Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Children learning about homosexual couples/marriage, when their parents are against it.

markop2003

Parents have a right to determine what their kids learn in school. On a moral subject, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't have to learn about it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Even in cases where the reasoning is considered weak, still there should be a train of thought behind it in order to call it an argument.

Teenaged

Um.... I am merely talking about what constitutes an argument. I wasnt implying that what is invalid is not an argument.

Um, I dont know if I have advocated that as I dont know what one standard morality would imply or encompass.

And is not about being morally opposed to something I am not, but being morally imposed to something and wishing this moral code to reach a legal level and then in effect to affect other people's lives.

Its not as simple as you present it.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Like I said children learn about homsexuality from various places. A changed educational system wont change things any more than they are already changed.

Also like I said people should get busy trying to stop education from changing, not going against what is phenomenically causing this change.

LikeHaterade

People are going to learn about homosexuality eventually. But parents are against their children learning about it at a younger age, and they sure as hell shouldn't have to. I think that there's a difference in learning something when your a child, as opposed to being older and more mature when you learn something.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Like I said children learn about homsexuality from various places. A changed educational system wont change things any more than they are already changed.

Also like I said people should get busy trying to stop education from changing, not going against what is phenomenically causing this change.

Teenaged

People are going to learn about homosexuality eventually. But parents are against their children learning about it at a younger age, and they sure as hell shouldn't have to. I think that there's a difference in learning something when your a child, as opposed to being older and more mature when you learn something.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then since you advocate one standard morality......you would have to agree with majority rule. That is what you are advocating. One morality...right? Since being morally opposed to something you are not is considered wrong in your eyes.LJS9502_basic

Um.... I am merely talking about what constitutes an argument. I wasnt implying that what is invalid is not an argument.

Um, I dont know if I have advocated that as I dont know what one standard morality would imply or encompass.

And is not about being morally opposed to something I am not, but being morally imposed to something and wishing this moral code to reach a legal level and then in effect to affect other people's lives.

Its not as simple as you present it.

I didnt condemn morality in general. Neither did I say it should be completely ommited. Just that it has to be "checked" when in a legal level.

They are wrong in my eyes because they are not based on logic; and when they affect laws they must be based on logic. Not because they arent mine. ;)

So, no, you are misrepresenting my position.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Like I said children learn about homsexuality from various places. A changed educational system wont change things any more than they are already changed.

Also like I said people should get busy trying to stop education from changing, not going against what is phenomenically causing this change.

LikeHaterade

People are going to learn about homosexuality eventually. But parents are against their children learning about it at a younger age, and they sure as hell shouldn't have to. I think that there's a difference in learning something when your a child, as opposed to being older and more mature when you learn something.

By not allowing gay marriage you're forcing morality on children, what about parents who want to have their children learn about it at school? Besides, teaching people about something =/=forcing morality on them. It's not the educational system's place to force morality, and by not teaching about something they're forcing morality through exclusion. Their job is to present as large a picture as possible, it's the parents's responsibility to guide their childrens' morality.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

People are going to learn about homosexuality eventually. But parents are against their children learning about it at a younger age, and they sure as hell shouldn't have to. I think that there's a difference in learning something when your a child, as opposed to being older and more mature when you learn something.

LJS9502_basic

I'd say as young as 8-10.

If same-sex marriage is the law, and children have a lesson on what marriage is, then same-sex marriage should be included in it. Of course they should. Its the law. The fact that their parents may disagree with the law is irrelevant. The law is the law, and if children have to learn about the current marriage situation in their state, they should be told the whole truth. It will help stop them from becoming bigoted like their parents.Bourbons3

Exactly. Why it shouldn't be included is because most of the US is against it. Should they have to learn about it because the minority thinks it is in their best interest? Or how about equal rights being achieved, making both sides happy.

Children learn about homosexuality at a very young age even without education. TV, movies and any kind of media really. And nowadays even directly from people around them: their sister's/brother's friend who is gay a teacher that is gay a gay couple that they might see walking hand-in-hand in the park etc etc.

Teenaged

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

[In a legal level yes. Morals alone cannot stand. Like I said to Thheokhoth those morals should be incorporated into a logical frame and see if they work there.

I didnt condemn morality in general. Neither did I say it should be completely ommited. Just that it has to be "checked" when in a legal level.

They are wrong in my eyes because they are not based on logic; and when they affect laws they must be based on logic. Not because they arent mine. ;)

So, no, you are misrepresenting my position.

