Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Because like I said the issue at hand is not one that affects the public or society as a whole.

As it is demonstratable no matter how we like to defend the ideal principles of democracy (some of which cant be applied in practice), the people cannot decide immediately for every possible decision.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Should straight people not be allowed to vote on it, period? It doesn't affect any of them. But then, obviously it's going to pass, because I don't know any gay guys that'll vote against themselves. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, imagine if that same logic applied to every voting matter. Nothing would be rejected because only the people in favor of it would be allowed to vote!

Theokhoth

The only reason that prevents people from seeing and realising that they should have no say on the matter of gay marriage is the "backup" of religion.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Now, I don't really mind if it goes up for a public vote or not, or whether some politicians decide -- I just don't see why public votes in a democratic system is de facto a bad thing.Hewkii

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Not every possible decision, but the public should be allowed to decide on extrermely contentious issues.MetalGear_Ninty

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Education IS such an issue.

Well first I think the one claiming to be affected has to explain how he is affected. From all the reasons I have been given none of them stands. So gay marriage being legalised doesnt affect the rest of the people. SInce the reasons they have given for why it should be legalised (most reasons being how they think they are affected by it) are invalid one way or another I dont see how one can claim that they are affected.

Who determines that they are invalid? What constitutes actual affection? Does mental/emotional affection count? Or just physical?

Well yeah some clarification is in order.

I didnt say that thats how it has worked all along. I am saying how I think it should work.

I know; I'm saying I think that's a horrible idea.

Yes but there are different sorts of matters. Matters that have to do with a specific group of people deciding for their own "fate", a matter of an issue that is causing problems to everyone one way or another, an matter of the majority deciding for the minority without arguments and so on. We cant just equate everything in order to do justice to the ideal "spirit" of democracy.

If we do it the way you're asking, democracy will no longer be possible; this isn't a matter of people deciding their own fate inasmuch as it's just encouraging the existence of factions and arbitrarily determining who can and cannot vote based on vague definitions of "affection."

As for your last statement: would a government ever allow its citizens to decide whether or not they want to pay taxes?

Of course not.

As you see there are different sorts of matters.

Taxes are necessary for the government to exist. That's not a different matter.

Democracy has boundaries.

Every person votes in a Democracy.

The only reason why this issue and its voting is not seen as something outrageous by most is because the influence of the religious dogma enforcing it is great. For some reason, most people think that its justifiable to decide for other people's lives even if thats done without arguments, as long as the long-lived religious tradition is behind it.

So we should completely jump to the opposite extreme and ignore them altogether?

Teenaged

I don't agree with it but really, I couldn't care less.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Should straight people not be allowed to vote on it, period? It doesn't affect any of them. But then, obviously it's going to pass, because I don't know any gay guys that'll vote against themselves. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, imagine if that same logic applied to every voting matter. Nothing would be rejected because only the people in favor of it would be allowed to vote!

Teenaged

The only reason that prevents people from seeing and realising that they should have no say on the matter of gay marriage is the "backup" of religion.

There are issues where popular vote is not necessarily a good thing, yes; however, when these issues arrive one of the things worse than the popular vote is only permitting certain groups to vote and not others.

People are entitled to their religious beliefs and people with religious beliefs are entitled to vote. If you want them to change their minds then convince them gay marriage isn't gonna destroy the world; if you can't, convince the people they're trying to convince. By denying them the right to vote simply because "it doesn't affect them" you are essentially segregating religious people off from the democratic process.

Hell, in the words of Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms. Or he said something to that extent. What I am saying is that it aint perfect, but its the best we got.MetalGear_Ninty

and yet neither America nor Britian have ever had Democracies. almost as if your appeal to authority was wrong somehow...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Well first I think the one claiming to be affected has to explain how he is affected. From all the reasons I have been given none of them stands. So gay marriage being legalised doesnt affect the rest of the people. SInce the reasons they have given for why it should be legalised (most reasons being how they think they are affected by it) are invalid one way or another I dont see how one can claim that they are affected.

Who determines that they are invalid? What constitutes actual affection? Does mental/emotional affection count? Or just physical?

I would have to see a list of these reasons in order to show why they are invalid. I cant just make one statement that invalidates all. There is specific reason behind each reason as to why they are invalid.

Well yeah some clarification is in order.

I didnt say that thats how it has worked all along. I am saying how I think it should work.

I know; I'm saying I think that's a horrible idea.

