Obamas position on gay marriage
- This topic has 70 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by Health.
May 14, 2012 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm #875587
Health- Why is it that you continuously call people “liberals” like it s a dirty word to make your point. I dont know if im a liberal or not a liberal and the truth is it makes no difference its a meaningless label. im just curious as to why you think its such a terrible thing to be a liberal?
That being said….when did i ever say i support people being gay. I said people can do what they want behind closed doors. that does not mean i agree with what their doing. In regards to gays being allowed to married…im still undecided on that issue. As of now i support civil unions because why should they not get the tax benefits of a normal couple. But marriage is a whole other issue which is why i started this thread to hear all the different sides to the issues.May 15, 2012 2:13 am at 2:13 am #875588gregaaronMember
“The flaw is simply that bestiality is illegal any way you want to look at it…even by precedent”
I’m not quite sure what you meant by that. As of now, yes, bestiality is illegal (only in 34 states, though), but we are not discussing whether or not the ACT of homosexuality should be legal. It is the fact that we have reached a stage where proclaiming one’s deviancy is lauded, and have a viewpoint against this abomination is now considered narrow-minded, bigoted and wrong. A quarter century ago, the fact that such a large percentage of Americans feel this way would have been incomprehensible – just like now, in 2012, we are sure that no group will ever condone marriage between siblings or matrimony with one’s kangaroo. Yes, it is a slippery slope – today it’s “normal” to marry within the same gender; tomorrow it will be okay to tie the knot with one’s sister; next with a 4-year old boy, and finally with animals.May 15, 2012 3:00 am at 3:00 am #875589
It is quite ludicros that this is being called a “Civil Rights” issue.
It’s a definition issue.
Since the founding of this country the definition of Marriage has been the matrimony of man and wife.
No one that I have heard or read about is advocating that it be deemed illegal for one to do in the privacy of their own home what they want.
However since it has always been recognized that “marriage” is only applicable to a male/female relationship it has always been recognized that one who prefers a different type of relationship cannot be “married” just as a chair cannot be called a table because a chair is a chair and a table is a table.
A marriage is the matrimony of man to woman.
It is not discrimination to say homosexuals cannot be married it is simply the facts the term “marriage” does not, and has never been used to describe their relationship as such it is impossible to call them married.
Now some people are saying that we must “redefine” marriage.
That means take the term marriage and change it’s accepted definition.
I personally do not feel it within my power to change the definition of a word.May 15, 2012 3:04 am at 3:04 am #875590
far east -“no difference its a meaningless label. im just curious as to why you think its such a terrible thing to be a liberal?
As of now i support civil unions because why should they not get the tax benefits of a normal couple.”
The term liberal as it is used nowadays, not the way it was used once upon a time, is a Bad thing. You just posted that you support civil unions -this is a liberal position. You get labeled a certain way when you espouse that way’s philosophies.
I just posted a whole piece why there is nothing wrong with outlawing Toeiva in American society. Maybe you didn’t understand it or you don’t understand the connection of our laws to morality. Anyways liberals have convinced most Americans that they are something bad if they don’t support Toieva Rights. The way they did this was with lying and manipulating.
I’ll repeat the point of my previous post -We as Americans have the right to legislate Morality even if it means outlawing Toeivas. And even if this Morality is based on Religion there is nothing wrong with that.
I think we should have an Asifa regarding Daaos Kozvos. I know many people from the Frum community who think we can’t outlaw Toeiva and we can’t vote for s/o who is against Toeiva. Some of these same people have never watched a movie or surfed the Net.
Now I just posted there is nothing wrong acc. to American Philosophy to be against Toeiva. So how come hardly anyone is making a Machoh on this issue? I would think that this is what the Torah requires one to do, esp. since acc. to Goyishe Philosophy there is no problem in doing so!May 15, 2012 4:29 am at 4:29 am #875591
Ben Levi- well said. Thats always been my opinion of the issue. The definition of marriage in the majority of civilizations have been man to women so how can we change the defintion? But now im wondering what if thats not the definition of marriage. what if the definition of marriage is two humans that want to live together forever. Marriage is whatever we define it as.May 15, 2012 4:43 am at 4:43 am #875592
“The term liberal as it is used nowadays, not the way it was used once upon a time, is a Bad thing.”