Teenaged

What if their morality is based on propagation of the species? Then it's logical. No one says you have to agree with their morals but you shouldn't assume yours are better which IS what I'm seeing you say. So no I haven't misrepresented.

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Children learning about homosexual couples/marriage, when their parents are against it.

LikeHaterade

Parents have a right to determine what their kids learn in school. On a moral subject, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't have to learn about it.

No they don't. There are standards that determine the minimum level of what is taught, there are laws that prevent schools from espousing ideas like racial segregation, and there are ethical standards for schools as to what they should teach in order to prevent a COMPLETE view of the world. I couldn't, as a teacher, say that Christian marriage is immoral, why could I do the same for gay marriage?

Parents have a right to determine what their kids learn in school. On a moral subject, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't have to learn about it.

LikeHaterade

I've never heard of negative effects of civil unions in other countries when matching rights of marriages. LikeHaterade

Then I suggest reading up on what the APA has to say about the subject

Based on our current educational system, it's forcing morals on children whose parents are against.The marriage debate is still a morality issue. You can't place burdens on someone for being morally against something, especially when equal rights are achievable through other means.

LikeHaterade

I don't see why bigotry should be allowed sanctuary behind the veil of morality. There are parents that are morally against women doing anything besides being in the kitchen and raising children. There are parents that are morally against blacks and other minorities integrating and associating with white people. And equal rights cannot be achieved through other means. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean implementing policies that have a detrimental effect on the gay community.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]If same-sex marriage is the law, and children have a lesson on what marriage is, then same-sex marriage should be included in it. Of course they should. Its the law. The fact that their parents may disagree with the law is irrelevant. The law is the law, and if children have to learn about the current marriage situation in their state, they should be told the whole truth. It will help stop them from becoming bigoted like their parents.LikeHaterade

Exactly. Why it shouldn't be included is because most of the US is against it. Should they have to learn about it because the minority thinks it is in their best interest? Or how about equal rights being achieved, making both sides happy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that popular approval cannot be used to determine issues of civil rights. Schools cannot segregate just because a majority of the people in the district support it.

By not allowing gay marriage you're forcing morality on children, what about parents who want to have their children learn about it at school? Besides, teaching people about something =/=forcing morality on them. It's not the educational system's place to force morality, and by not teaching about something they're forcing morality through exclusion. Their job is to present as large a picture as possible, it's the parents's responsibility to guide their childrens' morality.

theone86

Parents could just teach their children themselves at whatever age they deemed necessary, as opposed to children's parents that don't want them to learn about it, they would be forced to. That really just helps my argument. That's your interpretation of what education should be btw.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="markop2003"] You don't have to agree with something to learn about it.theone86

Parents have a right to determine what their kids learn in school. On a moral subject, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't have to learn about it.

No they don't. There are standards that determine the minimum level of what is taught, there are laws that prevent schools from espousing ideas like racial segregation, and there are ethical standards for schools as to what they should teach in order to prevent a COMPLETE view of the world. I couldn't, as a teacher, say that Christian marriage is immoral, why could I do the same for gay marriage?

On a moral subject, yes they do.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[In a legal level yes. Morals alone cannot stand. Like I said to Thheokhoth those morals should be incorporated into a logical frame and see if they work there.

I didnt condemn morality in general. Neither did I say it should be completely ommited. Just that it has to be "checked" when in a legal level.

They are wrong in my eyes because they are not based on logic; and when they affect laws they must be based on logic. Not because they arent mine. ;)

So, no, you are misrepresenting my position.

LJS9502_basic

What if their morality is based on propagation of the species? Then it's logical.

My second sentence in connection to the first makes it abundantly clear that I am talking about in a legal level. Not generally.

Every moral goes through a process of "checking" when entering a legal level. We dont make morals into laws just like that. At least we shouldnt.

I will have to make again the separation of two notions of "logic".

a) simply a train of thought

b) a valid train of thought defined as valid by various criteria.

In the example you brought up, the moral is logical as in a) but not necessarily as in b).

Also imposing such a moral would have implication on things beyond homosexuality.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]If same-sex marriage is the law, and children have a lesson on what marriage is, then same-sex marriage should be included in it. Of course they should. Its the law. The fact that their parents may disagree with the law is irrelevant. The law is the law, and if children have to learn about the current marriage situation in their state, they should be told the whole truth. It will help stop them from becoming bigoted like their parents.theone86

Exactly. Why it shouldn't be included is because most of the US is against it. Should they have to learn about it because the minority thinks it is in their best interest? Or how about equal rights being achieved, making both sides happy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that popular approval cannot be used to determine issues of civil rights. Schools cannot segregate just because a majority of the people in the district support it.

