The ethics of homosexuality.

iv been quietly following this conversation for some time, however i feel the time has come for me to intervene, what the holy bittersweet FUCK do you mean, when you say 'homos are a lower form of ...', i take back my apology,Max you can go take a sugar frosted fuck off the end of my nob, you homophobic cunt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Listen uh, fellas, I've thought of a way out and a solution. It's struck me, Max is completely right.

If we just get ourselves a little coalition together, hell we can do pretty much what we like and justify it as the needs of society. Nazism? Hell yes! Whats that you commie fag, you want the right to free speech? Hell no, we the majority don't think so.

We could start by throwing Baron Max off the forum. His opponents outnumber him, it's what we the majority want, so let's do it! What d'ya say Maximillian?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your leftist ideas are far to radical you liberal extremist. The United States will never stand for your brand of communism masquerading as socialism masquerading as something else entirely. Where in your whole scheme is the irrational father-worship and flag waving? I know it was implied in the scenario you described, but it was not explicitly written out in the simplest of terms, so naturally I'm going to completely ignore the idea that it may have been there at all. That's just how I am. Where I'm from we don't have no fancy reading comprehension or contextual understanding of statements-we just call a spade a spade.

Now if you'll excuse me I've got to go pickup my government aid check to entice me not to grow corn so that the free market doesn't rise up and crush me while I head out and campaign for local republican candidates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Been following this thread, and I've gotta agree that Max was outta line with the lower life comment...and that Max probably has some other problems as well and needs to really go lie down and think some happy thoughts.

But one point I think he made has some merit (don't shoot me down because I'm agreeing with one point of that raving maniac). The point he made that I agree with was the one that goes as far as majority. He picked a horrible example with reference to slavery -- there really wasn't much of a majority either way in that case, and it is fairly abhorrent by today's standards and even a lot of the south despised it -- but wasn't the Constitution formed in mind with the will of the majority ruling?

Now I honestly don't know who brought the whole question of what marriage should be to the level of the government, and I don't think that's important at this point -- the fight's gone on too long for it to really matter anyway. I'm sorry Mystech, but I also think that things have gone too far for us to go back to pre-1996 -- the issue is almost assuredly going to be decided by the government in one way or another (why can't people just let sleeping dogs lie?).

What I am suggesting is that since this issue will be decided by the government, is that it should be decided in the best way to ensure that the will of the majority is carried out -- a mandatory direct vote in each State in the Union.

Do I realize the cost and difficulty of such a thing? Yes. But for the matter to really be decided democratically, I believe each state should put a direct vote on the matter. If there IS a 3/4 majority either way (something I highly doubt with the way things are in this country) then the matter should be put to an amendment vote for ratification by 3/4 of the states.

That way both sides would know that the will of the majority was done and that "democracy" has been served, and these heated battles and people like Baron Max will be able to calm down and realize that we all are indeed human and that "the voice of the American people" has spoken.

But, again, I personally think it's beyond stupidity that people have appealed to the government to try and solve this problem. If we get the government involved in trying to solve too many of our problems, our problem is going to be the government itself.

Hope I contributed, comments appreciated (I'm still new at this though, so don't flame me too badly)....

 

Why is that? This is purely a governmental issue. The only thing really confusing it is the interjection of religion or personal social bigotry’s.

Also, the constitution was designed such that the minority would rule while minority rights were protected - that's what the whole bill of rights is about. Your suggestion of a direct vote on this issue is rather absurd and entirely without precedent.

 

The government did, of course, by offering benefits and considerations to married couples, and taking it upon itself to issue licenses to access the legal status of marriage which it created.

As for letting sleeping dogs lie, I think the gays of the United States declared the end of that policy in the Stonewall Riots of 1969. You saw sleeping dogs, they lived in constant persecution, I guess its a problem of perception. You would rather they suffer in silence just so you don't have to hear about it, and they don't terribly care what you think of the issue so... there is that.

Why should a popular vote be able to determine if gays can be married? Did a popular vote determine if members of different races could marry, or even if slaves could be married? its a question of right, not opinion. You claim there was no clear majority in the slavery debate, but in fact there was a clear majority in favor of slavery, a practice on which the entire southern economy rested and that it took a bloody war and a prolonged reconstruction to solve. It wasn't popular at the time, but it was right. You can't abuse a segment of society mercilessly and then parade yourself as a bastion of opportunity and equality.