Yes but there are different sorts of matters. Matters that have to do with a specific group of people deciding for their own "fate", a matter of an issue that is causing problems to everyone one way or another, an matter of the majority deciding for the minority without arguments and so on. We cant just equate everything in order to do justice to the ideal "spirit" of democracy.

If we do it the way you're asking, democracy will no longer be possible; this isn't a matter of people deciding their own fate inasmuch as it's just encouraging the existence of factions and arbitrarily determining who can and cannot vote based on vague definitions of "affection."

Its not "who" can vote, bot for "which issues" they can vote.

As for your last statement: would a government ever allow its citizens to decide whether or not they want to pay taxes?

Of course not.

As you see there are different sorts of matters.

Taxes are necessary for the government to exist. That's not a different matter.

People are not allowed to vote for taxes because there is an obvious reasoning behind it. To the desires of citizens not paying taxes we have reasoning arguments to tell them that this is not their place to decide and that taxes are important. The same is true for gay marriage. For every objection of people towards its legalisation there is a counterargument; counterarguments which have been multiple times deployed here in OT.

Democracy has boundaries.

Every person votes in a Democracy.

And yet "everyone" doesnt vote for "everything".

The only reason why this issue and its voting is not seen as something outrageous by most is because the influence of the religious dogma enforcing it is great. For some reason, most people think that its justifiable to decide for other people's lives even if thats done without arguments, as long as the long-lived religious tradition is behind it.

So we should completely jump to the opposite extreme and ignore them altogether?

Since we have separation of church and state why does religion matter when it comes to legal definitions?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Hell, in the words of Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms. Or he said something to that extent. What I am saying is that it aint perfect, but its the best we got.Hewkii

and yet neither America nor Britian have ever had Democracies. almost as if your appeal to authority was wrong somehow...

They've never had pure democracies, but America (a Constitutional democracy) and Britain (a Parliamentary democracy) are both different forms of liberal democracy.

They've never had pure democracies, but America (a Constitutional democracy) and Britain (a Parliamentary democracy) are both different forms of liberal democracy.

Theokhoth

this is still besides the point as I was more targeting how appeals to authority are fallacious.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Should straight people not be allowed to vote on it, period? It doesn't affect any of them. But then, obviously it's going to pass, because I don't know any gay guys that'll vote against themselves. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, imagine if that same logic applied to every voting matter. Nothing would be rejected because only the people in favor of it would be allowed to vote!

Theokhoth

The only reason that prevents people from seeing and realising that they should have no say on the matter of gay marriage is the "backup" of religion.

There are issues where popular vote is not necessarily a good thing, yes; however, when these issues arrive one of the things worse than the popular vote is only permitting certain groups to vote and not others.

People are entitled to their religious beliefs and people with religious beliefs are entitled to vote. If you want them to change their minds then convince them gay marriage isn't gonna destroy the world; if you can't, convince the people they're trying to convince. By denying them the right to vote simply because "it doesn't affect them" you are essentially segregating religious people off from the democratic process.

People's religious beliefs wont be altered with the legalisation of gay marriage.

Sure that would be the ideal thing to do.

By giving them the right to vote on that issue simply because their book has a chapter on it you are essentially allowing them to interfere with the lives of other people with no valid reasonable argument in a country where there is separation of church and state.

(sorry for using your words - didnt do it to mock but to show the comparison).

Well first I think the one claiming to be affected has to explain how he is affected. From all the reasons I have been given none of them stands. So gay marriage being legalised doesnt affect the rest of the people. SInce the reasons they have given for why it should be legalised (most reasons being how they think they are affected by it) are invalid one way or another I dont see how one can claim that they are affected.

Who determines that they are invalid? What constitutes actual affection? Does mental/emotional affection count? Or just physical?

I would have to see a list of these reasons in order to show why they are invalid. I cant just make one statement that invalidates all. There is specific reason behind each reason as to why they are invalid.

Then the system becomes inconsistent with itself and based on an individual basis; this would cause huge problems just in the time it would take to process so many peoples' reasons alone.

Well yeah some clarification is in order.

I didnt say that thats how it has worked all along. I am saying how I think it should work.

I know; I'm saying I think that's a horrible idea.

Yes but there are different sorts of matters. Matters that have to do with a specific group of people deciding for their own "fate", a matter of an issue that is causing problems to everyone one way or another, an matter of the majority deciding for the minority without arguments and so on. We cant just equate everything in order to do justice to the ideal "spirit" of democracy.

If we do it the way you're asking, democracy will no longer be possible; this isn't a matter of people deciding their own fate inasmuch as it's just encouraging the existence of factions and arbitrarily determining who can and cannot vote based on vague definitions of "affection."

