Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Misoir
This is true from a civil standpoint, but entirely false from a legal one.
Even the Founders of the United States could comprehend what I am saying and understand it as true. They had instituted legal discrimination against
many people because they knew for a society to function there must be particular people treated as equals and others not so. For them it was White
Christian men; women, racial and ethnic minorities, and certain religious minorities were not afforded the same rights they established for this
country. People look back on them, seeing them either as bigots who failed to achieve the utopia or as a group of men who did great things for
progress but failed on others.
Sorry, but I do. Nothing is more important than having EQUAL treatment of individuals under the law. That's kind why we created republics,
so that TYRANTS like kings and queens could not make themselves above the law.
What you are suggesting is feudalism.
Obedience, is more important than fairness under the law? That's quite the perspective you have there.
Kings and Queens were not generally tyrants; that is a republican myth like the Queen of France saying, "let them eat cake". Any helpless fool will
believe it, which is good for the republicans because they need those helpless fools to remain helpless fools. A King or Queen could not overstep
their traditionally established boundaries first because the lands were owned by the Lords and at any time the Lord could ally himself with another
Kingdom. A King would not threaten private property because that was the foundation of his entire regime. Laws applied differently to different people
and rightfully so; a Lord had more to lose than a peasant so the word of a peasant against the Lord needs more proof than the reverse. I could go on
and on but I will not.
Where is it stated that we 'must' supress certani elements of people? Who is this higher good you speak of? What determines what is
considered high good? Are you going to throw a religious argument at me?
IF you are, then, well you will fail to win this debate, because your argument is religious and emotional, therefore un-rational and moot.
So only science can be reasonable; what one smells, touches, sees, tastes, etc...? That is an absurdity in itself; science alone cannot judge the
philosophical issues to either prove or disprove them. If science can do so, then philosophy (and by extension theology) can logically assess
scientific questions to proof or disprove them. Philosophy cannot prove/disprove inquiry into natural sciences just as science cannot prove/disprove
inquiry into philosophical/theological subjects. This is not irrational it is the foundation of all rational concepts.
My argument is that of fairness under the law. Which is actually the MOST important value ANY society can have. It's actually the founding
idea for The United States and any other republic/democracy on the planet worth calling itself a nation.
Taking moral high ground in order to deny some, what others have is nonsense. This concept is only applicate to things that are actually harmful to
society, like murder or rape.
Same sex marriage has absolutely 0 effect upon anybody, except for those who choose to make it an issue within themselves.
First of all I disagree with your main argument; obviously. Second, taking moral high ground to deny others particular things is not nonsense, it is
the foundation of every stable, working society that is properly ordered, not towards the precepts of the French Revolution, but towards the higher
good. All nations are founded upon a particular culture and each culture which stems from the Latin word for cult which meant religion. Culture
derives from a religion and a nation from a culture. Brought to its logical conclusion all nations have, by default, an official religion. We have one
even now in America and it is called Atheistic-Utilitarianism.
Same-sex marriage does have an effect upon everyone. For one it expands the definition of marriage, thus altering our understanding of the word and
thus changing our language. Second it solidifies the acceptance of sodomite lifestyles as equal to that of heterosexuals, which are not equal; sodomy
is unnatural and immoral - period. And third it allows for the legal right of sodomites to raise children, which is to inflict the acknowledgement of
perversion and degeneracy at a young age; forever corrupting innocent people who should not even be exposed to such concepts.
By the end of this post you should probably strongly dislike me, be calling me a bigot, and other similar things. Do not bother responding to this
post because I am not going to respond to yours. I have said what needed to be said and am done with the debate.