On same sex marriage and propriatary brand names

[wolfsgirl]

I have to take issue with gay's constant use of "partner". Only gays and cowboys do that. When you use that word you are showing that you are different. If you are the same, then using the same words for things is important to express that. You don't have a "same-sex partner", you have a "boyfriend" or a "girlfriend". You're not going to marry your "same-sex partner", you're going to marry your fiance'. Once married, you do not have a "life partner", you have a "husband" or a "wife".

I agree, but up until recently fiancee didn't fit, as we could not be legally married. Girlfriend sounded too high schoolish, and not appropriate for a couple that has been together for many years. Once married I will have a wife.

But I can call my relationship what ever I choose, just like you can. I'm sorry if my choice of words bothers you in some way, but really it is not any of your business.

 

[Masada]

It boils down to this:

Either one believes in right and wrong, or they dont. The question is, where did the notion of right and wrong come from? Is right and wrong subjective, or is there at least SOME form of standard to bear?

Let me explain. Many moral relativists argue that right and wrong are subjective, and are personally interpreted, and only through social agreement does something "become" moral or immoral. Let me address "social agreement". By our very nature as human beings, we agree with truth, and reject lies. When something is "true", humans tend to agree with it by our very nature. When something is "false", we tend to reject it. So, truth is an example of a standard, not a subjective observation.

2+2 is 4. That is a truth, and virtually everyone agrees. Therefore, 2+2=4 is not subjective, it's a truth, it's a standard. If some other person came along proclaiming "nope, 2+2 is actually 3", people would reject that interpretation as false.

SSM is not as tangible and rational as math though, but morality is. In order to come to a place of accepting this, a person must first acknowledge two truths, 1. Morality exists, and 2. No human being is responsible for creating it. These are BOTH truths. I challenge anyone to prove them wrong. Name me the person who created right and wrong. Can't be done. They just "are" right or wrong. But the notion had to be created somewhere, somehow, and by someone or something. This proves that morality is judged by a standard, not an individuals subjective interpretation, or the agreement of society.

A secular example is slavery. At one point in history, the majority of THIS NATION agreed that slavery was morally right, but it wasn't. Over time, society recognized that slavery was in fact IMMORAL, and worked to correct it. Did society's recognition change slavery from once being moral to being immoral? NO!!! Slavery was ALWAYS immoral. Man's recognition, or lack of recognition, of moral truth is irrellevant. Morality is weighed by a standard over all the ages.

Where did morality come from? Not man. The founding fathers of THIS NATION may not have all been "Christians", but they were classically educated men, and they all understood the two truths I mentioned earlier; 1. That morality exists, and 2. No human being is responsible for creating it. They recognized that certain "moral" truths were given to ALL of mankind. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All have secular aspects, and all have moral aspects as well. They understood this. People today do not.

 

[captainawesome]

Please link to your diagnostic criteria for diagnosing this mental illness.

Your right I guess not all are mentally ill. Some are just sociopathic bullies.

 

[wolfsgirl]

It boils down to this:

Either one believes in right and wrong, or they dont. The question is, where did the notion of right and wrong come from? Is right and wrong subjective, or is there at least SOME form of standard to bear?

Let me explain. Many moral relativists argue that right and wrong are subjective, and are personally interpreted, and only through social agreement does something "become" moral or immoral. Let me address "social agreement". By our very nature as human beings, we agree with truth, and reject lies. When something is "true", humans tend to agree with it by our very nature. When something is "false", we tend to reject it. So, truth is an example of a standard, not a subjective observation.

2+2 is 4. That is a truth, and virtually everyone agrees. Therefore, 2+2=4 is not subjective, it's a truth, it's a standard. If some other person came along proclaiming "nope, 2+2 is actually 3", people would reject that interpretation as false.

