Prop 8 Prevails in California -- Gay Marriage Discussion

[SuperflyTNT]

Originally Posted by Granite-M

The problem with the whole "Fair and Balanced" thing is that sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side to an issue, period. Just because counterarguments to a given issue exist, doesn't mean that they deserve equal time. For instance, there are people who feel that the Civil War was an unjust war, and that the south ought to be allowed to re-secede and form its own nation. Do we give them equal time in the interest of being "fair and balanced"? No. Because those people are crackpots. Same thing with James Dobson's BS arguments. They are bad arguments, and so we can dismiss them.

See, that's the problem again. I guess my point isn't sinking in. It's EASY, REALLY REALLY EASY to villify someone and dismiss them as crackpots. I still have yet to see anyone come up with counterarguments.

And as for the "Right Side, Wrong Side" who are you or I to judge? I will grant you that there are some instances that are so cut and dry that YES, I will concur that it's obvious, but in this particular case I don't agree that it's so cut and dry. If it was, there'd be no debate and the US would be the 3rd nation (and the first Large nation) to ever adopt same-sex marriage.

You just assume that because you happen to agree with one side or another that you're morally superior, on the side of right...yada yada, but you fail to realize that more people, VASTLY more people in fact, completely disagree with you and think that you're wrong about it and on the wrong side.

You simply must realize that there are 2 sides to every dispute - to get to the answer you must do one thing: See things as they are, not as you wish them to be. Then, you can objectively look at the problem, adopt positions that make sense, and then propose said positions in a way that makes sense, is logical and illustrates sound reasoning.

Saying "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you're a nutjob" is not a valid point that will sway anyone.

[Granite-M]

SuperflyTNT, feel free to respond to any of my arguments at any time. I believe I went through and deconstructed each of Mr. Dobson's points. If you feel you have some kind of logical rebuttals to my points, I'd love to hear them.

[SuperflyTNT]

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Well Granite-M, I just read your post and laughed my ever loving arse off.

That was pretty brutal!

I hadn't read that before.

[Aldin]

This is such a dead thread, but a question occurs to me and so I ask...

Without defining "moral corruption" - Is moral corruption harmful to a society?

I find myself wondering if the two sides are arguing different points. Is the question whether or not moral corruption is harmful to society or whether or not homosexuality and by extension gay mariiage are moral corruption?

~Aldin, truly curious

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Aldin

This is such a dead thread, but a question occurs to me and so I ask...

Without defining "moral corruption" - Is moral corruption harmful to a society?

I find myself wondering if the two sides are arguing different points. Is the question whether or not moral corruption is harmful to society or whether or not homosexuality and by extension gay mariiage are moral corruption?

~Aldin, truly curious

I am not sure you can have that discussion without first defining what moral corruption is. I think you would have to first come to an agreement on what constitutes moral corruption and then measure gay marriage against that yard stick. And then discuss if moral corruption as defined is harmful, helpful or a non-issue to society at large.

Bannister

[Granite-M]

Originally Posted by Aldin

This is such a dead thread, but a question occurs to me and so I ask...

Without defining "moral corruption" - Is moral corruption harmful to a society?

I find myself wondering if the two sides are arguing different points. Is the question whether or not moral corruption is harmful to society or whether or not homosexuality and by extension gay mariiage are moral corruption?

~Aldin, truly curious

I think it's pretty much impossible to say whether or not it's harmful to society without defining moral corruption (or for that matter without defining "harmful").

Consider, just for starters, the various possible definitions. You could mean the subversion or abandonment of the established moral standards. Of course, I'm sure that as Christianity caught on in ancient Rome, that the old gods were eventually abandoned, and that some traditionalists would have considered that harmful to society. Or consider that, with the rise of the civil rights movement in the United States, the traditional moral standards of separating black and white were subverted and abandoned. Some people definitely considered that harmful, but history has taken a different view on the movement.

That's only part of the problem, and I'm not about to get into that (potentially never-ending) discussion.