 

SpyMoose

First point -- As far as letting sleeping dogs lie, poor choice of words there perhaps...what I was referring to is that social issues should not be solved by the government but by individual choice if at all possible. If the gays felt that they were being mistreated, then of course they had every right to stand up and say so. But unfortunately, when the government does get involved in sorting out a social issue as legal or illegal, a system is put in place that usually would not be as good as if people were allowed to make their own decisions (hence, let sleeping dogs lie). I don't, and never have approved of oppression, but involving the government is not always the best way to end it.

Before you get your dander up about this always being a government issue, however, I want you to know that I agree completely with what you said about marriage rights and benefits offered to couples being the start of the problem -- that contributed (and still contributes greatly) to turning this into a government issue instead of a social one, and I had not considered that before I wrote my post. Had there been no other benefit (originally) to being married heterosexually rather than homosexually other than the avoidance of negative social stigma (I'm speaking historically here -- homosexuality is much more accepted today than it once was), the government would likely never have become involved and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Next point -- you are quite wrong about the issue of slavery being a majority-decided, positive issue -- on both sides of the fence, the issue was constantly debated, although it is true that IN GENERAL the South thought it was positive and the North thought it was negative (note the caps on IN GENERAL -- we both know it wasn't quite that clear-cut). And as far as the reason why there was a bloody war, it was because the sides WERE so divided on what to do about the issue. The long post-war reconstruction was also due in a large part to that same fact.

Last point -- obviously the reason why whether a vote should be put for allowing other cases of marriage has never been debated before was that marriage was always traditionally defined as the union between a man and a woman -- slaves, different races, and any other votes that could have been taken up were not because they ALWAYS were recognized as falling into that category (except the Jim Crow laws, but those were never really supposed to be allowed in the first place). The point is that no one ever thought to challenge THAT issue before, and now that they are, we have the idea of a vote; despite your beliefs on the issue, you must agree that the reason why other races were automatically allowed to marry was because they never challenged the traditional one man-one woman ideal of marriage.

There is other good evidence for this idea -- the only people in the US who have ever challenged the definition of marriage being one man-one woman were the Mormons with polygamy; they were also met with opposition, resistance and the idea of a vote (which they ended up losing, by the way).

As to the rest of your post and my reply about what to do on the issue, I'll be honest -- I've written and rewritten my answer but have come to the conclusion that I've got to give this issue some more thought.

I normally don't back down like that, but what really struck me is what you said about marriage being a right. I keep asking myself the same question you put to me: should a vote really decide this issue? Does the vote make it right? Part of me feels it would be the fairest way to do so -- at least everyone would have their say. But then part of me agrees with you -- marriage is a right, not an opinion, and should not be voted on. But then part of me says, didn't we have to vote and ratify the Bill of Rights? Those rights in there are rights too but they still had to be voted on. But then of course, marriage isn't actually in the Bill of Rights as it was always assumed to be a natural right of man. But then of course, the right to marriage was always defined as the union between a man and a woman and didn't need a vote...

Anyway, you see why I need to give the matter some more thought. I've got Tavia's "but on the other hand..." problem right now, and I'd rather work out the argument for myself before I involve any one else in it.

So...

Rather than get into a discussion with you about the differences/similarities between homosexual couples and traditional couples (that path is more than too well-tread, and always boils down to the same points having to do a great deal with personal beliefs) or to just say that "all marriage privileges should be disallowed so everyone is equal" which I see as kind of a cop-out, no-win choice for anyone, I'm going to think the matter over some more and then get back to you when I've figured out where I stand.

Thanks for your comments, and if you think there's a way to improve my posting style (or ideas), I won't be offended if you let me know!

P.S. Mystech, I know that a 50-state direct vote is without precedent and would be difficult to actually accomplish in America, but it still would be the best way to determine the will of the majority. And compared to some of the ideas I've seen (a.k.a. nuke the gays!), it isn't really all that absurd of an idea (although it might be absurd to suggest that America could actually do it given our traditionalist government). The point is, even though it hasn't been tried before, it probably would work the best for determining majority and giving everyone a feeling of having had their say.

Which, since just about everyone is saying SOMETHING about this issue, is a very important thing to do...