Please vote no on Proposition 8

[delphinus]

Consider yourself lucky that you have at least the law, and you can now have the right to protect it...

 

In this miserable little country where i live gay marriage will NEVER be allowed. too much Vatican and too many brainwashed stupid people...

 

I wish you good luck for your fight.

[Ethre]

Can I suggest this thread be closed? I see it going in a very bad direction.

 

If you're going to argue for gay rights (or benefits for gays, however you want to put it), then perhaps you should be a little bit less grating in your commentary. There is by no means a consensus on interpretation of the constitution - that's why we have courts. Just SHOUTING that the constitution gives them this "right" does not do much for your case. As a matter of fact, I think it does more damage than good.

[Landsknecht]

I am voting no on Prop 8 because 1) I have no issues with homosexual rights and 2) I do not believe that the government has the right or privilege to regulate the family unit.

[Malchik]

There are no 'rights' as such, what people call rights are permissions that seem to the majority to be valid for all humanity. However different societies do not necessarily agree and even those said to be 'enlightened' can change their minds. Keep the debate calm please.

[Dilvish]

I believe in human rights that are above "permissions" from other humans or human states.

[Ethre]

Hey, this is getting philosophical. :) Interesting.

 

If you are trying to argue that there are inherent rights that are above man and society though, then you run into the issue of defining these rights (same problem that every philosopher has), and instead of a debate, you simply get various sides - with different definitions of these inherent rights. Its a bit difficult to make an argument in that situation. (Or at least an argument that does not boil down to "Because it is")

[Ethre]

Michlo: You take the stance that homosexuality is natural - that's your. There are plenty who believe it is artificial, perverse, and immoral.

 

So talking about "giving black people the right to vote" is twisting the issue by presenting it as an inherent thing (your opinion), when only some agree with that. (Oh, and isn't "giving the right to vote" a bit condescending - if you're going to talk about natural rights that is. ;) ) It's only a matter of equality under the law if it isn't a choice - so its not necessarily in the constitution.

 

Also, "so called civilization" - that's sort of implying that to be a civilization it would need to fit your definition of "enlightened", isn't it? What if John Doe's standards of "enlightenment" differ from yours?

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not proclaiming me support for either side. I do my best to avoid proclaiming my views on hotbutton issues on internet forums. I do though, enjoy playing a little bit of Devil's advocate - or at least picking at some arguments.

 

Oh, and one more thing - about that last part: Maybe some cultures tolerated homosexuality (mostly only Greece, and some parts of Rome)- but they also tended to tolerate a lot of other things which would make you and most modern "civilized" humans cringe. Decimation's not just a word, it was a discipline technique where soldiers where forced by their officers to kill every tenth member of their unit. Greek society was based around slavery. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Michlo]

Michlo: You take the stance that homosexuality is natural - that's your. There are plenty who believe it is artificial, perverse, and immoral.

 

So talking about "giving black people the right to vote" is twisting the issue by presenting it as an inherent thing (your opinion), when only some agree with that. (Oh, and isn't "giving the right to vote" a bit condescending - if you're going to talk about natural rights that is. ;) ) It's only a matter of equality under the law if it isn't a choice - so its not necessarily in the constitution.

 

Also, "so called civilization" - that's sort of implying that to be a civilization it would need to fit your definition of "enlightened", isn't it? What if John Doe's standards of "enlightenment" differ from yours?

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not proclaiming me support for either side. I do my best to avoid proclaiming my views on hotbutton issues on internet forums. I do though, enjoy playing a little bit of Devil's advocate - or at least picking at some arguments.

 

Oh, and one more thing - about that last part: Maybe some cultures tolerated homosexuality (mostly only Greece, and some parts of Rome)- but they also tended to tolerate a lot of other things which would make you and most modern "civilized" humans cringe. Decimation's not just a word, it was a discipline technique where soldiers where forced by their officers to kill every tenth member of their unit. Greek society was based around slavery. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

I do, of course, see what you are getting at. I must say, however, that playing Devil's advocate is a dangerous practice. To my mind/opinion, that is merely a way of stirring the pot without actually committing and is often used just for the perverse pleasure of watching the ensuing fracas. I could point out that you had even asked that this thread be closed earlier because of the "bad" direction it was taking. :P

 

Of course my post is my opinion, whose opinion am I supposed to be guided by? There is also an abundance of evidence these days (apart from common sense) to show that this ISN'T a way of life people would choose in the world we live in.

 

My point still stands that no matter your view on the way in which someone loves another, it behooves us, as a people to still want them treated the same way we would want to be treated.

 

I usually appreciate your posts, this isn't one of those times.

[Ethre]

I could point out that you had even asked that this thread be closed earlier because of the "bad" direction it was taking. :P

 

Good point :) Let me clarify - I was worried based on some of the aggressive styled posts that had come as replies (I won't quote them, they're easy enough to find on the first page). My post was simply intended to pick at what I considered some of the weaker points in your arguement (assuming it was intended to persuade, and not simply a stating of your opinion). It was in no way meant to attack you personally. If that is how it came across, I must offer you my apologies.

I actually see Devil's advocate as partially supporting the case it argues the most against - because it tends to (in my experience) encourage that side to develop stronger arguments to support their stances. I can also see why some would consider it "stiring the pot" though.

 

Personally, I see this:

My point still stands that no matter your view on the way in which someone loves another, it behooves us, as a people to still want them treated the same way we would want to be treated.

as being much better reasoning than the previous posts (although that may just be my interpretation).

 

edit: lets fix that smilie in the quote. there we go, and the bbcode tags - that's better

[Michlo]

I could point out that you had even asked that this thread be closed earlier because of the "bad" direction it was taking. :P

 

Good point :) Let me clarify - I was worried based on some of the aggressive styled posts that had come as replies (I won't quote them, they're easy enough to find on the first page). My post was simply intended to pick at what I considered some of the weaker points in your arguement (assuming it was intended to persuade, and not simply a stating of your opinion). It was in no way meant to attack you personally. If that is how it came across, I must offer you my apologies.

I actually see Devil's advocate as partially supporting the case it argues the most against - because it tends to (in my experience) encourage that side to develop stronger arguments to support their stances. I can also see why some would consider it "stiring the pot" though.

 

Personally, I see this:

My point still stands that no matter your view on the way in which someone loves another, it behooves us, as a people to still want them treated the same way we would want to be treated.

as being much better reasoning than the previous posts (although that may just be my interpretation).

 

edit: lets fix that smilie in the quote. there we go, and the bbcode tags - that's better

 

Hehe, thanks and I'm glad we can still be civil in such a hot-button subject. :)

 

Aye, so much in life is all about interpretation and perception and it can be especially difficult for either when dealing with merely the written word on a forum.

 

I do agree, however, that my final point there was better delivered. I'm not sure I had a plan for persuasion (although I'm sure we all have a sub conscious desire for agreement), I had just put up this topic with the desire to perhaps make one or two people think about the other side of the issue before placing their vote. I don't really think a gaming forum is going to change peoples' minds though, that would take knowing gay people in real life I think.

 

Cheers.