I guess from your perspective. I find that most people just say stop being a liberal when they dont have a good answer. Many republicans are not anti civil unions, its marriages that most people have issues with. I still dont see why they cant recieve the same tax benefits as everyone else.
“We as Americans have the right to legislate Morality even if it means outlawing Toeivas. And even if this Morality is based on Religion there is nothing wrong with that.”
Of course isnt that what democracy is. If you dont like the guy up there, vote him out. In regards to having rallies against gay marriages…. i personally feel like there are more important things we should be doing. And apparently most rabbis agree as you dont see many of them staging protests
I dont think any of us living in America should forget that the same liberties and constitution that allow us to freely practice religion, are the ones that may one day allow gay marriage. And even though i disagree with gay marriage, that wont be the reason i dont vote for obama, i belive there are other way more important issues that go into my deciding whom to vote forMay 15, 2012 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm #875593gregaaronMember
“I find that most people just say stop being a liberal when they dont have a good answer.”
It would be nice…
I once heard that the reason most of the print media is liberal while on the radio you are much more likely to hear conservatives, is that someone writing in a newspaper does not have to answer any questions about what he/she wrote. When hosting a talk show, on the other hand, you will have to defend your position to the callers – and that can only be done (at least, done well) with a conservative viewpoint.May 15, 2012 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #875594
Far East -“Many republicans are not anti civil unions, its marriages that most people have issues with.”
Who said these guys are right? Nowadays there is a Big difference between a Republican & a Conservative.
“I still dont see why they cant recieve the same tax benefits as everyone else.”
Because I don’t want them to have any rights. If it was up to me I’d bring back the law making the Toeiva lifesyle a crime.
“I dont think any of us living in America should forget that the same liberties and constitution that allow us to freely practice religion, are the ones that may one day allow gay marriage. And even though i disagree with gay marriage, that wont be the reason i dont vote for obama, i belive there are other way more important issues that go into my deciding whom to vote for”
I personally feel that should be a reason to vote or not vote for a candidate. This also happens to be the opinion of a Godol, either R. Shteinman or R. Kneitzky, who said not to vote for Corzine (NJ -governor) for this reason only.
As far as our liberties go, yes we Jews in the US aren’t being led out to the gas chambers like in Germany, but there is no great love towards us. I know this first-hand being denied jobs due to Shabbos and my legal rights not being upheld in Court, even though it was clear cut that they were Legally violated. I know some posters are in denial about this from previous discussions here, but let me remind them even Nazi Germany started first attacking the Jews monetarily. Some Jews are way too comfortable in the American Golus. This is why assimilation has been so great here.May 15, 2012 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #875595
Yopu happen to be making a common error.
The American Revolution was a repudiation of the “divine right to rule” in Europe the commonly held notion was that G-d gave rulers their power and the “common folks” rights wer then granted to them by the rulers.
The Founding Fathers repudiated that by stateing clearly in the Declaration of Indepence that each person is entitled to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as granted to them by G-d.
By stating that basic human rights were granted by G-d and not by human they were stating impliclty that these rights cannot be infringed upon by humans.
The entire foundation of the philosophy espoused by the Founding Fathers was in “founding” this country is that we are under “g-d” rule.
It is this beleif system that allowed the founding of this country and it is this that allows us to freely practice our religion.May 15, 2012 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm #875596
Ben Levi: Well said! I once read a piece by R’ Lawrence Keleman in one his of his books, where he proves that if it wasn’t for God there would be no morals. In there he proves that without God, there would be no logical explanation for people not to kill each other.May 16, 2012 3:43 am at 3:43 am #875597
uneeq -“Ben Levi: Well said! I once read a piece by R’ Lawrence Keleman in one his of his books, where he proves that if it wasn’t for God there would be no morals. In there he proves that without God, there would be no logical explanation for people not to kill each other.”