No one says you have to agree with their morals but you shouldn't assume yours are better which IS what I'm seeing you say. So no I haven't misrepresented.

LJS9502_basic

What is imperative though is that they refrain from imposing them via laws.

My morals (I dont know if I would ever call them better) are not affecting others in a tangible way like their morals affect me. Therefore they are deffinetely different and have different effects.

And yes you have because you over simplify my posts. If somethingisnt clear ask me to clarify. I have no problem to do so.

No I am not. They can keep their morals but they must refrain from imposing them on me through laws. Their moral if imposed on me does regulate my life in a very tangible level.

My second sentence in connection to the first makes it abundantly clear that I am talking about in a legal level. Not generally.

Every moral goes through a process of "checking" when entering a legal level. We dont make morals into laws just like that. At least we shouldnt.

I will have to make again the separation of two notions of "logic".

a) simply a train of thought

b) a valid train of thought defined as valid by various criteria.

In the example you brought up, the moral is logical as in a) but not necessarily as in b).

Also imposing such a moral would have implication on things beyond homosexuality.

Teenaged

Your legal argument has been dispensed with above.

Again...you are merely stating YOUR opinion as to what constitutes logic in morals. One could just as well argue the same in regards to yours. So you aren't really presenting any logical reason to negate morals as a guide. Seems you are just negating morals you don't agree with dude.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Children learn about homosexuality at a very young age even without education. TV, movies and any kind of media really. And nowadays even directly from people around them: their sister's/brother's friend who is gay a teacher that is gay a gay couple that they might see walking hand-in-hand in the park etc etc.

LikeHaterade

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

8 to 10 years old.

Then I suggest reading up on what the APA has to say about the subject-Sun_Tzu-

Then how do you explain couples that are fine with it? Specifically in other countries, since the APA doesn't apply to those.

Just because there are children who have parents who hold bigotted views regarding homosexuals does not mean that the law should cater to bigotry.

I don't see why bigotry should be allowed sanctuary behind the veil of morality. There are parents that are morally against women doing anything besides being in the kitchen and raising children. There are parents that are morally against blacks and other minorities integrating and associating with white people. And equal rights cannot be achieved through other means. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean implementing policies that have a detrimental effect on the gay community.

-Sun_Tzu-

Anti gay marriage isn't bigotry. The US is actually open to the homosexual lifestyle, with the exception of actual bigots. Bigotry would be me being intolerant of the homosexual lifestyle in general, which isn't the case for most of America.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No one says you have to agree with their morals but you shouldn't assume yours are better which IS what I'm seeing you say. So no I haven't misrepresented.

Teenaged

What is imperative though is that they refrain from imposing them via laws.

My morals (I dont know if I would ever call them better) are not affecting others in a tangible way like their morals affect me. Therefore they are deffinetely different and have different effects.

And yes you have because you over simplify my posts. If somethingisnt clear ask me to clarify. I have no problem to do so.

When it comes down to it....it's just the morality you disagree with that you find wrong.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Parents have a right to determine what their kids learn in school. On a moral subject, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't have to learn about it.

LikeHaterade

No they don't. There are standards that determine the minimum level of what is taught, there are laws that prevent schools from espousing ideas like racial segregation, and there are ethical standards for schools as to what they should teach in order to prevent a COMPLETE view of the world. I couldn't, as a teacher, say that Christian marriage is immoral, why could I do the same for gay marriage?

On a moral subject, yes they do.

No, they don't. You could call interracial marriage a moral issue, but that doesn't mean parents can tell schools not to teach children about it. And again knowing about something=/=agreeing with it on a moral grounds. It's not the schools' place to determine morality, it's the parents'. Parents can guide their childrens' morality after they learn about something.

On a moral subject, yes they do.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Exactly. Why it shouldn't be included is because most of the US is against it. Should they have to learn about it because the minority thinks it is in their best interest? Or how about equal rights being achieved, making both sides happy.

LJS9502_basic

The Supreme Court has ruled that popular approval cannot be used to determine issues of civil rights. Schools cannot segregate just because a majority of the people in the district support it.

