Shoutbox Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The majority of the people voted against it? I assume you're being serious? It's called "tyranny of the majority." The majority were once against miscegenation. Not too long ago, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Yup. The system can be used for good, and bad. In this case, it's bad and the future will agree. Unless we're ruled by mullahs in 50 years. Thats what your missing. This is the first step. The next one will be application of the 14th Amendment, which will rule this measure illegal. Its a long painful process. But it was designed that way. And in the end it works. Its cold confort for those who will be discrimiated against today, though. Edited May 9, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 That's not a reason'-based argument. That's a mob-based argument. Democracy and free elections are "mob-based" when you don't like the result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Embarrasing, indeed. I still have yet to hear an intelligent, persuasive argument against legalizing gay marriage. It always comes down to "my invisible friend in the sky says it's wrong in his big book of Middle Eastern fairytales. Plus two dudes kissing is just !@#$ing gross." I always get a kick of out so called "enlightened" atheists who can do no better than childish denigration of the faithful. They are what they claim to despise. I assume you're being serious? It's called "tyranny of the majority." The majority were once against miscegenation. Not too long ago, in fact. Versus tyranny of the minority? Why I cant string Christmas lights across my desk at work becuase ONE atheist like yourself got "offended" by them? Or is it only "tyranny" when its a ruling for something you dont like? Edited May 9, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Embarrasing, indeed. I still have yet to hear an intelligent, persuasive argument against legalizing gay marriage. It always comes down to "my invisible friend in the sky says it's wrong in his big book of Middle Eastern fairytales. Plus two dudes kissing is just !@#$ing gross." So in conclusion, it's embarrassing because the people against gay marriage aren't an atheist like you? So you're saying the world would be a better place if no one would waste their time believing in God? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) So in conclusion, it's embarrassing because the people against gay marriage aren't an atheist like you? So you're saying the world would be a better place if no one would waste their time believing in God? Interesting. What is embarrassing is a religion that preaches tolerance has so many members willing to cast stones at others who don't fall into lock step with their beliefs. "Everyone is free to believe their own beliefs as long as they match mine," correct? Edited May 9, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) What is embarrassing is a religion that preaches tolerance has so many members willing to cast stones at others who don't fall into lock step with their beliefs. "Everyone is free to believe their own beliefs as long as they match mine," correct? It is not the religion that is the problem. Not in the least. Don't group people together who don't fit together. Democracy and free elections are "mob-based" when you don't like the result? No, but like any other system, there are flaws. Thats what your missing. This is the first step. The next one will be application of the 14th Amendment, which will rule this measure illegal. Its a long painful process. But it was designed that way. And in the end it works. Its cold confort for those who will be discrimiated against today, though. Yep, if it were so easy to make everything perfect, somebody would have done it already. Problem is that no two people have the same definition of perfect, and few care what anyone else's definition is. Edited May 9, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 That's not a reason'-based argument. That's a mob-based argument. It's a legal argument for a legal issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What is embarrassing is a religion that preaches tolerance has so many members willing to cast stones at others who don't fall into lock step with their beliefs. "Everyone is free to believe their own beliefs as long as they match mine," correct? They casted votes, not stones. The government shouldn't even be in the marriage definition business. That distinction should be left up to religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I always get a kick of out so called "enlightened" atheists who can do no better than childish denigration of the faithful. They are what they claim to despise. Versus tyranny of the minority? Why I cant string Christmas lights across my desk at work becuase ONE atheist like yourself got "offended" by them? Or is it only "tyranny" when its a ruling for something you dont like? Adults who comprise the "faithful" aren't worthy of anything beyond childish denigration, particularly when they vote on bad public policy because their imaginary friend (as opposed to logic and reason) informs them of what's right and what's wrong. Also, I'm not in the business of defending every overly sensitive atheist simply because I'm an atheist. You should be allowed to publicly celebrate your religion. I will defend you all day and every day on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 It's a legal argument for a legal issue. It's the