Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well, the mainstream posotion here in California is different. Watch to see what blue states vote one way and what red states vote the other. This has a lot to do with the President trying to convince people that being a Christian means refusing to understand and allow homosexualism (not sure that's a word, but whatever). Those people don't speak for me, and their voting won't change my mind. I'll live to fight another day if we lose this round.
|
California. Kal-I-For-Nie-Ayyyy. Nuff said. Oregon is a Blue state, isn't it? It voted to ban same sex marriages by 57%. THAT fact in and of itself speaks volumes.
Quote:
|
My ethics follow a combination of morality and logic (logic in the senser that it makes sense to me). My ethics tell me that these people don't deserve to be treated as any less than other people. Why should they be punished (and this does seem like a punishment)?
|
Homosexuals can legally marry just like the rest of the population. How many times have you heard of gay people marrying a member of the opposite sex, having kids, et cetera? If you've ever hung out in a gay bar, you know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
|
Well, we have to speak in averages in this situation, as case-by-case would make this very much more tedius (and some of the exceptions are so small that they become irrelevant in the scale we'ree talking aout, i.e. nationwide legislation). The average human adult makes a better parent for a human child than the average dog.
|
Well, the average dog is far less likely to sexually abuse a child than a parent or other close relative is, yes? Familial child sexual abuse is far more rampant than most people are willing to come to terms with. I'm not talking about gays specifically here, I'm talking about across the board.
Quote:
|
Well I was just mentioning to biological thing to cover all bases. The important point was the adoption (or insemination involving a third party). If the couple gets a child from with outside help, they are still just as responsible to raise that child as those who had a child without a third party.
|
And they're still just as incapable of having a child as the man/dog arrangement, or a single parent.
Quote:
|
We aren't just arguing on a strictly legal basis here. The movement behind the law is based on beliefs and social rules. You can't disregard that because of the ultimate decision will be in law. Law is based in (ta dah) ethics (logic and morality).
|
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Dude, Dudette, whatever your gender/sexual orientation/political outlook is, I now KNOW, beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, that you've never, EVER attended Law School. That's not meant as an insult. Your statement is the equivalent of claiming to read "Swank" and "BiggJuggs" "for the articles".
Quote:
|
Well the religious right seems to be heading this, so I'd say that if they believe the bible so completly, they'd have to stick with the animals-sans-souls belief.
|
That doesn't work with me, since I'm pretty much Anti-Christian, a Heathen, and have, on occasion, been accused of being the Anti-Christ himself. I support freedom of religion, but exercise freedom FROM recognized religions, at the point of a gun if necessary. But you REALLY don't want to get me started on religion, ESPECIALLY my religious beliefs.
Quote:
|
The arm doesn't have a soul. Usually the part of the body connected with the brain and heart is considered the person. I still stand by what I said before: this (marrige rights for dead people, animals, inatimate objects, arms, puppets, etc.) is distracting from the real argument.
|
From my perspective, the human body doesn't have a soul, so hey. I'm a longtime subscriber in the "meatsock" philosophy.