[Granite-M]

A little more evidence in support of the idea that there is no reasonable reason to deny gays the same rights enjoyed by straights: Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban.

From the article:

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association all support permitting same-sex couples to adopt.

Lederman rejected all the state's arguments soundly.

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," the judge wrote. "A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Bannister

I am not sure you can have that discussion without first defining what moral corruption is.

Originally Posted by Granite-M

I think it's pretty much impossible to say whether or not it's harmful to society without defining moral corruption (or for that matter without defining "harmful").

Well, it was an idea. Frankly, I don't think over the course of 22 pages anything in this thread has managed to find a definition with which everyone agrees. Since many if not most of the proponents of gay marriage here seem to have centered their argument around the question of who is harmed, I thought it would be useful to know whether or not those same proponents believe that "moral corruption", was capable of harming society.

I left it undefined precisely because I am certain that we will not be able to agree upon what, exactly, moral corruption might be - only that as people we are aware that it exists and that we may or may not agree that the existence of it within a population could prove harmful to the society. So knowing that we'll disagree but that we individually have an internal concept of "moral corruption", may I ask again?

~Aldin, who thinks it can

[Gulp]

Morally corrupt to me is being okay getting a $500 million executive bonus as others are getting screwed over. (This is a reference to oil execs.)

If deciding that you need to own a baseball team or a small country because you 'earned' it is less morally corrupt than a dude genuinely loving another dude and wanting to get married, then I will just have to shake my head in confusion.

~Gulp, who thinks Aldin probably spends more time than he's willing to admit trying to figure out a proper post-signing phrase

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Morally corrupt to me is being okay getting a $500 million executive bonus as others are getting screwed over. (This is a reference to oil execs.)

I'm not going to quibble with anyone's definition of moral corruption. That really isn't the focus. Since you are bold enough to provide a definition, Gulp, would you be willing to state whether or not you believe moral corruption can harm society?

~Aldin, who admits that every so often he sits there after typing a response... searching for a tag line... but only every so often

[SuperflyTNT]

The problem is that in a seccular state one CANNOT define 'morality' or 'immorality' with any certainty. An Arab Muslim who lives in the US but is bound religiously by Sharia Law might find stoning his cheating wife to death wholly acceptable, yet many other NON-Muslims would certainly take exception to his murder.

I do indeed think that the absolute degradation of the 'moral culture' of the United States has done us great, if not irreparable harm.

If you go back to the 1940s, the murder rates, violent crime rates and so on were FAR lower because people had a sense of duty to their country and fellow man. Today we have a complete lack of cultural identity that has been propogated by the 2 parties of government to divide us up into neat little groups (Caucasians, Evangelicals, Latinos (formerly Hispanics), African Americans (formerly Blacks, formerly Coloreds)) so that we can be controlled, set against one another, and mollified.

Seems to me that the need to assimilate to the culture has gone out the window and now we're no more than a slop of people who happen to occupy the same territory. The total allowance of the HORRIBLE television, movies, and smut on the internet has produced all kinds of wonderful things like unprecedented out-of-wedlock pregnancies, rampant drug use, pornography addictions....all kinds of very harmful things. These all break up families, communities, and nations eventually.

We are in a state of anarchy at this point, where everything is acceptable, provided there is no IMMEDIATLY IDENTIFIABLE victim. Although as an independant Libertarian I can see some good in this, the overall solvency of a nation is steeped in traditions, shared values, and a vested interest in the common good. This is something that is being 'boob tubed' out of us on a daily basis, and it makes me want to puke, or shoot some TV producers.

~TNT, wondering when the hell I'm going to say "F*** it" and move to Australia.

[Gulp]

I agree with your statement that a secular society would not be able to define morality, and I think that's a good thing. Morality is based upon our ability to feel empathy, and that will change as our agreement of what is bad changes. So morality isn't a useful term to define definite dos and don'ts. So let's not use it.

~Gulp, who thinks it's okay that Aldin take a lot of time trying to come up with a tagline


EDIT: Decided to not get more invested than I current am.