User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 37

  1. #11
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Why would society break down for allowing two consenting adults to marry each other? This argument requires gay marriage and anarchy to be within a category of reasonable comparison. It's not.
    That wasn't the point. I'm saying that the causation does not have to be homophobic - for example, it could be a general fear of change. The question of homophobic being inherent is dependent on a point of view that it would have no change, such as what you say above.

  2. #12
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post


    Civil unions and marriage aren't legally equal.
    So isn't that what the two sides should be arguing about? Arguing over the definition of marriage seems to be missing the point. Once you secure equal rights, then waste television time arguing over word definitions.

    Would the gay community care if they got the marriage rights, but it was called something else?



  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    InFp
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    So isn't that what the two sides should be arguing about? Arguing over the definition of marriage seems to be missing the point. Once you secure equal rights, then waste television time arguing over word definitions.

    Would the gay community care if they got the marriage rights, but it was called something else?
    Most probably would. It just goes back to them being seen as unequal. Thats why the whole argument for 'separate but equal' policy that existed in the 50's and 60's failed, because it would be impossible to have two equal institutions. The subconcious biases of the anti-gay crowd would most likely prevail against civil unions, unfortunately.

  4. #14
    Junior Member limeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    21

    Default

    When I was dating women, I remember distinctly preferring civil unions to marriage, with the same legal rights as married couples. Back then, to me, the word "marriage" invoked a very patriarchal and sexist rite - with which I wanted no association. It puzzles me that the gay community wants so strongly to associate with a word that historically means nothing to them. Personally, I would be proud to be a part of a new era.

    But I see exactly what you mean, Neo Genesis regarding 'separate but equal.'

    Unfortunately (fortunately?) I'm one to understand and oftentimes agree with both sides of a debate. Makes it hard to vote, I'll tell ya that much.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Everyone should get legal civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation.

    They can go get married however they want to - in a church, amongst friends, whatever.

    Civil Unions = legal rights and privileges
    Marriage = social ritual, may be religious

    It is so damn simple it makes me want to scream.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That wasn't the point. I'm saying that the causation does not have to be homophobic - for example, it could be a general fear of change. The question of homophobic being inherent is dependent on a point of view that it would have no change, such as what you say above.
    Actually, your missing the point.

    Homophobia
    : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

    If an individual sees two adults of the same sex having the right to marry, as a possible negative impact on society, that is homophobic. They have to first believe there is something wrong with homosexuality, in this cause and effect scenario. It's irrational and unfounded, to think gay marriage is going to be the destruction of society.


    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Would the gay community care if they got the marriage rights, but it was called something else?
    Segregation is discrimination.

  7. #17
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    If an individual sees two adults of the same sex having the right to marry, as a possible negative impact on society, that is homophobic. They have to first believe there is something wrong with homosexuality, in this cause and effect scenario. It's irrational and unfounded, to think gay marriage is going to be the destruction of society.
    I don't think I misunderstand your POV at all. However, what you consider irrational and what others do differs.

  8. #18
    WTF is this dude saying? A Schnitzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    B.S.
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Damn!

    That's one spicy couple!

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I don't think I misunderstand your POV at all. However, what you consider irrational and what others do differs.
    Doesn't one have to believe there is something wrong with being gay, in order to think it might hypothetically ruin society?

  10. #20
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    "Why change what worked?" .. It's becoming obvious that it doesn't work anymore. More and more people are agreeing that it does not work to exclude homosexual marriage. It will eventually happen, I believe, well within my lifetime.

    I also don't think there's anything wrong with redefining something, as long as you never lose it's meaning. It's sad to see words used and changed to where they don't mean what they used to.. but I don't think including homosexuals into marriage will make it lose it's importance or meaning.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

Similar Threads

  1. Type Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert
    By Kiddo in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:32 PM
  2. Jon Stewart PWNS CNBC
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 01:49 PM
  3. Obama: Once Supported Gay Marriage
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 07:26 AM
  4. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO