes of homosexuality. </p>

<p>Just off the top of my head, if homosexuality is a trait, would that mean its genetic? Because I don’t think when on family member is gay, another is also likely to be gay. </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.”
BENEFITS! EXACTLY what I’ve been arguing. Benefits ARE NOT RIGHTS! Is welfare wrong because it discriminates against people based on socio economic conditions- conditions that many say aren’t fully in a person control? Is min wage discriminatory because it forces minorities out of the work force? </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>Once again, BENEFITS, not rights. I don’t think everyone is ENTITLED to certain BENEFITS. Is being denied affirmative action because you’re white discriminatory? Not according to the courts. (Although it is a reverse racism/discrimination, discrimination is discrimination)</p>

<p>At least people are starting to admit (which is something I said posts ago) that gays aren’t fighting for a right, they are fighting for benefits. I wish some activists would be more open about this instead of playing the rights card. When there is no established right to marry. Buy hey, maybe the courts will create one. They love overruling two branches of gov to make things up that aren’t in the constitution and were never intended to be in it. In my opinion, DOMA could be overturned for violating the 10th amendment- the fed certainly is not granted the power to define marriage, meaning it should be left to the states. I can agree completely with that argument.</p>

[tiff90]

<p>I also don’t think this should be about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Morals are subjective, some people will die believing homosexuality is ok, others will die saying it’s wrong. Face it, throughout history homosexuality has been persecuted. Morals are also evolving, they change over time. Right now, I would say the US is split on whether it’s right or wrong. But, this issue shouldn’t be about right or wrong, because that issue will not have real influence in the SCOTUS. It will be about whether marriage is a right, and whether gays are a protected class. </p>

<p>Choice or no choice, some people are going to says it’s just wrong, other people will say it’s just a biological occurance. I mean there are arguments out there that criminal activity may be biological, but strangely people who oppose that view think homosexuality isn’t a choice. Even if a person is more likely to be a criminal, the act is still against a society’s morals. So even if homosexuality isn’t a choice, people are going to think it’s wrong. And they have a right to be morally opposed to something. They have a right to have an opinion and to fully excersise their right to influence the system. Just like people are allowed to be morally opposed to euthansia or the death penalty. Both sides are morally opposed to some issues, so attacking someone for making a moral argument is wrong, because I would argue we all have views that are only supported by our percieved morals.</p>

<p>The whole death penalty argument is completely a moral one, to cite one example. Policies are shaped by morals, so of course people are going to say things are or aren’t moral. Calling something a moral argument does not mean it’s a legitmate one.</p>

[r0kAng3l]

<p>^^I don’t read posts that are the size of novels.</p>

<p>And I think “Under God” should not be in there. It’s worthless and many people do not even believe in God. What does God have to do with our Constitution?</p>

[elaslawek]

<p>Balconyboy has to be one of the most myopic posters I’ve seen on this board.</p>

[tiff90]

<p>^
Especially since half of it is quotes I am replying to…
Why do you feel the need to say you don’t read posts the size of novels? Does that make you feel better about your laziness?
I find it funny that college kids who read (like myself) 500-1000 pages a week can’t take 5 minutes to read something, and then find the need to make a **<strong><em>y comment about something they choose not to read. What did you achieve with that comment, exactly? Did it make you feel better about yourself?
It was completely useless considering you are not even discussing that topic. Grow up.
If it’s too difficult to read a 5 minute post, you should probably drop out of college. Or just act a little more mature and not make *</em></strong>*y comments because someone actually wants to explain something.</p>

[panther124]

<p>tiff, you ask why people are ignorant for being morally opposed to gay marriage. What if I told you I was morally opposed to black people, or morally opposed to the Chinese? Would it not be ignorant to make a statement like that?</p>

<p>If someone has no control over something, and if that something nowhere near defines that person, it is ignorant to say you are opposed to it. Ignorance means you do not understand something about a subject. If you are morally opposed to homosexuality, then you clearly do not understand it. Because everything you say about homosexuality not proven to be biological we can say about heterosexuality as well. But as a gay person I am not going around claiming that straight people are simply choosing to be with the opposite sex, and that they need to be fixed. The only reason certain straight people do that to gays must be ignorance.</p>

<p>By the way, I don’t get my morals from the bible. I know it’s wrong to kill someone because it means I am harmfully intervening in someone’s life. My being gay doesn’t hurt anybody else, so I see no reason why morals should be involved at all. The bible in itself is not a reason for anything.</p>

<p>

Why do you feel the need to say you don’t read posts the size of novels? Does that make you feel better about your laziness?
I find it funny that college kids who read (like myself) 500-1000 pages a week can’t take 5 minutes to read something, and then find the need to make a *****y comment about something they choose not to read. What did you achieve with that comment, exactly? Did it make you feel better about yourself?

</p>

<p>Ok, wow. Starting to realize that you are just a really miserable person.</p>