Its not "who" can vote, bot for "which issues" they can vote.

It's the same thing. Issues that are up to voting are up to voting by everyone within that community; it's a collective, and people do not live in a bubble. Telling people they can't vote on certain issues simply because their reasons of voting are "invalid" is determining who can vote.

As for your last statement: would a government ever allow its citizens to decide whether or not they want to pay taxes?

Of course not.

As you see there are different sorts of matters.

Taxes are necessary for the government to exist. That's not a different matter.

People are not allowed to vote for taxes because there is an obvious reasoning behind it. To the desires of citizens not paying taxes we have reasoning arguments to tell them that this is not their place to decide and that taxes are important. The same is true for gay marriage.For every objection of people towards its legalisation there is a counterargument; counterarguments which have been multiple times deployed here in OT.

Yes, and they have their own counterarguments. As long as gay marriage is a matter up to vote, everyone votes on it, for whatever reasons they want, period. You'd have to get a constitutional amendment for that to not apply. In addition, the people DO vote on certain taxes; what the taxes go toward, how much, whether or not xyz program should be enacted at the expense of higher taxes, etc.

Democracy has boundaries.

Every person votes in a Democracy.

And yet "everyone" doesnt vote for "everything".

Fundamental human rights, for instance.

The only reason why this issue and its voting is not seen as something outrageous by most is because the influence of the religious dogma enforcing it is great. For some reason, most people think that its justifiable to decide for other people's lives even if thats done without arguments, as long as the long-lived religious tradition is behind it.

So we should completely jump to the opposite extreme and ignore them altogether?

Since we have separation of church and state why does religion matter when it comes to legal definitions?

Separation of Church and State applies only when the legislation is religious in nature and has no secular application; religious people can vote based on religious reasons but if the law they vote on has no secular application then it's struck down. Religious people are allowed to vote. :|

Teenaged

What I'm against is the Christians in this country trying to basically say they invented marriage.

No they didn't. Marriage is a part of many religions.

I don't know why the government ever recognized the first marriage.

I don't like that marriage has a lot of different part (like Adoption, Taxes, etc.)

The rights and responsibilities should be no different to unmarried people.

And if we're not gonna get rid of the recognition of marriage [like I want] gays should at least be recognized as well.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]No, the issue merely being contentious is not enough. When something is contentious then there are misconceptions and other things at play such as: backwards thinking, obsoleteness, misinformation etc etc.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Education IS such an issue.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

They've never had pure democracies, but America (a Constitutional democracy) and Britain (a Parliamentary democracy) are both different forms of liberal democracy.

Hewkii

The people can directly vote in both systems for representatives, certain laws within states, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Hell, in the words of Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms. Or he said something to that extent. What I am saying is that it aint perfect, but its the best we got.Hewkii

and yet neither America nor Britian have ever had Democracies. almost as if your appeal to authority was wrong somehow...

Nope. I never said that only homosexuals should vote.

You said people should only vote on issues that affect them. Homosexual does not affect straight people (supposedly).

There shouldnt be a vote at all.

That's an irrelevant issue. The fact is, for better or worse, there IS a vote.

People's religious beliefs wont be altered with the legalisation of gay marriage.

That doesn't mean religious people can't vote on the issue of gay marriage.

Sure that would be the ideal thing to do.

By giving them the right to vote on that issue simply because their book has a chapter on it you are essentially allowing them to interfere with the lives of other people with no valid reasonable argument in a country where there is separation of church and state.

Allowing religious people to vote based on religious reasons does not even fall within the same dimension as SoCaS.

(sorry for using your words - didnt do it to mock but to show the comparison).

Teenaged

Let's play Devil's Advocate. What if the religious people were right? What if, for whatever reason, allowing gay marriage to happen would pretty much ruin life in America?

If that were the case, even the gays would be going "Damn, I wish we listened to them."

Everybody has their own reasoning and that should be respected by allowing them to vote on issues that are up to voting based on those reasons. Going "that's valid" or "that's not valid" is arbitrary and against human rights.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Err, that wasn't an appeal to authority, dude. Hewkii

Well first I think the one claiming to be affected has to explain how he is affected. From all the reasons I have been given none of them stands. So gay marriage being legalised doesnt affect the rest of the people. SInce the reasons they have given for why it should be legalised (most reasons being how they think they are affected by it) are invalid one way or another I dont see how one can claim that they are affected.

