Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Equal protection" is the key. It's about "life, liberty, or property." Gays and lesbians do not enjoy these protections.

0 Replies

C.I.,

I see you totally dodged my yes or no question.

And that thing about children being confused is not my only concern. For pete's sake, can't you just read what I post and stop adding to it?

In the simplest of terms, WE ALL vote for what WE WANT, no matter what the reason we want it. Why can't you just admit that?

What's the big deal? I admit it. Why can't you?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

C.I.,

I see you totally dodged my yes or no question.

And that thing about children being confused is not my only concern. For pete's sake, can't you just read what I post and stop adding to it?

In the simplest of terms, WE ALL vote for what WE WANT, no matter what the reason we want it. Why can't you just admit that?

What's the big deal? I admit it. Why can't you?

Because in his eyes, that's not the issue he's trying to debate about with you. I know, because I personally have experienced this type of situation and have been on both ends of it.

I don't blame either of you.

There is current scientific evidence (I can't remember whether it's from sociology or psychology or neurobiology) shows that certain groups of people have brains that are hard-wired to only see one particular section of the big picture. They are not capable of seeing the other side of the argument or even understanding it.

For example, I cannot understand how you would argue for freedom of religion and freedom for religion, whilst advocating for a law that would impose one of your religious beliefs on other people, and not see the contradiction.

You on the other hand cannot see why I think there is any contradiction in your beliefs.

I on the other hand cannot see how allowing homosexuals to marry would not affect you, or if you do see it, you do not think that that would happen.

Hm, actually, that's a bad example because I'm using myself in it. The subjectivity alone may have made me come to an assumption that is not true (specifically the one about you).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Equal protection" is the key. It's about "life, liberty, or property." Gays and lesbians do not enjoy these protections.

That's a respectable belief. I happen to share it, but it is still a belief. We cannot prove it with reason alone. Other people believe that prohibition of gay marriage is as consistent with equal protection as the prohibitions of polygamy and incest. They can't prove their position with reason alone either.

0 Replies

Wolf,

Thank you, I think. Laughing

0 Replies

I don't have problems with polygamy if the choice is made by both the man and women. I have problems with incest in any environment, but I know that's a personal opinion. I know that in Egypt, the pharaos used to marry (or have sex) their own kin, so acceptance of incest is ususally based on time and culture.

0 Replies

That didn't answer my question C.I. I did not ask you about incest. I asked you about homosexuality.

0 Replies

What two consenting adults do (sexual or otherwise) in the privacy of their home and/or room is none of my business.

0 Replies

Do you ever answer a question? Everytime I ask you a straightforward question you give me an answer like that.

And, if I give you an answer like that you won't accept it from me. What makes you so special that you don't have to stick to your own standards?

0 Replies

Because I can get away with it? Quit asking stupid q's, and I'll answer.

0 Replies

Because you can get away with it? Stupid questions? My, how gentlemanly of you.

I have tried and tried and tried to understand you. I ask questions so that maybe I can understand you and you tell me I ask you stupid questions?

0 Replies

MA, Quit trying to understand me. Don't waste your time. I don't understand you - so we're even.

0 Replies

The only difference between us is I was willing to try to understand you.

0 Replies

For the last time, as dys stated: "some people lobby for laws extending personal liberty while some people lobby for laws retracting personal liberty. I think there is a difference."

A big difference - in my books.

0 Replies

Well, that's kind of an answer. I was kind of hoping to get it in your own words and not someone else's.

You still haven't answered my previous question.

0 Replies

Don't hold your breath.

0 Replies

Don't worry. I am not holding my breath I was hoping you'd answer but I didn't figure you would.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

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?

Sorry, I just remembered I asked you a question on this thread. I finally went back and looked for a response and I must say I didn't follow you.

If George marries Paul or Bette marries Sue, how does that affect you in any way? What civil right would you be denied or what can you do today that you wouldn't be able to do tomorrow if these marriages took place?

0 Replies

J_B,

I never said I would be denied any civil right because of same sex marriages.

I merely said it would effect me. Suppose I have a 12 year old child and live next door to Bette and Sue. What do I tell my child when she asks me about Bette and Sue being married?

Now, that is just a very small little thing, ok. And, I am not condemning anyone for what they are doing, please understand that. But yes, a small effect would be me having to explain it to my child.

Anytime something is made legal that I believe is wrong, it is going to effect me. To me, making something I consider wrong legal means moral decline. I realize that's going to go over like a ton of bricks but I am being open and honest about this.

What about insurance rates? If same sex marriage becomes legal then it goes to follow that there will be insurance afforded these spouses? Who pays for the added costs?

J_B, I have two friends that are lesbians. Very good friends, indeed. They know full well how I feel about the act of homosexuality. While in my house they respect my views and act accordingly. While I am in their house, I respect their views and act accordingly.

They understand that I can not care for an act but still love the person. They both understand how I feel about the same sex marriage issue and we talk about it often. And, we talk about it with absolutely no rancor whatsoever. I respect their right to have the laws as they want them and they respect my right to have the laws as I want them.

So, I know there is a solution in here somewhere.

0 Replies

Thomas said: "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."

Some anthropologists believe that marriage is a foundation for society, that the near universality of some kind of marriage system throughout the world reflects the functional necessity for society that it regulate male access to females (and matters of paternity rights). Imagine what society would be like if there were no relatively enforceable restrictions on males regarding women. The level of violence and disorder (men fighting over women) would perhaps be dysfunctional for society. Permitting gays to marry would only extend that beneficial function if you ask me.

0 Replies

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know