mob acting within the rules. I think that was RK's point too. A fair point. Still can't convince me it's a reasonable position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 "Gay people will abuse the system by marrying so they can get health benefits...it will bankrupt the (government/biz world)" is one that's come up here. You know, because heteros have not had that opportunity. "Let's just leave marriage to man-woman and call homosexual commitment something else because my book/god says that's an OK compromise." Because that makes any sense to legislate that kind of difference in treatment. We'll get there. It's not a pressing issue but it does make all the people against look bigoted and stupid. Yes OC, bigoted. I had this discussion yesterday with my parents. We went out for dinner and the topic came up, I told them that if I had to vote one way or another, I'd Vote to allow them to marry. What do I care? I figure why should I get in the way of the pursuit of happiness of someone else's future? Very simple approach. My parents on the other hand, who harbor no ill-will towards anyone, have a different view than I do. My mother, a devout catholic has a view that is derived from religious teachings. Without going into detail, just that she has a moral compass that is guided by the bible. My father, not nearly as religious, has a different take, which is that he opposes gay marriage because he is more of a traditionalist. He is an old-school sorta guy. I've never heard them speak negatively towards gays or any other minority group, just that they have a different view that you and I have. I think it's ok to disagree with people without referring to them as "bigots". I find this sort of view as one of intolerance and I wouldn't generalize that people who are opposed to gay marriage as such. Are there a lot of bigots out there? Certainly, but to cast a net on everyone who is opposed to gay marriage as bigots is a view that I find to be quite narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 They casted votes, not stones. The government shouldn't even be in the marriage definition business. That distinction should be left up to religions. Yes, but that will cause other problems- what if some religions recognize it, then certain people in government don't want to recognize the marriages in some religions they disagree with? (at least when it comes to benefits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I've never heard them speak negatively towards gays or any other minority group, just that they have a different view that you and I have. I think it's ok to disagree with people without referring to them as "bigots". I find this sort of view as one of intolerance and I wouldn't generalize that people who are opposed to gay marriage as such. Are there a lot of bigots out there? Certainly, but to cast a net on everyone who is opposed to gay marriage as bigots is a view that I find to be quite narrow. My grandfather was opposed to his daughter marrying a black guy because it would "cause trouble" and wasn't "normal." Never heard him say boo about black people until that situation arose. You know what. He was a bigot. He didn't like someone and didn't want them to be happy based on their race. Your mom stands in the way of two people marrying who love each other for no other reason than they are the same sex. Your dad just finds it gross. That's awful. Edited May 9, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 So in conclusion, it's embarrassing because the people against gay marriage aren't an atheist like you? So you're saying the world would be a better place if no one would waste their time believing in God? Interesting. I'm saying that the world would be a better place if people relied on logic and reason to make public policy decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 My grandfather was opposed to his daughter marrying a black guy because it would "cause trouble" and wasn't "normal." Never heard him say boo about black people until that situation arose. You know what. He was a bigot. He didn't like someone and didn't want them to be happy based on their race. Your mom stands in the way of two people marrying who love each other for no other reason than they are the same sex. Your dad just finds it gross. That's awful. That's ok , your parents may have been bigots, but mine certainly are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I'm saying that the world would be a better place if people relied on logic and reason to make public policy decisions. That would be nice, but it is unrealistic, unfortunately. In a world full of diverse viewpoints, different people follow different logic, to reach different conclusions. And they usually get overly emotional when defending their conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 That's ok , your parents may have been bigots, but mine certainly are not. My grandfather was. He was also a kind and loving guy, a great father, and a great grandfather. People are complicated like that. Doesn't mean he wasn't bigoted in that he would stand in the way of someone's happiness for no good reason other than they are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 It's the mob acting within the rules. I think that was RK's point too. A fair point. Still can't convince me it's a reasonable position. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 local papers take on this...enjoy us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts