[One Degree]

What are you proposing, One Degree? Some kind of homosexual marriage equivalent to a noise bylaw? No gay marriage within city limits? How could this proposal possibly be reasonable? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning in the thread above.

I think I made it clear the states were the only ones who should make this decision. The rest was obviously an attempt to explain my reasoning. If you wish to pin me down on what I think the smallest autonomous area should be then my signature should make that clear, and we have states smaller than that. Most of these arguments are based more on theory than reality. States rapidly copy laws from other states. If something becomes popular like banning smoking, lotteries, or gay marriage, then all the states copy one another. You will have one or two that hold out, but that is actually a good thing as they become a safety valve.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, so what? All laws interfere in our lives.

I was not discussing that.

I was pointing out that gay people marrying each other does not significantly interfere in the lives of the rest of us, while outlawing gay marriage significantly interferes with the lives of others; specifically, gay couples who wish to marry.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I think I made it clear the states were the only ones who should make this decision. The rest was obviously an attempt to explain my reasoning. If you wish to pin me down on what I think the smallest autonomous area should be then my signature should make that clear, and we have states smaller than that. Most of these arguments are based more on theory than reality. States rapidly copy laws from other states. If something becomes popular like banning smoking, lotteries, or gay marriage, then all the states copy one another. You will have one or two that hold out, but that is actually a good thing as they become a safety valve.

P U R E I D E O L O G Y

I like how you just want to argue about hypothetical ideal scenarios. Just like the randites.

[Donna]

P U R E I D E O L O G Y

I hope you are aware that this is a Marxist meme.

[Stormsmith]

@One Degree

On marriage, state authority...Up until 1967 the state wouldn't issue a licence to a biracial couple, in spite of equality having been established under the law. Since the states were seen to be violating the equality laws, the SCOTUS provided the protection biracial couples needed. A number of states had already amended their state laws to include all heterosexual marriages. Same drill with same sex marriages

The State is in charge of keeping track of weddings, divorce etc and compiles statistics. The Feds are in charge of determining when the constitution has been breached

[AFAIK]

On topic, I've been married for almost two years now and have yet to bring pain upon a straight couple.

My marriage has been suffering terribly since I learned that internet stranger Godstud's wife's father 'wore black pyjamas' in Vietnam. We have attended counseling and our kids are staying with my sister-in-law but I'm not sure we'll pull through.

Pleases pray for us.

[One Degree]

@One Degree

On marriage, state authority...Up until 1967 the state wouldn't issue a licence to a biracial couple, in spite of equality having been established under the law. Since the states were seen to be violating the equality laws, the SCOTUS provided the protection biracial couples needed. A number of states had already amended their state laws to include all heterosexual marriages. Same drill with same sex marriages

The State is in charge of keeping track of weddings, divorce etc and compiles statistics. The Feds are in charge of determining when the constitution has been breached

Yes, and I must fall back on ideology here. States in the US are bigger than a lot of countries, so how big of an area is appropriate for making these decisions? Saying something is 'states rights' to me is no different than saying Belgium has the right to make their own decisions. Should the size of a nation be the determinant for what is morally correct? Or, should moral decisions be made closer to home? We would have no difference of opinion if the US was smaller.

Edit: If they world were made up of countries the size of the US, then we would have 20 different cultures. This is not a survivable diversity. Countries the size of states gives us 1,000 different cultures. We are now into a diversification that makes sense.

[Godstud]

Sorry, but you're deluded into thinking the US has 1,000 different cultures? You're kidding, right? You seem to think that emotions should trump reason. I cannot agree with such an unrealistic assumption.

[One Degree]

Sorry, but you're deluded into thinking the US has 1,000 different cultures? You're kidding, right? You seem to think that emotions should trump reason. I cannot agree with such an unrealistic assumption.

The world, not the US. Please explain why the countries with less than a million people should have more of a right to self determination than a state of 6 million, or 20 million? Emotions versus reason is a good argument that is not in your favor. Should Belize, or Luxembourg be allowed to ban same sex marriage?

[Godstud]

Just as idiotic.

No, to your question. There's no logical or reasonable reason for it to be banned anywhere. Especially not in a country that values freedom, liberty and equality under the law.

[One Degree]

Just as idiotic.

No, to your question. There's no logical or reasonable reason for it to be banned anywhere.

Exactly. The argument always leads back to globalism. One set of rules for everyone. You can not see how self destructive this is? You are pursuing freedom of choice through complete destruction of freedom of choice.

[Pants-of-dog]

Exactly. The argument always leads back to globalism. One set of rules for everyone. You can not see how self destructive this is? You are pursuing freedom of choice through complete destruction of freedom of choice. :?:

You are defending someone's right to take away the freedoms of other people, by arguing that they should be allowed the freedom of choosing totake away the rights of others.

Taking someone's rights away is not a freedom that every community should have.

[One Degree]

You are defending someone's right to take away the freedoms of other people, by arguing that they should be allowed the freedom of choosing totake away the rights of others.

Taking someone's rights away is not a freedom that every community should have.

I disagree. The best way to protect yourself against your own fallibility is to tolerate those you abhor. The total success of any one idea greatly reduces the chances of evolving to even higher standards. Diversity should be treasured in the real world, not used as an excuse to promote one set of rules. We should each fully pursue what we believe is right, but we need to have limits on how much of the Earth we should be allowed to contaminate with our views.

[Pants-of-dog]

That does not address the fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to outlaw gay marriage and therefore take away the freedoms of others.

[One Degree]

That does not address the fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to outlaw gay marriage and therefore take away the freedoms of others.

Then you did not understand my post.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I did. You are also taking the discussion away from the actual topic of gay marriage and trying to make it about your ideology.

Now, why do you assume that the right to gay marrriage and the right to ban gay marriage are morally equal? You seem to think this is because morality is subjective so all moral decisions are equal. So if a community wants to ban gay marriage, that is just as good as having gay marriage so we should let the communities decide.

Such a position ignores homophobia, and the history of oppressing gay people. And by ignoring it, your position supports such oppression.

[One Degree]

Yes, I did. You are also taking the discussion away from the actual topic of gay marriage and trying to make it about your ideology.

Now, why do you assume that the right to gay marrriage and the right to ban gay marriage are morally equal? You seem to think this is because morality is subjective so all moral decisions are equal. So if a community wants to ban gay marriage, that is just as good as having gay marriage so we should let the communities decide.

Such a position ignores homophobia, and the history of oppressing gay people. And by ignoring it, your position supports such oppression.

Your argument assumes there is a morally correct answer for everyone. This is false.
What if, and I don't expect it to happen, science discovers homosexuality is a hormonal imbalance that can be treated? Should we pass laws requiring they be treated? I would then support homosexuals rights not to be treated and to live in a community where they have full rights.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your argument assumes there is a morally correct answer for everyone. This is false.

No, it does not.

It assumes that gay people have been oppressed and marginalised in western societies for a large portion of the history of these countries and cultures.

It also assumes that this oppression is based on religious mores and not on whether or not harm is actually caused. And it assumes that homosexuality poses no harm to the people involved or to others.

As far as I can tell, these assumptions are correct.

What if, and I don't expect it to happen, science discovers homosexuality is a hormonal imbalance that can be treated? Should we pass laws requiring they be treated? I would then support homosexuals rights not to be treated and to live in a community where they have full rights.

Since you would also support a community where homosexuals are forcibly cured against their wishes, your support for a community is neither here nor there.

[mikema63]

Let's get beyond this whole ideology of whether or not we should have some city state based moral pluralism.

One Degree, if you were living in one of these city states, would you prefer one where gays could get married, or one where they couldn't?

[One Degree]

Let's get beyond this whole ideology of whether or not we should have some city state based moral pluralism.

One Degree, if you were living in one of these city states, would you prefer one where gays could get married, or one where they couldn't?

Basing the argument on what I personally think is meaningless in my opinion. That is my whole point, we think differently. I have some confusion over the issue, but lean towards it's acceptance. I have trouble totally separating homosexuality from pedophilia. I grew up in a neighborhood where it was common for homosexuals to drive up and offer money, booze, and pornography to kids on the playground where we hung out. This is not something that can simply be dismissed from one's thoughts no matter how objective you try to be.