Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

Correct. ..and your point is?MetalGear_Ninty

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

What? I really cant see how that is concluded.

Voting is determined by someone's level of "reasoning" which is arbitrarily defined as being "better" or "worse" than another person's.

But since I didnt say that the X group should vote and the Y shouldnt there is no such case.

Which leads us to the first point which I still dont understand. How is it impossible or arbitrary to counter the arguments that brought up the need for voting?

It isn't, but it's not going to change the legislation.

But the thing is you see I understand why the voting happened. I am just voicing my opinion against that decision.

Yep I am aware of that.

Then why change it?

I didnt advocate changing the way we elect the representatives of the people. Merely how those representatives later on when elected, allow the people to decide about issues.

Yes of course. But would there be a voting to decide whether or not a specific group of people should have a specific fundamental right?

Eventually, yes. The Constitution is not arbitrarily amended; the rights for black people and women to vote, for instance.

So people actually voted to decide whether or not black people and women have equal rights to the rest?

Theokhoth

I have a migrane headache from reading this topic. T_T

I have a migrane headache from reading this topic. T_T

ghoklebutter

Yep. Btw this has to do with Bill Clinton doing this thing by adding the definition of marriage (one man one woman) into the Contitution? I am not very educated on this.

That never passed. If it had, no state would have been able to allow gay marriage at all, and some states do.

It is relevant, because there would be a difference if a) the issue is just an issue and people just use their religious criteria to vote for it and b) the issue itself being one that arose from that religious criteria.

Religious criteria doesn't matter as long as the issue is secular in application. So its origin is not relevant.

I was actually describing the example you gave me (of the negative result of the legalisation in your devils advocate part) with these words.

Maybe people want that to happen. Is it negative for them?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I have a migrane headache from reading this topic. T_T

Teenaged

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

megahaloman64

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

megahaloman64

Hey, baby, how's about you and me get together for little umph-chica-wump-umph?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I have a migrane headache from reading this topic. T_T

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Yep. Btw this has to do with Bill Clinton doing this thing by adding the definition of marriage (one man one woman) into the Contitution? I am not very educated on this.

That never passed. If it had, no state would have been able to allow gay marriage at all, and some states do.

Oh.

It is relevant, because there would be a difference if a) the issue is just an issue and people just use their religious criteria to vote for it and b) the issue itself being one that arose from that religious criteria.

Religious criteria doesn't matter as long as the issue is secular in application. So its origin is not relevant.

I think they do matter. It matters whether they are the reason the issue was created or they are just used in the process of voting.

I was actually describing the example you gave me (of the negative result of the legalisation in your devils advocate part) with these words.

Maybe people want that to happen. Is it negative for them?

Who would want it to happen? I think you yourself are applying some post-modernism here and relativity of views. Kind of in an extreme way.

Theokhoth

Of course, there's no reason not to be.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

Theokhoth

Hey, baby, how's about you and me get together for little umph-chica-wump-umph?

But since I didnt say that the X group should vote and the Y shouldnt there is no such case.

People who are affected by the issue versus people who aren't (if there is such a person).

But the thing is you see I understand why the voting happened. I am just voicing my opinion against that decision.

You can do that. But if your opinion is to change the entire system because of that decision then there's an issue.

So people actually voted to decide whether or not black people and women have equal rights to the rest?

At some point in time, two-thirds of the House and Senate got together and passed this Constitutional amendment. Or, they passed a different one forbidding them from voting and the Supreme Court got together and passed a majority vote striking it down. Either way, yes, eventually it all comes down to votes. The Constitution cannot be arbitrarily amended.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

Teenaged

Hey, baby, how's about you and me get together for little umph-chica-wump-umph?

I know, I'm just screwing with him.

You guys aren't using the colors in the order of the rainbow! :x

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Hey, baby, how's about you and me get together for little umph-chica-wump-umph?

Theokhoth

I know, I'm just screwing with him.

that's not very nice.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

But since I didnt say that the X group should vote and the Y shouldnt there is no such case.

People who are affected by the issue versus people who aren't (if there is such a person).

But I never said that the first should vote and the second shouldnt.

But the thing is you see I understand why the voting happened. I am just voicing my opinion against that decision.

You can do that. But if your opinion is to change the entire system because of that decision then there's an issue.

Saying how to me one issue is obvious to not need a voting process is not advocating that the system must change.

So people actually voted to decide whether or not black people and women have equal rights to the rest?

At some point in time, two-thirds of the House and Senate got together and passed this Constitutional amendment. Or, they passed a different one forbidding them from voting and the Supreme Court got together and passed a majority vote striking it down. Either way, yes, eventually it all comes down to votes. The Constitution cannot be arbitrarily amended.