SSM is not as tangible and rational as math though, but morality is. In order to come to a place of accepting this, a person must first acknowledge two truths, 1. Morality exists, and 2. No human being is responsible for creating it. These are BOTH truths. I challenge anyone to prove them wrong. Name me the person who created right and wrong. Can't be done. They just "are" right or wrong. But the notion had to be created somewhere, somehow, and by someone or something. This proves that morality is judged by a standard, not an individuals subjective interpretation, or the agreement of society.

A secular example is slavery. At one point in history, the majority of THIS NATION agreed that slavery was morally right, but it wasn't. Over time, society recognized that slavery was in fact IMMORAL, and worked to correct it. Did society's recognition change slavery from once being moral to being immoral? NO!!! Slavery was ALWAYS immoral. Man's recognition, or lack of recognition, of moral truth is irrellevant. Morality is weighed by a standard over all the ages.

Where did morality come from? Not man. The founding fathers of THIS NATION may not have all been "Christians", but they were classically educated men, and they all understood the two truths I mentioned earlier; 1. That morality exists, and 2. No human being is responsible for creating it. They recognized that certain "moral" truths were given to ALL of mankind. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All have secular aspects, and all have moral aspects as well. They understood this. People today do not.

I believe that pushing your religious beliefs on others is wrong. You don;t seem to feel the same way.

 

[Masada]

as i previously stated, i don't deny that marriage is an important aspect of society. i feel, however, that homosexuals should have access to it.

if you're arguing that i disagree with the opinion that ancient people had concerning the morality of homosexuality, that is correct. i feel that the views concerning homosexuality are constantly evolving, and have been for some time. this is at least partially the result of a broader scientific view of sexual orientation that was unavailable even one century ago.



the problem is, you haven't presented "mountains of evidence." what you have done is argued over and over again that i only recognize the civil aspect of marriage, because you believe that there can't be a religious aspect of it for homosexuals. that's your opinion, not evidence. the rebuttal is that many homosexuals are religious, and even some churches are offering the marriages.



allowing homosexuals to marry and calling it marriage =/= changing the boiling point of water. that's a ridiculous assertion.

No, you've misquoted me, and misunderstood me. I never said homosexuals couldn't "have" a religious aspect in their marriage, I said homosexuality "violates" aspects of marriage. They can certainly THINK they are abiding by moral law, but that doesn't make it so. Homosexuality VIOLATES moral law.

Like this. I can "have" a nuclear weapon in my house, but it would "violate" the law.

 

[Jerry]

I agree, but up until recently fiancee didn't fit, as we could not be legally married. Girlfriend sounded too high schoolish, and not appropriate for a couple that has been together for many years. Once married I will have a wife.

But I can call my relationship what ever I choose, just like you can. I'm sorry if my choice of words bothers you in some way, but really it is not any of your business.

It's about public perception, not what bothers whom. I don't contest that you can call your relationship whatever you like, I only point to the fact that how people see you will be directly affected by the label you choose. When you choose some version of "partner", people see you as different than hetero couples, and that in turn works against you when you argue that gays are equal. Regular people do not have "opposite-sex partners" or "different-race partners".

You don't have to be legally married for her to be your "wife". My in-laws are "husband" and "wife" and will never legally marry.

 

[captainawesome]

No, you've misquoted me, and misunderstood me. I never said homosexuals couldn't "have" a religious aspect in their marriage, I said homosexuality "violates" aspects of marriage. They can certainly THINK they are abiding by moral law, but that doesn't make it so. Homosexuality VIOLATES moral law.

Like this. I can "have" a nuclear weapon in my house, but it would "violate" the law.

Not true. Shiva never said being gay is immoral.

 

[Masada]

I believe that pushing your religious beliefs on others is wrong. You don;t seem to feel the same way.

Recognition of moral law isn't pushing it on anyone. You are still a human being with the free will to "choose". But don't confuse your authority to "choose" with the authority to "define". They are NOT the same. No one is forcing you to "believe", I'm simply trying to get you to "acknowledge". Acknowledgment isn't agreement, but you seem to think it is somehow.

 

[Masada]

Not true. Shiva never said being gay is immoral.