How so?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No I am not. They can keep their morals but they must refrain from imposing them on me through laws. Their moral if imposed on me does regulate my life in a very tangible level.

My second sentence in connection to the first makes it abundantly clear that I am talking about in a legal level. Not generally.

Every moral goes through a process of "checking" when entering a legal level. We dont make morals into laws just like that. At least we shouldnt.

I will have to make again the separation of two notions of "logic".

a) simply a train of thought

b) a valid train of thought defined as valid by various criteria.

In the example you brought up, the moral is logical as in a) but not necessarily as in b).

Also imposing such a moral would have implication on things beyond homosexuality.

LJS9502_basic

Your legal argument has been dispensed with above.

Again...you are merely stating YOUR opinion as to what constitutes logic in morals. One could just as well argue the same in regards to yours. So you aren't really presenting any logical reason to negate morals as a guide. Seems you are just negating morals you don't agree with dude.

So no my legal argument stands firm.

My point is very clear. Their morals if imposed on me they regulate my life with no good reason. Will you ask how I know that there is no good reason? Why dont you give me one?

When their moral is checked with reason it is found inadequate to meet logical criteria for reasons I have deployed multiple times in such threads. I cant redeploy them again all. If you want me to answer to something specific ask me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="theone86"]

The Supreme Court has ruled that popular approval cannot be used to determine issues of civil rights. Schools cannot segregate just because a majority of the people in the district support it.

theone86

How so?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Children learn about homosexuality at a very young age even without education. TV, movies and any kind of media really. And nowadays even directly from people around them: their sister's/brother's friend who is gay a teacher that is gay a gay couple that they might see walking hand-in-hand in the park etc etc.

Teenaged

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

8 to 10 years old.

Wow. While I strongly disagree that most learn of homosexuality at that age, lets say it is true(I'm not saying you're wrong). The educational environment is different, and children would take it in different than a gay couple holding hands which would last for a few seconds, or seeing it on TV. Because while it's rare a child may come across such things, even if they had, it wouldn't be implemented, as opposed to seeing it in a book and learning it in school.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Then I suggest reading up on what the APA has to say about the subjectLikeHaterade

Then how do you explain couples that are fine with it? Specifically in other countries, since the APA doesn't apply to those.

Just because there are children who have parents who hold bigotted views regarding homosexuals does not mean that the law should cater to bigotry.

I don't see why bigotry should be allowed sanctuary behind the veil of morality. There are parents that are morally against women doing anything besides being in the kitchen and raising children. There are parents that are morally against blacks and other minorities integrating and associating with white people. And equal rights cannot be achieved through other means. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean implementing policies that have a detrimental effect on the gay community.

-Sun_Tzu-

Anti gay marriage isn't bigotry. The US is actually open to the homosexual lifestyle, with the exception of actual bigots. Bigotry would be me being intolerant of the homosexual lifestyle in general, which isn't the case for most of America.

You're intolerant to the point where you don't think they should have the right to marry as all other people do.

[Just because some morals are so obvious as there not being a need to "check" them doesnt mean that all morals are fitting to create laws.

So no my legal argument stands firm.

My point is very clear. Their morals if imposed on me they regulate my life with no good reason. Will you ask how I know that there is no good reason? Why dont you give me one?

When their moral is checked with reason it is found inadequate to meet logical criteria for reasons I have deployed multiple times in such threads. I cant redeploy them again all. If you want me to answer to something specific ask me.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Children learn about homosexuality at a very young age even without education. TV, movies and any kind of media really. And nowadays even directly from people around them: their sister's/brother's friend who is gay a teacher that is gay a gay couple that they might see walking hand-in-hand in the park etc etc.

Teenaged

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

8 to 10 years old.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No one says you have to agree with their morals but you shouldn't assume yours are better which IS what I'm seeing you say. So no I haven't misrepresented.

LJS9502_basic

What is imperative though is that they refrain from imposing them via laws.

My morals (I dont know if I would ever call them better) are not affecting others in a tangible way like their morals affect me. Therefore they are deffinetely different and have different effects.

And yes you have because you over simplify my posts. If somethingisnt clear ask me to clarify. I have no problem to do so.

When it comes down to it....it's just the morality you disagree with that you find wrong.

If you had read the thread you would see that I didnt say that laws are independent from morals. An idea for a law does start from a moral code and from then it should be checked if its suitable to become a law.

Simple by repeating that laws are influenced by morals doesnt mean that any moral is suitable to be imposed by law. By far.

