Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Always a pleasure talking to people who actually do think harder when I try to make them.

(From the embarrassing typo department: "In 1975, the German Constitutional Court, operating in a constitutional human rights framework roughly comparable to America's, reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to "Roe v. Wade". It decided that abortion must be illegal with a few enumerated exceptions, ..." Of all the two-character combinations my fingers could forget to type, they had to forget the "il" in that sentence. )

Let me posit this: those defending the right to impose ID, overthrow Roe vs Wade, and disallow the marriage of gays and lesbians are based on their religious beliefs in the US. If it were not for their religion, those ideas would not be as popular as they are today.

ID is definitely religiously based.
Arguments about abortion usually centers around "conception is life" argument more than number of months by those indoctrinated by their religion. The other arguments centers around when a fetus is a baby/a person.
As for disallowing the marriage of gays and lesbians, the bible teaches its adherents that god was against homosexuals. To believe that the marriage of gays and lesbians would hurt the conventional family unit is bunk. Heterosexuals do a yeomans job on their own to destroy their own families - they don't need another excuse. In the US, the estimates I have seen for divorce hovers around 50 percent. They want to blame gays and lesbians for that? Give me a break.

Some countries with heavy christian populations have approved the marriage of gays and lesbians.
Some states in the US have tried to do the same.
Without the knowledge that "homosexual behavior is wrong," there would be no issue. That issue is raised in the bible where most people get their ideas about right and wrong. The bible is fiction.

My question is still this. Can't be said that those that would want same sex marriage, abortions, etc., legal be guilty of trying to impose their beliefs on others also?

If things that I think are wrong are made legal, it does infringe on me. Just as if they were not made legal, you would feel they infringe on you.

So, what is the answer? I can't vote without my including my beliefs.

Abortion, same sex marriage, and ID s science does not affect you personally. You are free to practice any or not, but you are trying to enforce others to your belief system.

You are in effect saying your belief system overrides their freedom to choose. How does their choice affect you?

No one is trying to force you to have an abortion, marry someone of the same sex. You are trying to prohibit others from doing the same.

How, in any way does someone having an abortion or someone marrying a same-sex partner personally impact YOUR life? Can you see how your actions and beliefs are attempts to personally impact the lives of others?

How do these things impact on my life? What about the parents that teach their children that these things are wrong? Then children see them being done and they are then confused.

If a person sees an act of homosexuality as a pervision and abortion as murder, then of course, these things being made legal would effect them.

J_B, I can say the same thing about those that want same sex marriage and abortion legal. I can say that your actions and your beliefs are attempts to personally impact the lives of others.

My point is this, I am doing nothing more than what you are doing. You are lobbying for what you want (for whatever reason) and I am lobbying for what I want (for whatever reason).

I don't believe I ever said anyone's beliefs trumped another. I am just trying to get you to understand that we are both just exercising our rights as American citizens. Whether one of us thinks it is more for the right reasons or not is purely left up to the individual. You are going to think you are more right and I am going to think I am more right. What good are principles if you do not adhere to them?

"How do these things impact on my life? What about the parents that teach their children that these things are wrong? Then children see them being done and they are then confused."

Do you mean to claim that heterosexual marriages does not confuse our children when they see a) divorces in such high numbers, b) incest, c) swtiching partners for sex, d) molestations and sexual perversions of children by heterosexuals, and e) mothers/fathers killing their children?

Can you legislate to outlaw them so they will never happen- to protect our children?

C.I.,

I don't think you can relate all of that to same sex marriage. Of course those things confuse children. I would imagine many other things do too. So, should we go by the "well, it's already a mess, let's mess it up some more philosophy?"

Making something wrong (to some) legal does not make it right. It merely makes it legal. So, we all vote our conscience and do what we think is right. Again, you are just doing the same thing as I am doing. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

We are both lobbying for the laws we want, regardless of our reasons, we are doing the same thing.

some people lobby for laws extending personal liberty while some people lobby for laws retracting personal liberty. I think there is a difference.

No. You are lobbying for laws to affect other people's lives based on your religion. You are free to practice any or none of these issues personally. What others do does not affect your life - or shouldn't. You can teach that to your children.

Most children understand right and wrong.

Most children understand right and wrong? Oh really. Hmmmm. Well, let's see. I believe homosexuality is wrong. I think abortion is wrong.

What do you think? And I don't want to hear you think they have the right to decide for themselves. I want you to tell me whether you feel abortion or the act of homosexuality is wrong.

And, still, I can accuse you of imposing your will upon me because of what you want the law to be.

So, just because I vote my conscience, which includes my religious beliefs, I am wrong?

That is not freedom of religion. That is discrimination.

dys,

It still comes down to the same thing. You want things the way you think they should be according to what you believe and I want things the way I think they should be because of what I believe. There is no difference.

wrong MA, I want everyone to have the fullest personal freedom within the constraints of our society while you wish to limit those with whom you disagree. I have no desire to limit your rights/beliefs and I prefer that you have no ability to limit my rights. (within the constraints of our society)

dys,

Then I suggest you overthrow the government and get rid of democracy.

If I were to vote against same sex marriage purely because I find the thought of a homosexual act sickening (just using as an example and not saying this is how I feel) and not because of my religious viewpoint, would I still be trying to restrain you or would I be doing just as you are doing? Lobbying for what you want NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

So MA the idea of constitutional law that provides equality to all sickens you?

dys,

Nothing like twisting what I said, is there? Guess you missed that word "IF" and the fact that I said I was just stating an example? And from that you get the idea of constitutional law that provides equality to all sickens me? You are much more intelligent than that, dys, to lower yourself to such a tactic.

Good grief.

Let us turn Momma Angel's argument on its head and think about us homosexuals. The current law in the US is that no homosexual can marry the partner of their choice. It doesn't matter if they don't have sex. It doesn't matter that they love each other. They cannot marry.

So, the law is imposing on us.

Frankly, I haven't had a girlfriend or boyfriend in my entire life, so the marriage aspect doesn't concern me too much right now.

Now if the law were to be changed and homosexuals were allowed to marry, how would that directly affect you? No one will force you to marry someone of your own sex. Your children are never going to know that any homosexual couples are married anymore that they'll know that any straight couple around them may or may not be married.

How are they going to know, seriously?

The homosexual couple wouldn't address themselves as Mr. and Mrs and even if they did share the same surname, the child wouldn't even think they were intimately involved.

Below a certain age any intimacy whether straight or homosexual is regarded as disgusting anyway.

After that certain age, they'd most likely have been molded by their environment. Peer pressure would force them to adopt the stance that homosexuality is wrong anyway (well, this is from my own childhhood experience).

Abortion however is a grey area and I'm not going to touch.

"And, still, I can accuse you of imposing your will upon me because of what you want the law to be."

No. I want to laws to be non-discriminatory against any group of Americans. My personal beliefs should not be imposed on other people's choices if they do not impact me in any way.

Why two people wish to marry for their love for each other is their choice. Why must I tell them they are wrong and create laws to deny them their personal choice? How have they harmed me or the greater society at large? You say its because children will be confused? If that's the basis of your argument, you are confused more than the children.

Are you sure you and I are not? Perhaps you don't call it religion and call it ideology instead. Tomeyto, tomuhto.

There are those who think, wrongly in my opinion, that marriage is the foundation of society, and that same sex marriage would erode that foundation. There are those who think, wrongly again in my opinion, that embryos are persons and that killing them is murder. There are those who think, I think very, very wrongly, that as a matter of fact the Earth was created by god 6000 years ago.

Now, you and I agree that the assumptions are wrong, and so are the conclusions they draw. But if you believe as a matter of fact that these assumptions were correct, you can draw Momma Angel's conclusions even if you "want everyone to have the fullest personal freedom within the constraints of society." This is not as easy as "you are trying to impose your beliefs on me, I'm not imposing anything on you."