Again, our founders didn't cite this "shiva" as the Creator which endowed citizens of America, and all of mankind, with certain inalienable rights. So, once again, back for his encore, captainawesome is irrellevant, along with his silly arguments.

 

[captainawesome]

Again, our founders didn't cite this "shiva" as the Creator which endowed citizens of America, and all of mankind, with certain inalienable rights. So, once again, back for his encore, captainawesome is irrellevant, along with his silly arguments.

They cited God. Shiva is God.

 

[Masada]

They cited God. Shiva is God.

Hmmmm....now tell me, which of the founding fathers was Hindu????? lol....

Get lost.....

 

[shrubnose]

Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

Now all that you have to do is convince most Americans, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Not going to happen.

Your idea is a loser.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Now all that you have to do is convince most Americans, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Not going to happen.

Your idea is a loser.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Most Americans are not in favor of gay marriage, but they like the idea of equality. Why wouldn't my compromise be a good one? It seems to me that an overwhelming majority would approve, if they only had the chance.

 

[Masada]

I believe that pushing your religious beliefs on others is wrong. You don;t seem to feel the same way.

How you interpreted that post as "me pushing a religious belief on others" is beyond me. ????

You have no rebuttal about where morality originated? No educated opinion about the analogies I used? No thoughts on societal agreement?

This is what I mean, it's become clear that you are disagreeing with me, yet you don't understand what I'm even saying. I'm taking what I have studied and read, and converting it into a conversational debate. Can you do the same? What have you read that contradicts these philosophies?

Who created morality? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is morality judged by a standard or by individual interpretation? Did you create morality?

These are all questions designed to engage you in philosophical debate. Where are you? Is none of this provoking questions? Is none of this resonating with your intellect? Everyone says, "let's have a debate". Ok, let's have it then. Give me your basis for disagreement on the subject of moral law. Tell me why it's not correct to say something is right definitively or not. Share your intellect. Debate!

All you continue to do is ACCUSE and misstate what I've said. You accuse me of forcing religion down society's throat. INCORRECT. You imply that I'm bigoted. INCORRECT. You imply that secular rights are the same thing as moral justification. INCORRECT!

Line by line, I can pick you apart. And your response? "that's just your opinion and you're trying to force your religious beliefs onto others". WRONG AGAIN! Try again.

 

[wolfsgirl]

It's about public perception, not what bothers whom. I don't contest that you can call your relationship whatever you like, I only point to the fact that how people see you will be directly affected by the label you choose. When you choose some version of "partner", people see you as different than hetero couples, and that in turn works against you when you argue that gays are equal. Regular people do not have "opposite-sex partners" or "different-race partners".

You don't have to be legally married for her to be your "wife". My in-laws are "husband" and "wife" and will never legally marry.

True. Very good points.
I guess I never thought too deeply about it, as I don't introduce her as anything. I introduce her by her name.

 

[shrubnose]

Recognition of moral law isn't pushing it on anyone. You are still a human being with the free will to "choose". But don't confuse your authority to "choose" with the authority to "define". They are NOT the same. No one is forcing you to "believe", I'm simply trying to get you to "acknowledge". Acknowledgment isn't agreement, but you seem to think it is somehow.

I am happy to acknowledge that the religious right is on the wrong (Losing.) side of every moral issue and that is a major problem for the GOP.

"Man has created God in his own image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent." ~ Marie




"Better day's are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[Masada]

Most Americans are not in favor of gay marriage, but they like the idea of equality. Why wouldn't my compromise be a good one? It seems to me that an overwhelming majority would approve, if they only had the chance.

Allow me to polish this good comment up a bit if you don't mind......

Most Americans believe homosexuality is wrong, but also think inequality of legal status is wrong too. Therefore, the debate rages on. How do we, as a society, ensure legal equality under the law, while maintaining moral integrity? Because to most Americans, I know not most of liberals, moral integrity is important.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Recognition of moral law isn't pushing it on anyone. You are still a human being with the free will to "choose". But don't confuse your authority to "choose" with the authority to "define". They are NOT the same. No one is forcing you to "believe", I'm simply trying to get you to "acknowledge". Acknowledgment isn't agreement, but you seem to think it is somehow.

