It's crap like this......

[ripleysmom]

"Unless I'm mistaken, the proposed amendment has to do with marriage, not civil unions. Where did the President even address civil unions?"

He didn't and he should have. Sorry it's what I think. We're getting dragged further and further to the right every day and I'm not happy about it.


"Because to me, marriage is between a man and a woman, period."

And to me it's not. I don't understand the big deal about it.


"Call single-sex unions anything you want except for marriages. I don't see why the meaning of the word has to be changed for politically correct reasons."

That's fine....I just always considered to be a marriage to be a union between 2 people and didn't realize that people feel so strongly that it has to be between a man and a woman.


"You are the one wanting to change the tradition, not me. I would like to keep marriages the way they are, i.e., one man, one woman."

Then why change it to so that a man and a woman who are married by a JP are instead joined in a union?


"I'm still curious, since you didn't answer this question before - if there were a Constitutional amendment passed tomorrow that outlawed abortion for any reason, would you or would you not be upset because other people's beliefs were being foisted on to you? Your last response to this question turned it around to the equivalent of "legalizing abortion doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want an abortion" (I agree), but it didn't answer the original question."

But it's not foisting my beliefs onto others. Foisting my beliefs onto others would require my imposing my belief onto their lives. How is an amendment about abortion doing that? They are not required to go out and submit to an abortion so how is that imposing a belief on them?

I am not sure how you can compare an Amendment offering people personal freedom to an Amendment that forces people to live a certain way.

 

[ripleysmom]

And Jenz....you are correct. If I had posted this thread there it would have been deleted as not being in appropriate debate board format.

 

[AirForceRocks]

But it's not foisting my beliefs onto others. Foisting my beliefs onto others would require my imposing my belief onto their lives. How is an amendment about abortion doing that? They are not required to go out and submit to an abortion so how is that imposing a belief on them?

RM, please re-read the question. I'm not asking about an amendment making abortion legal - I'm asking about an amendment making abortion ILLEGAL. If such an amendment were passed, would you or would you not complain that the personal beliefs of others (anti-abortion) were being foisted on to you (pro-choice)?

I am not sure how you can compare an Amendment offering people personal freedom to an Amendment that forces people to live a certain way.

I'm not trying to compare them - I'm questioning your earlier assertion that you don't get upset when other people foist their personal beliefs on to you.

 

[Patrick IL.]

I'd prefer not moving the thread over...unless the OP requested it and thus it would have to be redone in a debateable format. I think there are some intelligent opinions and ideas being stated here and we can do this I would ask though, while discussing the topic lets make an effort to be "non-attacking" in stating your opinions or responding to someone elses. Thats when the thread will get itself in trouble. My opinion, The United States has to enter the real world on this...If two people are in love and wish to commit to each other then it should be legal, I do not think the goverment should be involved in such matters, there are bigger fish to fry out there right now.

 

[ripleysmom]

"RM, please re-read the question. I'm not asking about an amendment making abortion legal - I'm asking about an amendment making abortion ILLEGAL. If such an amendment were passed, would you or would you not complain that the personal beliefs of others (anti-abortion) were being foisted on to you (pro-choice)?"

Yes, I would be upset about that mostly because personal freedoms were being taken away because of the views of others.

I still do not understand though how your analogy corresponds.

How is giving the homosexuals the right to a civil union imposing on anyone?

 

[Pop Daddy]

I am a conseritive and I am proud of our President for standing up for what is right, rather people like you are not. Nothing aganst gay people but mairrage is between a man and a women

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
Yes, I would be upset about that mostly because personal freedoms were being taken away because of the views of others.

I still do not understand though how your analogy corresponds.

How is giving the homosexuals the right to a civil union imposing on anyone?

Laws are about how people think things should be--if someone disagrees with a law that allows an action to be legal or makes an action illegal, it's imposing the beliefs of those who made the law and agree with the law on those who don't. It doesn't have to be actionable in any way.

To use Brenda's abortion example, it's my personal belief that an unborn baby is a person to be protected and that our society should protect that unborn baby in the same way that it protects all its citizens. I believe that unborn baby is its own person and I don't believe the mother should be able to make the choice whether that baby lives or dies. I don't believe it's her choice to make. I believe in protecting the personal freedom of the unborn child. That's my belief. Those who disagree with that are supported by law--they believe the opposite, that it is her choice. That belief is imposed on me in the form of laws that allow a mother to make a choice I don't think she has the right to make.

I don't believe in capital punishment--those who do and have the law on their side are imposing their beliefs on me. Following the lines of your argument, people who believe in capital punishment should only believe in it for themselves. If you don't believe in capital punishment, you shouldn't have that penalty inflicted on you because the people who do believe in capital punishment are imposing their belief in it on you. Because capital punishment boils down to moral beliefs, just like abortion, just like gay marriages, etc. If our own personal moral beliefs should never be imposed on anyone else, bye bye capital punishment.

The "imposing beliefs" argument is so overused on the DB--it's used to claim a sort of moral superiority--"my position is the morally superior one because it allows everyone to make their own decisions and decide for themselves". It's a fallback position for some posters (not you RM) for people who can't make any other argument or just don't want to try. But it means nothing because all of our laws do this to some segment of the population. That's the way our system works.

As for the question at hand, I believe homosexuals and lesbians should be, and eventually will be, allowed to marry. I don't think any particular church should be compelled to marry them, just as they are not compelled to marry a heterosexual couple right now. I believe there should be no distinction on a federal level. And should that become law one day, my beliefs I've outlined above will prevail over those who disagree with me--that doesn't mean I'm morally wrong, just fortunate that the law supports what I believe.

 

[Saffron]

I'm voting for anyone but Bush next time too! Unless Bush's opponent in the next presidential race is Disnee Dad, then I'll probably just move out of the country! Just kidding with you DD.

Happy Indepence Day!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Yes, I would be upset about that mostly because personal freedoms were being taken away because of the views of others.

Then what did you mean here?

Originally posted by AirForceRocks:
The difference is how we react - those biases/beliefs with which we agree? We don't mind those being "forced" on us. It's only those biases/beliefs with which we disagree that cause us to stand up and scream "bigot(s)!"

Originally posted by ripleysmom:
Not true.....at least in my case.

I still do not understand though how your analogy corresponds.

As I've said twice already, I'm not trying to make an analogy. I was trying to see if you were serious about your contention (stated above) that you don't react differently about beliefs being "forced" on you when you disagree with those beliefs. But now you've shown that you do, so I'm not quite sure where you really stand on the beliefs of others being forced on you.