Who determines that they are invalid? What constitutes actual affection? Does mental/emotional affection count? Or just physical?

I would have to see a list of these reasons in order to show why they are invalid. I cant just make one statement that invalidates all. There is specific reason behind each reason as to why they are invalid.

Then the system becomes inconsistent with itself and based on an individual basis; this would cause huge problems just in the time it would take to process so many peoples' reasons alone.

No it doesnt. Its simple. Each premise is countered by one premise. One premise cant invalidate all premises. :?

Well yeah some clarification is in order.

I didnt say that thats how it has worked all along. I am saying how I think it should work.

I know; I'm saying I think that's a horrible idea.

Yes but there are different sorts of matters. Matters that have to do with a specific group of people deciding for their own "fate", a matter of an issue that is causing problems to everyone one way or another, an matter of the majority deciding for the minority without arguments and so on. We cant just equate everything in order to do justice to the ideal "spirit" of democracy.

If we do it the way you're asking, democracy will no longer be possible; this isn't a matter of people deciding their own fate inasmuch as it's just encouraging the existence of factions and arbitrarily determining who can and cannot vote based on vague definitions of "affection."

Its not "who" can vote, bot for "which issues" they can vote.

It's the same thing. Issues that are up to voting are up to voting by everyone within that community; it's a collective, and people do not live in a bubble. Telling people they can't vote on certain issues simply because their reasons of voting are "invalid" is determining who can vote.

The voting is not happining on its own. The need for voting spawned due to those invalid reasons to begin with. Therefore that can render the need for voting inexistant alltogether.

As for your last statement: would a government ever allow its citizens to decide whether or not they want to pay taxes?

Of course not.

As you see there are different sorts of matters.

Taxes are necessary for the government to exist. That's not a different matter.

People are not allowed to vote for taxes because there is an obvious reasoning behind it. To the desires of citizens not paying taxes we have reasoning arguments to tell them that this is not their place to decide and that taxes are important. The same is true for gay marriage.For every objection of people towards its legalisation there is a counterargument; counterarguments which have been multiple times deployed here in OT.

Yes, and they have their own counterarguments. As long as gay marriage is a matter up to vote, everyone votes on it, for whatever reasons they want, period. You'd have to get a constitutional amendment for that to not apply. In addition, the people DO vote on certain taxes; what the taxes go toward, how much, whether or not xyz program should be enacted at the expense of higher taxes, etc.

The point remains though that citizens are not allowed to vote for every issue of a country. So voting yes is important for democracy, but we cant seriously say that whenever citizens are not allowed to vote, then thats degrading democracy. We should realise what the issue is and its uniqueness.

Democracy has boundaries.

Every person votes in a Democracy.

And yet "everyone" doesnt vote for "everything".

Fundamental human rights, for instance.

Yes exactly. And one may advocate that participation in every social activity is a right. Marriage is a social activity, not only a religious one.

The only reason why this issue and its voting is not seen as something outrageous by most is because the influence of the religious dogma enforcing it is great. For some reason, most people think that its justifiable to decide for other people's lives even if thats done without arguments, as long as the long-lived religious tradition is behind it.

So we should completely jump to the opposite extreme and ignore them altogether?

Since we have separation of church and state why does religion matter when it comes to legal definitions?

Separation of Church and State applies only when the legislation is religious in nature and has no secular application; religious people can vote based on religious reasons but if the law they vote on has no secular application then it's struck down. Religious people are allowed to vote. :|

Ah I thought you meant religion when you said "ignore".

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] People have a collective responsibility for their nation, and therefore shouldn't merely vote on issues that affect them. Old people still vote on issues of education and the rest. However, when something is contentious that demonstrates that there is public disagreement, and the nature of public opinion can only be ascertained through voting. NB: Yeah, what Theok said.MetalGear_Ninty

Education IS such an issue.

Everybody has their own reasoning and that should be respected by allowing them to vote on issues that are up to voting based on those reasons. Going "that's valid" or "that's not valid" is arbitrary and against human rights.

Theokhoth

Correct. It's a moral issue. It's invalid to ask for a logical reason why or why not one is opposed to gay marriage because it's based on morals. Because equal rights are attributable through other means, I see nothing wrong here.

No it doesnt. Its simple. Each premise is countered by one premise. One premise cant invalidate all premises. :?

But eventually somebody is going to say "No, that's not valid" and throw out someone's vote. It's no longer a Democracy; it's an aristocracy.

The voting is not happining on its own. The need for voting spawned due to those invalid reasons to begin with. Therefore that can render the need for voting inexistant alltogether.