Where is this moral law? Don't say in the bible, because I can show you where the "moral law" of the bible is contradicted in the bible itself. I can also show you other religious texts that contradict what you seem to think is moral law.

Moral are not objective.

 

[captainawesome]

Hmmmm....now tell me, which of the founding fathers was Hindu????? lol....

Get lost.....

Who cares if they were Hindu. Or arent Hindus allowed religious freedom?

Shiva is God so if you are going to say God doesnt like gays please show where she says this.

 

[Masada]

I am happy to acknowledge that the religious right is on the wrong (Losing.) side of every moral issue and that is a major problem for the GOP.

"Man has created God in his own image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent." ~ Marie


"Better day's are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

wow....The religious right isn't always right. But prey tell, did God say homosexuality was moral or immoral? Which side is on the "wrong" side of this moral issue we're discussing again?

 

[shrubnose]

Most Americans are not in favor of gay marriage, but they like the idea of equality. Why wouldn't my compromise be a good one? It seems to me that an overwhelming majority would approve, if they only had the chance.

It's your constitutional right to push your idea, but massive demographic change in the USA does not favor the right's ideas, including this one.

Not going to happen. Wait and see.

 

[shrubnose]

wow....The religious right isn't always right. But prey tell, did God say homosexuality was moral or immoral? Which side is on the "wrong" side of this moral issue we're discussing again?

"God" doesn't run the USA.

So what your non-existant "God" might or might not think is meaningless.

 

[wolfsgirl]

How you interpreted that post as "me pushing a religious belief on others" is beyond me. ????

You have no rebuttal about where morality originated? No educated opinion about the analogies I used? No thoughts on societal agreement?

This is what I mean, it's become clear that you are disagreeing with me, yet you don't understand what I'm even saying. I'm taking what I have studied and read, and converting it into a conversational debate. Can you do the same? What have you read that contradicts these philosophies?

Who created morality? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is morality judged by a standard or by individual interpretation? Did you create morality?

These are all questions designed to engage you in philosophical debate. Where are you? Is none of this provoking questions? Is none of this resonating with your intellect? Everyone says, "let's have a debate". Ok, let's have it then. Give me your basis for disagreement on the subject of moral law. Tell me why it's not correct to say something is right definitively or not. Share your intellect. Debate!

All you continue to do is ACCUSE and misstate what I've said. You accuse me of forcing religion down society's throat. INCORRECT. You imply that I'm bigoted. INCORRECT. You imply that secular rights are the same thing as moral justification. INCORRECT!

Line by line, I can pick you apart. And your response? "that's just your opinion and you're trying to force your religious beliefs onto others". WRONG AGAIN! Try again.

The thing about philosophic debate, is that there is no set determined FACT. Math has set determined FACTS there is a right and a wrong answer to math.
You will always have YOUR philosophical beliefs, and I will have mine. Just like religion, there is no one verifiable truth, there is only belief.

My personal philosophical belief is that if you are harming no one, all is good. That whole do unto others thing.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I am happy to acknowledge that the religious right is on the wrong (Losing.) side of every moral issue and that is a major problem for the GOP.

I hope this is supposed to be some kind of joke. Pro life might be the "losing" side of the debate at the ballot box but c'mon! Abortion is now moral?

 

[Masada]

Who cares if they were Hindu. Or arent Hindus allowed religious freedom?

Shiva is God so if you are going to say God doesnt like gays please show where she says this.

This country wasn't founded on Hindu principles....lol...THAT'S the point son. Don't know how you missed it. You were probably too busy surfing porn or something, idk.

Just a little FYI....in Hinduism, "marriage" must fulfill three functions. One of which is called "Prajaa". Prajaa is the ability to conceive children together. Ooops, there goes same sex couples.