User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 223

  1. #131
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    It might have benefited you to have read the thread before posting Take Five. The slippery slope fallacies and faulty procreation arguments have been done to death already.
    OK but here's the thing: didn't Rousseau think Hobbes and Locke used faulty logic, and wouldn't they think that Rousseau' logic was faulty? There is philosophy behind this so just because you disagree, don't just say "No you're wrong and lost, just drop it because we have better logic." Of course you should argue to your heart's content, I still believe what I believe.

  2. #132
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    TakeFive, that's an interesting point of view and one that I hadn't heard before, so thanks for that.

  3. #133
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    Also if you want to take that route that you did, I suppose you want legalized polygamy and polygyny?
    Polygamy and polygyny have extreme and negative utilitarian consequences that have been documented throughout history; gay marriage does not. Individuals do not get married in modern society in order to fulfill some social function or obligation; they get married for reasons of personal happiness. Depriving gay people of the right to marry (singular adult) individuals of their choice is a violation of personal liberty as well as the spirit (though not the substance, depending upon how a marriage law is worded) of equality under the law. For these reasons, it is up to the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate that there would be sufficient negative utilitarian consequences from allowing gay marriage to override the issue of individual liberty and adherence to the ideals that our society is based on. If you can't do that, then your position seems untenable to me.

  4. #134
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    OK but here's the thing: didn't Rousseau think Hobbes and Locke used faulty logic, and wouldn't they think that Rousseau' logic was faulty? There is philosophy behind this so just because you disagree, don't just say "No you're wrong and lost, just drop it because we have better logic." Of course you should argue to your heart's content, I still believe what I believe.
    You aren't Roussea, Hobbes, or Locke. You are a guy on a typology forum using simple logical fallacies to support reasoning that you have derived from a rationalist principle that argues the purpose of marriage is procreation. In other words you are arguing that marriage is about sex, and for sex to follow its naturally legitimate purpose, it has to be reproductive. That has been discussed in this post.

    Alternative view 1

    A simple paradigm shift provides an entirely different view of the issue.

    Also, the original historical purpose of marriage was economic. Procreation was a means of producing laborers. Children used to be economic assets who could work in the fields, but since the times have changed, they have become economic liabilities. And the contract of marriage was generally meant to unify families, tribes, kingdoms, etc. The definition of marriage has changed considerably time and time again over the centuries. Religion is what has made marriage into an institution of procreation, as religious groups have noted they need to promote the reproduction of their members in order to avoid being wiped out or conquered. And it was not until 12th century that it became a "sacred" institution.

    And as far as your Conservative conception that it falls upon the subordinate groups of society to provide proof for why traditions should be critically analyzed and changed, there are alternative perceptions on how social policy should be shaped.

    Alternative View 2

    Feel free to point out where you disagree with those views.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #135
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    In other words you are arguing that marriage is about sex, and for sex to follow its naturally legitimate purpose, it has to be reproductive. That has been discussed in this post.
    um, I was actually just debating about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain analogies in an attempt to keep things in perspective and cut down on hyperbole; if you think I was trying to say what you wrote above, you are mistaken,

  6. #136
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    I mean if it's not just about reproduction, they why would you automatically exclude the option?
    I could say the same of you. If reproduction is the goal of marriage, what's wrong with polygamy? In fact, if reproduction is the goal, it would be better for one man to have as many wives as possible, seeing as that would be the best way to pump out babies. Since a baby-making machine can only make one baby every nine months, give or take, you're going to need as many baby-making machines as possible, right? Pure logistics.

    I'll tell you what's wrong with polygamy, even though going by what you say is the purpose of marriage, it's right as rain. Polygamy is severely damaging to probably most, if not all, of the families involved in it. I can see that just intuitively. People aren't meant to be in "open marriages," where one man has eight wives and they all share the responsibility for rearing the oodles of chill'un. How are eight women supposed to share the love of one man? Impossible. I can just see the conflict involved in that.

    Also, from what I've read about women in polygamous communities, their fathers often give them away at young ages - 17 and even possibly younger - to their fathers' male friends, who often already have wives. These women have no choice in the matter; they are just GIVEN away. They have no control over their bodies or their lives. They are property - GIFTS, sexual gifts, given away. And I can't even imagine the repercussions that kind of treatment would have on the psyche of ANY human. And whatever shame and hurt and anger the mother lives with gets passed on to her children through terrible child-rearing, invalidation, poor communication, and whatever else. How can a woman who is not given responsibility over her own life be anything but a child and a victim psychologically? How can a man who sees nothing wrong with having eight wives raise well-adjusted children with wholesome morals? Those chill'un are going to be as fucked up as the fucked up parents they come from, if not MORE fucked up, and it just continues on down through the generations.