When it comes down to it its just the morality you agree with that you find that it should be imposed by law.

See it goes both ways. The difference is on who can adequately support their morals.

No, they don't. You could call interracial marriage a moral issue, but that doesn't mean parents can tell schools not to teach children about it. And again knowing about something=/=agreeing with it on a moral grounds. It's not the schools' place to determine morality, it's the parents'. Parents can guide their childrens' morality after they learn about something.

theone86

Yes, and this moral subject just so happens to be taught in schools. If the majority of parents are against their children learning about interracial marriages, they very well could.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

LikeHaterade

8 to 10 years old.

Wow. While I strongly disagree that most learn of homosexuality at that age, lets say it is true(I'm not saying you're wrong). The educational environment is different, and children would take it in different than a gay couple holding hands which would last for a few seconds, or seeing it on TV. Because while it's rare a child may come across such things, even if they had, it wouldn't be implemented, as opposed to seeing it in a book and learning it in school.

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[Just because some morals are so obvious as there not being a need to "check" them doesnt mean that all morals are fitting to create laws.

So no my legal argument stands firm.

My point is very clear. Their morals if imposed on me they regulate my life with no good reason. Will you ask how I know that there is no good reason? Why dont you give me one?

When their moral is checked with reason it is found inadequate to meet logical criteria for reasons I have deployed multiple times in such threads. I cant redeploy them again all. If you want me to answer to something specific ask me.

LJS9502_basic

I never said that no moral is fitting to create a law did I? :roll:

Nice straw man there.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I answered to LJS what I meant by young.

8 to 10 years old.

theone86

Wow. While I strongly disagree that most learn of homosexuality at that age, lets say it is true(I'm not saying you're wrong). The educational environment is different, and children would take it in different than a gay couple holding hands which would last for a few seconds, or seeing it on TV. Because while it's rare a child may come across such things, even if they had, it wouldn't be implemented, as opposed to seeing it in a book and learning it in school.

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

Again....many laws are morality based. I don't see you arguing against murder convictions because morality makes murder wrong.LJS9502_basic

Not a good example. Murder is against the law because it's a violation of the rights of others. It would be illegal even if murder wasn't considered immoral.

:roll: Oh my....

I never said that no moral is fitting to create a law did I? :roll:

Nice straw man there.

Teenaged

Nice attempt at deflection.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Again....many laws are morality based. I don't see you arguing against murder convictions because morality makes murder wrong.Cherokee_Jack

Not a good example. Murder is against the law because it's a violation of the rights of others. It would be illegal even if murder wasn't considered immoral.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

8 to 10 years old.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

No, they don't. You could call interracial marriage a moral issue, but that doesn't mean parents can tell schools not to teach children about it. And again knowing about something=/=agreeing with it on a moral grounds. It's not the schools' place to determine morality, it's the parents'. Parents can guide their childrens' morality after they learn about something.

LikeHaterade

Yes, and this moral subject just so happens to be taught in schools. If the majority of parents are against their children learning about interracial marriages, they very well could.

No, they couldn't. That's discrimination by a government-run entity.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Then I suggest reading up on what the APA has to say about the subjectLikeHaterade

Then how do you explain couples that are fine with it? Specifically in other countries, since the APA doesn't apply to those.

Just because there are children who have parents who hold bigotted views regarding homosexuals does not mean that the law should cater to bigotry.

I don't see why bigotry should be allowed sanctuary behind the veil of morality. There are parents that are morally against women doing anything besides being in the kitchen and raising children. There are parents that are morally against blacks and other minorities integrating and associating with white people. And equal rights cannot be achieved through other means. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean implementing policies that have a detrimental effect on the gay community.

-Sun_Tzu-

Anti gay marriage isn't bigotry. The US is actually open to the homosexual lifestyle, with the exception of actual bigots. Bigotry would be me being intolerant of the homosexual lifestyle in general, which isn't the case for most of America.

In some cases it's not so much that couples are fine with it, it's that it is better than nothing at all, and others may be fine with it, but they do not make up the majority by any means, otherwise the research wouldn't indicate that it is is an issue in the first place.

As far as your second point, if you dont think they should get married, that suggests some level of intolerance...

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

theone86

The harm is that the parents are against their children learning in school for whatever moral reason that drives them to believe so. If most of society believes that it's best that children learn about homosexuality on their own when they're older and more mature, so be it. It shouldn't have to be taught in school then.