|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| seosan08 wrote: |
It's funny how the ones demanding the most "acceptance and tolerance" from society are the least accepting and tolerant of someone who differs in opinion from them.  |
Interesting you should say that, because you're right: I do want to take marriage (and reproduction) rights away from fundies and wingnuts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| seosan08 wrote: |
| It's funny how the ones demanding the most "acceptance and tolerance" from society are the least accepting and tolerant of someone who differs in opinion from them. |
Why would someone who is tolerant tolerate intolerance.
You're not making any sense. |
Just look at the source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's take this on another level...
Should human rights be subject to 'majority rule'? The Founding Fathers did not think so and quite easily agreed to the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to block the tyranny of the majority on issues that might occur.
About a hundred years later the Progressives grew frustrated in trying to get reforms passed through Congress and resorted to an extreme measure in their states. The result is the referendum system. However, the 'reform' that was adopted in some states is destructive of the Constitution. It allows the citizens of the separate states to get wound up and pass referendums that take away rights from citizens. That was not the original intent. Even more, it short-circuits the idea of a legislative body where the various factions work out a compromise solution.
Perhaps the main thrust of the attack should be against the referendum system itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Perhaps the main thrust of the attack should be against the referendum system itself. |
No. The referendum system is fine. People involved in it need to realize that it is not the pinnacle of democracy, though. That is still - hopefully - the document we call the Constitution, along with all of its amendments.
Referendums are useful as opinion polls that let elected representatives know which direction the body politic is leaning. They're also useful for those involved in shaping and guiding public opinion, to let us all know where and how people need to be educated. I guess that might sound "elitist" to some people - it's unfortunately true that a lot people need to be clear about what marriage is, and what it is not. (The OP was all about the supposed dangerous effects of gay marriage, so that's why I'm talking about it.)
Marriage is not a union of two people in the sight of God - if God exists at all, He or She or It can see everything, anyway. It's not a human right, but if some people can and others can't there needs to be a damn good reason, better than something written in an ancient book that contradicts itself a lot, and which a lot of people have good reasons to disagree with, starting with how that book describes how the world began. It's not about emotion - people are going to have them, anyway. It's not intended to enslave women or make men become fat and lazy middle-aged housecats, though it often does that. It's not about being sure you have a date for New Year's Eve ... though, like Woody Allen opined in one of his ancient films, I guess if you're married 3 years and still looking around for someone to kiss when the mirrored ball drops at midnight, it should definitely be looked into.
Marriage is a union between two families, with society at large giving approval and (most importantly, at least to society) a social and legal framework for passing the wealth, prestige and status of those families from the past on into the future. We are creatures who strive and seek to accumulate what benefits us in order to achieve gain for ourselves and our descendants, and the marriage contract is a tool that has evolved over centuries to assist in that.
Okay. Are we clear so far?
It's a fact that many gay people adopt or have children through artificial insemination - those children lack the same rights of inheritance and access to child support that the children of legal married couple do. Marriage bestows legal rights regarding retirement benefits, taxes and medical insurance - if there's a human rights angle, this is where it is at. It's a fact that gay people vote, and politicians are starting to think about that. It's a fact that every argument against gay marriage was once used to prevent black and white people from marrying each other, but that's now the way things are anymore.
Oh, and one more: the legal system we have now is slightly better than the Divine Right of Kings and ecclesiastical fiat that was the norm for the bulk of human history, and the primary reason for it is that in the modern world we base such things on logic and the evidence of what is before us in the world.
Let's get real. Gay people are not out to get you and they do not seek to destroy your children. They are not even a "they" - they are part of "we." But maybe that's the part you are finding hardest to handle.
Edit - I just noticed that I began by responding to a single thing posted by Ya-ta, but whatever disagreement might exist likely ends exactly there. The "you" pronoun in the final sentence does not refer to him, but most likely to the OP. Just to be clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