Not that alone. It needs to go through the legal process of constitutional amending; just going "that's invalid" is arbitrary and leaves way too much open for abuse.

The point remains though that citizens are not allowed to vote for every issue of a country. So voting yes is important for democracy, but we cant seriously say that whenever citizens are not allowed to vote, then thats degrading democracy. We should realise what the issue is and its uniqueness.

Citizens vote for representatives who vote for what the citizens want in issues like taxes. The constitution is amended by a two-thirds majority vote in Congress; the Supreme Court rules by majority vote; a Presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in the House; every single issue is up to voting in this country by representatives who are voted in by the people; in short, the people have an indirect say in every single piece of legislation that happens in this country, and that's how it should be.

Yes exactly. And one may advocate that participation in every social activity is a right. Marriage is a social activity, not only a religious one.

Same with voting.

Ah I thought you meant religion when you said "ignore".

No, I meant religious people voting for religious reasons.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Nope. I never said that only homosexuals should vote.

You said people should only vote on issues that affect them. Homosexual does not affect straight people (supposedly).

The general point I was trying to make was that there should be no voting. Since the need for voting spawned directly from the objections of religious people I kinda jammed that meaning in there too when I said that they shouldnt vote for things that dont affect them. I see MGN thought the same from my post so I guess I should clarify.

There shouldnt be a vote at all.

That's an irrelevant issue. The fact is, for better or worse, there IS a vote.

People's religious beliefs wont be altered with the legalisation of gay marriage.

That doesn't mean religious people can't vote on the issue of gay marriage.

It all boils down to the fact that the issue iself arose because of their religious views. If it was an issue whose "source" had nothing to do with religion then yes of course I wouldnt complain for people voting according to their religious beliefs.

Sure that would be the ideal thing to do.

By giving them the right to vote on that issue simply because their book has a chapter on it you are essentially allowing them to interfere with the lives of other people with no valid reasonable argument in a country where there is separation of church and state.

Allowing religious people to vote based on religious reasons does not even fall within the same dimension as SoCaS.

Huh what? Whats SoCaS?

(sorry for using your words - didnt do it to mock but to show the comparison).

Theokhoth

Let's play Devil's Advocate. What if the religious people were right? What if, for whatever reason, allowing gay marriage to happen would pretty much ruin life in America?

If that were the case, even the gays would be going "Damn, I wish we listened to them."

Everybody has their own reasoning and that should be respected by allowing them to vote on issues that are up to voting based on those reasons. Going "that's valid" or "that's not valid" is arbitrary and against human rights.

No, It's not okay. They definatly shouldn't be alowed to adopt kids. If two guys get married, one has a job, one doesn't, they both get health insurance. Plus its morally wrong.

Trust me if there were reasonable arguments and an obvious negative effect I would understand the decision. I would be unhappy but nonetheless realise that it cant happen.

Teenaged

Maybe not negative to you...

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Err, I used the quote to illustrate a point, at no point did I say that democracy was the best form of government by virtue of Churchill saying. I was stating an opinion, and using ol' Churchill to illustrate my point. Hewkii

The general point I was trying to make was that there should be no voting. Since the need for voting spawned directly from the objections of religious people I kinda jammed that meaning in there too when I said that they shouldnt vote for things that dont affect them. I see MGN thought the same from my post so I guess I should clarify.

That is a separate issue altogether. The only way to make this an issue not to vote on would be to amend the Constitution, and even that requires a lot of voting.

It all boils down to the fact that the issue iself arose because of their religious views.

That is neither determinable nor relevant.

If it was an issue whose "source" had nothing to do with religion then yes of course I wouldnt complain for people voting according to their religious beliefs.

Every single right in this country has a religious source, including Separation of Church and State. It doesn't matter if the source is religious or not; what matters is if the thing being voted on has a secular application.

Huh what? Whats SoCaS?

Separation of Church and State.

Trust me if there were reasonable arguments and an obvious negative effect I would understand the decision. I would be unhappy but nonetheless realise that it cant happen.

The issue here is you're arbitrarily defining "reasonable," "obvious" and "negative."

Teenaged

Hold up, is Theokhoth arguing AGAINST gay marriage? Wha???Head_of_games

I'm arguing against not allowing people to vote on certain issues simply because "it doesn't affect them."

Hold up, is Theokhoth arguing AGAINST gay marriage? Wha???Head_of_games

This is Gamespot, where playing the Devil's advocate or acting indie while pretending you're not is a national sport.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No it doesnt. Its simple. Each premise is countered by one premise. One premise cant invalidate all premises. :?

