Foffkid

Scroll back there guy. I was invited to share my views a page or two back. I had avoided doing so up to that point. To be honest I don't think the net is a forum for resonable, rational discussion. And instead forces people into a 'gotcha' mode.

I'm not trying to win a discussion here. I'm a merely offering the viewpoint of somebody who holds an alternative view.

Bean.

Yeah, I'm a Libertarian. And if you had done your research you'd know that as a party (least the last time I checked) felt that government should stay out of the gay marriage issue. Had checked for it earlier so I could include that in an earlier post but couldn't find it.

Take a look at the website for more detail.

Well that's a great argument...so you're not libertarian in this case? It would seem the gov't got very involved.

You posted on page one of this thread. No invitation was issued to you by name that I can see.

Your ideas and arguments seem to bounce wildly around, kind of like you're the most pompous pinball on the planet. That's the real barrier to coherent discussions on the web.

The government can't prevent two gay men from starting a business together. How is preventing gay marriage different? Because marriage is holy, because it has some sanctity that places it above other relationships that people enter into? Well.. the sanctity of people's relationships is not the government's concern. They can't ban marriages between members of the church of satan, or between people who have known each other for twelve hours.

Obviously, marriage is a different kind of relationship than a business partnership, but the role of government in recognizing it is primarily to protect the rights of the married people. They shouldn't be in the business of saying who can and can't marry.


[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by the1stblindman]

Ahriman.

The question of who gets to decide what is normal is a question of the society. In America it can be determined in a number of different ways. For instance in the laws we pass. In the behavior that is held up as wothy of notice and acclaim. We as a whole get to decide what is normal. Is an interesting idea/possible thread of discussion. Maybe another time.

Raoul.

Maybe Healthy was the wrong term to use. Look, for instance. My personal liberty has limits on it placed by society. I would argure that perhaps while gay marriage could be very helpful and productive to society in some ways it would be counter productive in others. Maybe I'd rather we be dealing with something else as a culture and a nation instead.

Nope, but then you and I see things differently. I'd say that the governmet, in the form of the Judicial branch got involved first. And all this other crap has just come because of that.

1. You seem to have ignored my other comments completely, but, let's just deal with this one.

Normal as decided by society is someting thats shifts dramatically over time. Normal a hundred years ago is antiquated and obscure now.

Determined in the laws we pass? Who passes the laws? A good portion of laws are not discussed in open forums, but only but elected representitives. If the law is to be an indicator of the societal norms, then a better form of democratic representation should be created to ensure the will of everyone in society is properly looked after.

Worthy of acclaim? That's such a subjective term I don't even know where to begin. How about if people are proud of thier shy gay friend finally getting laid? or of him being a great person to guy he slept with? that's worthy of both honour and acclaim, and by the definition you've presented, would make him the norm.

Problem is; he still wouldn't be considered the norm. Because people with blinders on can't see the subjective nature of thier arguements, and often fall into sheer lunancy. Missouri's amendment as an example of such.

Fofkid

Sorry if the discussion is disjointed. I don't think we (the 4 or 5 of us actively participating) have had the option of actually following a single logical thread/argument for more than a couple of posts. I'm more of a sit around the table and drink beer and discuss kind of person. Never been to huge on forums like this because they don't tend to lend themselves to a good discussion. More like a screaming match.

Morgan, I think the discussion could be dangerous to our society. Worse case it could cause a social backlace against gays and case there to be a resurgance of right wing fundamentalist christian activity...

gaiseric

I've been on this site for over a year. I've debated on other sites as well. I've had many sit-raound-a-table-with-beers discussions and debates too.

Please don't blame your incoherence and inconsistency on (i) this forum or (ii) anyone else.

Thank you.

Hence you seem fine with the "social backlace [sic] against gays" and "resurgance of right wing fundamentalist christian activity" that is implicit in the very amendments being voted on that are being critiqued by others in this thread.

Coherence really isn't your strong point, eh?