But seeing how (supposedly) we have advanced from then, we should be able to discern what is obvious and what isnt. Again based on counterarguments which are not just a matter of opinion.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Hey, baby, how's about you and me get together for little umph-chica-wump-umph?

Theokhoth

I know, I'm just screwing with him.

I think they do matter. It matters whether they are the reason the issue was created or they are just used in the process of voting.

If it has a secular application, then it's permissible. For example, there's a National Prayer Day that's allowed because secularists pray too, in their own way.

Who would want it to happen?

Anarchists maybe? I dunno. My point is, if someone does, then shouldn't they be allowed to try to do what they think may be best for the country?

I think you yourself are applying some post-modernism here and relativity of views. Kind of in an extreme way.

I'm not saying they're all equally valid. I'm saying that they all have an equal say.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I am still here Theo... :(

smc91352

I know, I'm just screwing with him.

that's not very nice.

Neither is him telling me to move to Canada or France if I want to get married.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

If they want to get married, they can move to canada or france and get out of America.

Hewkii

gays, thats what this thread is about.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Correct. ..and your point is?Hewkii

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

But I never said that the first should vote and the second shouldnt.

>_> Yes you did. >_> At the beginning of this I asked, "Are you saying people shouldn't vote if the issue doesn't affect them?" And you said that was basically it.

Saying how to me one issue is obvious to not need a voting process is not advocating that the system must change.

In order to make it where it's no longer a popular voting issue requires going through the system. If we just jump to the end and cut out the middleman, then yes, that is changing the system.

But seeing how (supposedly) we have advanced from then, we should be able to discern what is obvious and what isnt. Again based on counterarguments which are not just a matter of opinion.

"Obvious" is arbitrarily defined.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I think they do matter. It matters whether they are the reason the issue was created or they are just used in the process of voting.

If it has a secular application, then it's permissible. For example, there's a National Prayer Day that's allowed because secularists pray too, in their own way.

You lost me here....

Who would want it to happen?

Anarchists maybe? I dunno. My point is, if someone does, then shouldn't they be allowed to try to do what they think may be best for the country?

But we would pose counterarguments. Counterarguments which also exist in the case of gay marriage.

I think you yourself are applying some post-modernism here and relativity of views. Kind of in an extreme way.

I'm not saying they're all equally valid. I'm saying that they all have an equal say.

No they dont when they regulate the lives of others for no substanciated reason. Again "substanciated" not by arbitrary criteria.

Theokhoth

Well, IMO, the matter for same sex marriage doesn't actually effect me. Since that is the case, it's not right for me to judge this nor do I believe that anyone else in my same case should judge either. If I had to make a choice in the matter, I wouldn't be against nor for it since I cannot jude it and I would say that no one else should have that right either. I don't care if you where appointed the decision maker for marriage by "god" himself, unless this decission effects you too, then you have no say in it.

What gives us the right to choose for others what they have decided for themselves? If we are all instinctual animals and need to find a "mate", then why do we have homosexuals to begin with? It's their choice, so who are we to decide that their choice is incorrect?

gays, thats what this thread is about.

megahaloman64

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I know, I'm just screwing with him.

Theokhoth

that's not very nice.

Neither is him telling me to move to Canada or France if I want to get married.

your married to a guy?

But I never said that the first should vote and the second shouldnt.

>_> Yes you did. >_> At the beginning of this I asked, "Are you saying people shouldn't vote if the issue doesn't affect them?" And you said that was basically it.

Ahem... in an earlier post to you I clarified to you that thats not what I meant and mentioned that I should have earlier. I specifically said that there should be no voting.

The reason why I worded it like that is because I think its of great importance that the religious people's objection was the reason the need for voting arose. Surely a misunderstandable and inncurate wording though which I clarified earlier. =/

Saying how to me one issue is obvious to not need a voting process is not advocating that the system must change.

In order to make it where it's no longer a popular voting issue requires going through the system. If we just jump to the end and cut out the middleman, then yes, that is changing the system.

You mean the specific issue of gay marriage not being an issue of popular voting?

What I am advocating is that the government itself should decide on the issue. The people still voted the specific government. So voting did take place.

But seeing how (supposedly) we have advanced from then, we should be able to discern what is obvious and what isnt. Again based on counterarguments which are not just a matter of opinion.

"Obvious" is arbitrarily defined.

I just said: based on counterarguments. Arguments are not arbitrary.

Theokhoth

You lost me here....

If a matter, any matter, seems religious in nature but has secular applications then that matter can become a law without violating Separation of Church and State. The origins of the matter does not matter; what matters is how it can be applied.

But we would pose counterarguments. Counterarguments which also exist in the case of gay marriage.

And then people would vote according to which arguments they agree.

The thing with arguing is: it's not about who's right. It's about knowing the different sides to an issue so people can walk away from the argument informed. That's it. There's a counterargument to every counterargument and eventually somebody is going to decide which argument he agrees with.