Even though I agree, but this is only from the Jewish perspective. Goyim, like I said previously, agree morals can come from G-d/religion, but they can also come from other philosophical reasons. Read the book I mentioned previously and you’ll understand where I’m coming from.May 16, 2012 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #875598
Health: I’m not sure which book you mentioned before nor why you didn’t mention it again. But either way, IIRC, in R’ Kelemans book he proves that all philosophical approaches for banning murder are flawed.May 16, 2012 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #875599
uneeq -“Health: I’m not sure which book you mentioned before nor why you didn’t mention it again. But either way, IIRC, in R’ Kelemans book he proves that all philosophical approaches for banning murder are flawed.”
From page 1:
“The Elements of Moral Philosophy by Rachels is one of my sources.”
They are flawed from a Torah Perspective, not from a logical one.
I, obviously, being a Frum Jew hold like the Torah; this doesn’t mean that there can’t be other logical philosophies regarding Morals. This is why Yiddishkeit is based on Emmuna. If it was crystal clear logically that everything in the Torah is right -there would be No Bechira. This is Judaism 101. I’m not sure where you are getting confused. If you actually quote his book here -I’ll try and help, if I can.May 17, 2012 11:19 am at 11:19 am #875600
Health: The book is Permission to Believe. I don’t have the book so I can’t stand behind what I’m saying. However, he can disprove all philosophical approaches, but that still doesn’t prove God 100%. Occum’s Razor is never 100% reliable. There can be other philosophical approaches that he hasn’t disproven that have never been theorized before. But he is very logical in the book IIRC, he doesn’t prove points based on Psukim and hashkafa.May 17, 2012 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #875601
uneeq -“Health: The book is Permission to Believe. I don’t have the book so I can’t stand behind what I’m saying. However, he can disprove all philosophical approaches, but that still doesn’t prove God 100%.”
There really isn’t anything more to discuss until something is quoted. Maybe your right -maybe your wrong. Maybe he’s right -maybe he’s wrong.May 17, 2012 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #875602apushatayidParticipant
“Obamas position on gay marriage”
His position is whatever his pollsters told him it should be.May 17, 2012 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #875603
Actually you are mistaken without a Belief in G-d all morals are unable to be proven incumbant on the individual.
This point was made briefly by RSRH in the very begininng of The Nineteen Letters and is actually agreed upon by most honest non-jewish philosophers.
However their arguement is that on a communal level there is a need for morals.
However even they agree that it is only morals that are needed for the smooth funcioning of society that can be forced and even they must be agreed upon and are not “absolute”.
The crux of the reason why the Founding Fathers of the USA made the point repeatidly that life and liberty are derived from G-d and are not products of humans is becuase that makes those rights “absolute” instead of reletive.May 17, 2012 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #875604
Ben Levi -“Health,
Actually you are mistaken without a Belief in G-d all morals are unable to be proven incumbant on the individual.”
I never said that. You perhaps are getting me mixed up with “uneeq”.May 18, 2012 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm #875605150Participant
You realize that this is completely Assur D’Oraisa not to mention disgustingMay 21, 2012 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #875606
Health: Actually, he’s backing me up. You were assuming that basic morals can’t be disproven from a logical point of view, and only from a Torah POV. He clearly negates that by quoting RSRH that there can be no personal morals without the Torah. There could, however, be morals set up by a community in order to keep the society functioning smoothly. That means that morals are not “absolute” as ben levi states, and if you ask me, I would not call “subjective morals”, moral at all.May 21, 2012 11:42 pm at 11:42 pm #875607
uneeq -“That means that morals are not “absolute” as ben levi states, and if you ask me, I would not call “subjective morals”, moral at all.”
Yes, that’s because you have a Torah understanding, but it is logically possible to have subjective morals or morals that change. You might not like that idea, but it is Not illogical.
And btw, the Torah doesn’t hold morals are absolute either. Some Goyim do – acc. to their religion. Eg. We hold killing is Ossur. If we held “absolute” morals it would never be Mutter. But the Torah Mattirs and even says we must in many different instances. And I’m not going to name them -there are too many.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.