And if he had his way, you wouldn't be allowed to vote. Name me a nation that doesn't have a fucked up history.
If I had my way, many women wouldn't be allowed to vote. (The ones who voted for Clinton because they thought he was hot.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) America was founded by white Christian guys. They would weep if they saw what has happened.
The crucial difference is that he wants to change laws that discriminate for no good reason, where you want to maintain them. Those who fought against the civil rights movement in the 1960s had this in common with you. Since you don't believe women should be allowed to vote, it seems likely you were against the Voting Rights Act as well. He is for freedom, you are against it.
Benjamin Franklin was a Deist. Also, yes. Barons "ideal society" is based on oppression. The one with gay marriage is based on freedom.
Many of the founders had non-standard views on Chrostianity, and even those who were nominally Christian didn't want it intruding into politics or the law. —Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul) —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 —Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 —James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785 Another gem from Madison: —James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774 Even Washington, who was more genuinely Christian, opposed the appointment of a corps of chaplains for the Continental Army, writing: —George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress (1777) And, lastly, Franklin penned the aphorism: —Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758) Many of the founders were indeed Christian...but they were definitely *neither* fundamentalist Christians nor biblical literalists. Fundamentalism is a product of the 19th and early-20th centuries, and literalism was not a major movement amongst intellectuals.
Well, those dirty old men have a good reason for wanting to change the age of consent laws, too. I'm also for maintaining those laws. Speed freaks want to change the speeding laws for a good reason, too. I'm also against changing those laws. Druggies want to change the drug laws for a good reason, too. I'm also against changing those laws. There are many special-interest groups who want laws changed for their own purposes and they think they have good reasons. I'm against changing laws unless it's with the consent of the people. Pedophiles and murderers and robbers and rapists are for more freedom, too, but you don't advocate giving it to 'em, do you? Terrorists want a little more freedom to enter the country, but you don't want to give them that, do you? People shouldn't always get what they want or think they want. Few people in the world can actually handle very much freedom, and to give it to them is courting disaster. Just because gays want to marry, is that any good reason to give it to them? And after them, who else might want some special consideration? Do we give that to them, too? Baron Max
Some people think that it will harm them and their society. Are you going to disagree with "the people"? Baron Max
Yes there are many such laws, and almost all of them are ridiculous. These are not behaviors that harm others; they are behaviors that others simply don't like. And to repeat, you don't have a right to stop other people from doing something simply on the basis that you don't like it. And I'm not talking about legal rights, I'm talking about natural rights, which are all too often violated by silly laws. It should be apparent from everything I've said that I believe individual freedom comes first, and society second. You and many others obviously believe otherwise -- that we should be more like the social insects, with each member single-mindedly (and unmindingly) serving the whole, just a cog in a machine. I find this idea revolting in the extreme.
Oh well, if someone says something is harmful, or complains about it, then that must be rock-solid proof that it really IS harmful.... right? Hey if that's the case, then what if I say religion is harmful to me? Is my word good enough to have it outlawed?
Pandaemoni, Brilliant! Of course, you notice that nobody has a response for you? Excellent. They don't have good reasons. They just want it to be legal for them to influence and take advantage of vulnerable children. Homosexuals just want the same legal benefits afforded to you and I. What good reason do we have to not let them, Baron. You haven't given one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. You say "It's gonna hurt society", but you don't say why, or what about it would do harm. Homosexuals are simply the opposite of heterosexual. They aren't in the same category as pedophiles or terrorists or drug pushers or drug users. The way you are thinking is that if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we'll have to allow all of these other disgusting groups to do what they want to do. But homosexuality isn't terrorism. It isn't pedophilia. It isn't incest. They aren't analogous. And again, in what way does gay marriage being legal negatively affect society? There are already in society, and not being allowed to marry isn't stopping them from living together, from opening nightclubs and bars, from starting their own television networks, from hosting historic award shows, from having their own talk shows, from being platinum-selling recording artists, from being Oscar-winning actors and actresses, from being Grammy-winning artists. Homosexuality is a part of the world's culture. They are already here, and they always have been. So would would be different if they were getting married? Having a wedding band on their finger? Every argument you've put forth on how homosexuality would harm society involves them being out in public, not being married. So again, where is the harm, Baron?
Do you completely lack the ability to differentiate between behavior that harms no one (other than possibly the person(s) directly involved), and behavior that can harm non consenting third parties, such as drunk driving, excessive speeding, and taking advantage of those too young to give consent? As has been pointed out to you before, there were once laws against race mixing and interracial marriage; they have been struck down, and their advocates are on "The ash heap of history". Same sex marriage will eventually win.
This is no longer worth debating or discussing. The defense for banning gay marriage has been proven to be completely idiotic and indefensible. It is nice when the other side can point out the gigantic holes in their argument easier than I can.
How convenient, Baron, that you avoided any of my "logical" points and focused on MY reponce to your whining about how you didn't want your government this and that. Wait... I'll quote you, "but I'm affected by it because it shows that my government will cowtow to every demand without the consent of the people. That ain't very nice, is it?" Sounded quite a bit like someone whining. I responded to your pointless comments. Emotional arguements get emotional responses. Logical ones get the logical responses. So, Baron, how is it that you avoided my points. Is it, perhapse, that you couldn'd counter them? Too personal for you? ~String
Yes. Those people are idiots. If people percieve society as being harmed because I profess my eternal love and committment to someone, and have that love legally recognized, then those people are idiots to think that it is somehow comparable to me raping an underage kid (that's your comparison, Baron). ~String