    Juxtapose that with the image of a wholesome gay couple, in which both are [edit] well-adjusted, both knowledgeable about themselves, both mature, independent, kind and loving, and both WANT kids. In fact, both have studied up on how to be good parents. And yet we have states wanting to deny these good people the privilege of adoption even in the face of overwhelming evidence that gayness is not passed down from parent to child through child-rearing? We want to deny these people adoption privileges even while addiction-riddled, broken homes can have as many god damn babies as they want? Even while the children removed from these homes by child services need loving homes to go to, need prepared, mature, wholesome parents to look up to as role models? This is just insanity of the most absurd kind and degree.
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  7. #137
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    um, I was actually just debating about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain analogies in an attempt to keep things in perspective and cut down on hyperbole; if you think I was trying to say what you wrote above, you are mistaken,
    Oh really? Hm. Well then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    Juxtapose that with the image of a wholesome gay couple, in which both are [edit] well-adjusted, both knowledgeable about themselves, both mature, independent, kind and loving, and both WANT kids. In fact, both have studied up on how to be good parents. And yet we have states wanting to deny these good people the privilege of adoption even in the face of overwhelming evidence that gayness is not passed down from parent to child through child-rearing? We want to deny these people adoption privileges even while addiction-riddled, broken homes can have as many god damn babies as they want? Even while the children removed from these homes by child services need loving homes to go to, need prepared, mature, wholesome parents to look up to as role models? This is just insanity of the most absurd kind and degree.
    I agree. I only know two couples that are gay parents. Yet, both sets had children that were accepted to ivy leagues. I'm not saying that's normal. Statistically, I know it's not regardless of orientation. Though, many gay people do try to be more successful than average, because they have more to prove by default in the eyes of general society.

  9. #139
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Kiddo, I didn't say I am Rousseau, Hobbes, or Locke. They're all dead and I'm not. But all three of those guys, and you and I, are humans--fallible and imperfect. It may be possible for there to be more than one logical perspective on the subject even though there may only be one best solution. The reason you think I'm wrong is because you think I said that marriage only serves reproductive purposes. That is incorrect. I think there is more to marriage than just that, but it is part of it. I think we can all recognize that there are different forms of love relationships and different institutions for reproduction--the question is what combination of types of those things among others are criteria for what we classify as marriage. If we have different conceptions of what marriage is, which is probable, then that is likely a source of our differing opinions. So perhaps we can just agree to disagree. What matters anyway is which party can persuade the most other people into implementing government policies. Since you are at one end of the spectrum, and I am at the other, I doubt either one of us will convince the other.
    And no I don't favor polygamy/polgyny, I just don't see laws against gay marriage as being oppressive towards homosexuals. I have my definition of true marriage of which there are requirements involved. The question was asked, and my answer was given. Let's just leave it at that.

  10. #140
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I just don't see laws against gay marriage as being oppressive towards homosexuals.
    I tend to view it through the lens of my workplace, a la discrimination: Theoretically, I am only allowed to be judged based on my performance... not my religion, not my gender, not my sexual preference, not my race.

    It's fine if someone thinks I should be discriminated against for any one of those things, I suppose, from a theoretical POV. But I do not think I'd be up for allowing myself to be discriminated against if I could help it.

    People are arguing over the criteria for monogamous LTRs between citizens that are to be protected and observed by the state. Judging relationships by performance/quality seems to be fair; judging them by the criteria listed above demands the intrusion of someone's personal values, and it's no longer about whether the relationship is credible or possesses as much quality/stability as other relationships.

    So yes, it's discrimination. Having religious mixed in with the legal of marriage has only confused the issue; I'm not sure how it's going to be fixed without separating the two in people's minds, but I think another thread dealt with this...

    I have my definition of true marriage of which there are requirements involved. The question was asked, and my answer was given. Let's just leave it at that.
    I do not see the point in overbeating a dead horse either (so if you don't plan to respond here, that is fine, I'm just stating my own opinion in a driveby posting). But one thing I learned is that, if I bring up a point on a forum, I have to be prepared for the ramifications. I have a right to post; other people have the right to jump on it and not like it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 10:30 AM
  2. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. whats the big deal about being me?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

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