But eventually somebody is going to say "No, that's not valid" and throw out someone's vote. It's no longer a Democracy; it's an aristocracy.

What? I really cant see how that is concluded.

The voting is not happining on its own. The need for voting spawned due to those invalid reasons to begin with. Therefore that can render the need for voting inexistant alltogether.

Not that alone. It needs to go through the legal process of constitutional amending; just going "that's invalid" is arbitrary and leaves way too much open for abuse.

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?

The point remains though that citizens are not allowed to vote for every issue of a country. So voting yes is important for democracy, but we cant seriously say that whenever citizens are not allowed to vote, then thats degrading democracy. We should realise what the issue is and its uniqueness.

Citizens vote for representatives who vote for what the citizens want in issues like taxes. The constitution is amended by a two-thirds majority vote in Congress; the Supreme Court rules by majority vote; a Presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in the House; every single issue is up to voting in this country by representatives who are voted in by the people; in short, the people have an indirect say in every single piece of legislation that happens in this country, and that's how it should be.

Yep I am aware of that.

Yes exactly. And one may advocate that participation in every social activity is a right. Marriage is a social activity, not only a religious one.

Same with voting.

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?

Ah I thought you meant religion when you said "ignore".

No, I meant religious people voting for religious reasons.

Theokhoth

I don't have a problem with same sex marriage.

That is my opinion, all I'm saying is that I didn't use an appeal to authority to demonstrate that my opinion is absolute truth because Churchill agrees.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Trust me if there were reasonable arguments and an obvious negative effect I would understand the decision. I would be unhappy but nonetheless realise that it cant happen.

LikeHaterade

Maybe not negative to you...

Prostitutes are a negative thing for some religious people but prostitutes are not outlawed are they? There was no voting, as it was obvious.

Prostitutes are a negative thing for some religious people but prostitutes are not outlawed are they? There was no voting, as it was obvious.

Teenaged

Hey, if they want to get married, they can get married. I dont care whatsoever.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Trust me if there were reasonable arguments and an obvious negative effect I would understand the decision. I would be unhappy but nonetheless realise that it cant happen.

Teenaged

Maybe not negative to you...

Prostitutes are a negative thing for some religious people but prostitutes are not outlawed are they? There was no voting, as it was obvious.

You're arbitrarily classifying something as "not negative" to others' beliefs on marriage.

Prostitution is illegal. =/

I'm going to Waffle House. I'll be back in about 30 to finish our discussion. :P

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

The general point I was trying to make was that there should be no voting. Since the need for voting spawned directly from the objections of religious people I kinda jammed that meaning in there too when I said that they shouldnt vote for things that dont affect them. I see MGN thought the same from my post so I guess I should clarify.

That is a separate issue altogether. The only way to make this an issue not to vote on would be to amend the Constitution, and even that requires a lot of voting.

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.

It all boils down to the fact that the issue iself arose because of their religious views.

That is neither determinable nor relevant.

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.

If it was an issue whose "source" had nothing to do with religion then yes of course I wouldnt complain for people voting according to their religious beliefs.

Every single right in this country has a religious source, including Separation of Church and State. It doesn't matter if the source is religious or not; what matters is if the thing being voted on has a secular application.

See the above.

Huh what? Whats SoCaS?

Separation of Church and State.

Trust me if there were reasonable arguments and an obvious negative effect I would understand the decision. I would be unhappy but nonetheless realise that it cant happen.

The issue here is you're arbitrarily defining "reasonable," "obvious" and "negative."

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

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Maybe not negative to you...

LikeHaterade

Prostitutes are a negative thing for some religious people but prostitutes are not outlawed are they? There was no voting, as it was obvious.

You're arbitrarily classifying something as "not negative" to others' beliefs on marriage.

Prostitution is illegal. =/

Not in Nevada.

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.

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.

Yep I am aware of that.

Then why change it?

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.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Maybe not negative to you...

LikeHaterade

Prostitutes are a negative thing for some religious people but prostitutes are not outlawed are they? There was no voting, as it was obvious.

You're arbitrarily classifying something as "not negative" to others' beliefs on marriage.

Prostitution is illegal. =/

Ha thats news to me.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]That is my opinion, all I'm saying is that I didn't use an appeal to authority to demonstrate that my opinion is absolute truth because Churchill agrees.Hewkii

It's alright, I have no moral issues with it and I'd rather the government didn't legislate what people can/can't do with their love life.