No they dont when they regulate the lives of others for no substanciated reason. Again "substanciated" not by arbitrary criteria.

There's no such thing as "unsubstantiated." It's when you start saying "No, this is substantiated but this isn't" when it does become arbitrary. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH USES REASON. There is not a single person, anywhere, at any point in time, who woke up one morning and decided to be for or against a certain issue "just 'cuz." They may not be particularly good at using reason, but every person has a reason for believing what they do.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

that's not very nice.

megahaloman64

Neither is him telling me to move to Canada or France if I want to get married.

your married to a guy?

My married to a guy what?

You lost me here....

If a matter, any matter, seems religious in nature but has secular applications then that matter can become a law without violating Separation of Church and State. The origins of the matter does not matter; what matters is how it can be applied.

Nah that distinction that I made is important to me besides the issue of the separation of church and state.

But we would pose counterarguments. Counterarguments which also exist in the case of gay marriage.

And then people would vote according to which arguments they agree.

The thing with arguing is: it's not about who's right. It's about knowing the different sides to an issue so people can walk away from the argument informed. That's it. There's a counterargument to every counterargument and eventually somebody is going to decide which argument he agrees with.

I will disagree with the last sentence.

No they dont when they regulate the lives of others for no substanciated reason. Again "substanciated" not by arbitrary criteria.

There's no such thing as "unsubstantiated." It's when you start saying "No, this is substantiated but this isn't" when it does become arbitrary. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH USES REASON. There is not a single person, anywhere, at any point in time, who woke up one morning and decided to be for or against a certain issue "just 'cuz." They may not be particularly good at using reason, but every person has a reason for believing what they do.

But we do have ways of knowing which arguments are more valid than others. Otherwise every debate is futile.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You lost me here....

If a matter, any matter, seems religious in nature but has secular applications then that matter can become a law without violating Separation of Church and State. The origins of the matter does not matter; what matters is how it can be applied.

Nah that distinction that I made is important to me besides the issue of the separation of church and state.

But we would pose counterarguments. Counterarguments which also exist in the case of gay marriage.

And then people would vote according to which arguments they agree.

The thing with arguing is: it's not about who's right. It's about knowing the different sides to an issue so people can walk away from the argument informed. That's it. There's a counterargument to every counterargument and eventually somebody is going to decide which argument he agrees with.

I will disagree with the last sentence.

No they dont when they regulate the lives of others for no substanciated reason. Again "substanciated" not by arbitrary criteria.

There's no such thing as "unsubstantiated." It's when you start saying "No, this is substantiated but this isn't" when it does become arbitrary. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH USES REASON. There is not a single person, anywhere, at any point in time, who woke up one morning and decided to be for or against a certain issue "just 'cuz." They may not be particularly good at using reason, but every person has a reason for believing what they do.

But we do have ways of knowing which arguments are more valid than others. Otherwise every debate is futile.

Teenaged

Like I said, a debate isn't about who's right; it's about information. People in the debate are meant to leave more informed than when they entered and then they can decide which side of the issue they agree on; that is the sole purpose of a debate. Yes, we can determine that some arguments are more well-reasoned than others, but in the end, the purpose of reasoning is merely to show why a person should believe this way and not that way. It's not a matter of being right or wrong; it's a matter of being convincing.

Now I wanna go relax.:P

Now I wanna go relax.:P

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Now I wanna go relax.:P

Teenaged

Ooh, I think you can. :oops:

Heat up this towel for me, wouldja?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Now I wanna go relax.:P

Theokhoth

Ooh, I think you can. :oops:

Heat up this towel for me, wouldja?

*puts the towεl on the heater*

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] No, I never argued that my opinion was right by virtue of WC agreeing with me. Hewkii

no

*puts the towεl on the heater*

Teenaged

I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).PannicAtack

That, I think.

I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).PannicAtack

I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).PannicAtack

I wonder too...

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).Theokhoth

That, I think.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

*puts the towεl on the heater*

ghoklebutter

Well the first time I had written the post I had forgotten the e and when I came back to add it I had Greek for my keyboard so I let it be. They look similar anyway. :P

Eh, whatever floats their boat. Its not like I'm being forced into a same sex marriage.

Although you could say a monogamous marriage is "same sex"! *ba-dum, psh; canned laughter*

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).Lansdowne5

I'm fine with gay couples getting the same rights as strait ones, I just don't want it called marriage. If it was, it would lead to a host of problems. Churches would be sued, people would be arrested for "hate speech", and the door would be opened for all sorts of things involving the re-interpretation of marriage(Marrige with more than two people, marriage between kids, between an adult and a kid, or even a human and an animal). Head_of_games

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I often wonder what it is that makes topics like this so successful (successful being that it gets lots of posts).markop2003