Chumly wrote:neologist wrote:Chumly wrote:neologist wrote:If you are a voter and understand the issues, exercise your right.
Understand the issues in terms of what?
That would be up to you to decide, don't you think?
You provided the premise that there was an understanding of the issues with the voter in question so it not be unreasonable to follow that you as the writer would have terms you were referring to.
Sorry; I meant it as an 'if the shoe fits' type of statement.
Though, perhaps it would be appropriate for one not understanding to do some research, don't you think?
Chumly wrote:I assert that whether homosexuality or bisexuality or transgendering is a choice or an imperative is irrelative to the issues of personal freedom. Care to contest?
We are free moral agents and may do anything we please.
Perhaps we should examine the consequences in advance, though.
neologist wrote:Chumly wrote:I assert that whether homosexuality or bisexuality or transgendering is a choice or an imperative is irrelative to the issues of personal freedom. Care to contest?
We are free moral agents and may do anything we please.
Perhaps we should examine the consequences in advance, though.
I'll bite, as per one modest theme:
Transgendering will go hand in hand with the whole gamut of personal bioengineering to improve and extend life. The perception of the overt division of the sexes will be negated.
echi wrote:ehBeth--
I think I see your point, but it still seems too far-out. I cannot imagine it being an issue for voters to consider whether to institute forced marriages. This hypothetical does not fit with reality. (Isn't this some kind of fallacy?)
Voters are, in some jurisdictions, considering all sorts of things about marriage - including whether same-sex marriages are to be called marriages.
In Quebec, it is not legal for a woman to use her husband's last name. She may use it for social purposes, but not for any legal matter. Does that seem far out?
~~~~~
Boomer's example makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.
Am I being confused with boomer again?
Goodie! :-D
sozobe wrote:echi's position has some logic to it, especially if applied universally. (If there was a vote for whether every single male over the age of 30 would be married to the single female over 30 whose name appeared closest to his in the phone book, you'd also abstain?)
looks like you are the original phone book wedding guru
Intrepid wrote:...and it is your civil right to abstain
No one has argued that it is each person's right to vote as they please. I said it myself on about page 2.
Anyway, this thread had everything. Passion, self-deceit, big hats, chihuahuas...
I can't believe the way this thread has taken off. I finally caught up on it and I feel like I need a nap. Whew!
As to Mommas idea of compromise ... I don't think there can be a compromise when it comes to civil rights. There are certain things which are to me are a given, and among those is a fair and equal treatment for everyone.
I can't ask Momma to abstain from voting just because it's "right" in out minds for her to do so. And much as I DON"T like her reasons for being against Gay Marriage, she still has to vote against it because she believes it, moreso, she FEELS it!!
Gay Marriage, like abortion is one of those "hot button" issues that the political parties use to motivate people to get out and vote. I personally think George Bush would be in Crawford twiddling his thumbs right now if Karl Rove hadn't have had the political savvy to energize the Christian right wing in eleven states to get out there and vote against Gay Marriage to protect the "sanctity of marriage". He used a hot button issue that rang with the Christians to get out and vote, and meanwhile, vote for George Bush while you're at it. It worked, he manipulated the Christians, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.
All that said, I would hope that Momma and those who believe like her would look into the cause and reason for homosexuality. It's not a disease, and it's not a mental illness. It can't be cured, it can only be suppressed ... and I don't think that can be done successfully over the long term. There are physiological, physical, and mental reasons for homosexuality, and they are as natural to the individual as life itself.
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:I can't ask Momma to abstain from voting.......
Of course you can ask Mommy, and in fact there is much historical precedent to indicate that the right to vote is not the right to equality or the right to freedom
Anon-Voter wrote:Gay Marriage, like abortion is one of those "hot button" issues that the political parties use to motivate people to get out and vote.
I suggest that the Republicans do not use Gay Marriage to motivate people to get out and vote so much as to acquire power through bigoted special interest groups
Anon-Voter wrote:All that said, I would hope that Momma and those who believe like her would look into the cause and reason for homosexuality.
Not to say that Mommy should not accept alternate sexual behaviors in the same way she hopefully accepts her own sexual behaviors, (if she has any? tee hee) but there is no more reason to look into the "cause and reason" for homosexuality then there is for any other sexual behavior, irrespective of transient social or religious mores. Why? Because that implies there must be a "cause and reason" beyond say heterosexual behavours, and there is no premise* to support that view.
*Well maybe there is when it comes to clearly and overly damaging sexual behaviors, but now we are (argualby) steering into aberrance
Do you masterbate and what is your religious views on that?
Soz, I LOVE your arranged marriage example!
I have a couple of friends who have arranged marriages and they're as happy as anyone else, and probably a bit more stable than marriages based on love.
A few years back I photographed a client who admitted that his parents were arranging his marriage and that's what the photos were for.
I was like, "Crap! I'll get a divorce if we can arrange a marriage between us, Dr. Handsome."
Sadly, it was not to be.
But whoever it was that said arranged marriages was an idea that is too far out there really needs to get out more.
Of course, they're usually based on more than the proximity of the names in the phone book or lusty photographers.....
<shakes head to dislodge daydream>
How is it that the Unification Church decides on who marries whom?
This is a very scary thread.
Someone told me about it, and I have read, so far, to here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1810987#1810987
So far, not only do I agree with Lash, I salute her manner of saying what she has said, with some awe.
This topic gets me so frustrated I struggle to be civil.
Ave Lash.
For those people who don't approve of same sex marriage, if gays are able to get married in church, how would that affect you, in what way?
dlowan wrote:This is a very scary thread.
Someone told me about it, and I have read, so far, to here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1810987#1810987
So far, not only do I agree with Lash, I salute her manner of saying what she has said, with some awe.
This topic gets me so frustrated I struggle to be civil.
Ave Lash.
How very nice. Thank you.
Lash.... over the last day or two, mostly reading along on this thread, I have been thinking about you. I realized that I've known you, online, for a long time. I watched with dismay, your getting all serious, but didn't know about your husband's death, let alone illness, until much later. I am so happy to see your spirit return and can only wish you peace and happiness.
We you popped into this thread, I just sat and watched. I knew your stance on homosexuality. I know other bits about your background philosophy and I hoped you could reason with momma in a way no one else here had been able to. You were brilliant.
