User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 223

  1. #81
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    That depends on your definition of bad. I mean, let's face it aj, tolerating gay marriage for other people is a socially slippery slope! It could lead to total mayhem and anarchy.
    I would say that gay marriage would be one of several factors contributing to such mayhem and anarchy; since the basic premises upon which support for gay marriage is based upon provide a weak foundation for a lasting socio-political system.

    Namely that of giving too much emphasis on negative liberty - or freedom from external constraints. This is the basis for the Liberal concept of individual liberty.

    Yet if a democracy is to survive, it cannot be possessed of random unconnected people with individual rights and liberties. As the cliche goes, freedom isn't free - and by way of Positive freedom - one has to actively partake in the self-government of ones community.

    But in order to do that, a citizen individually and a citizenry in general needs to possess certain civic virtues. That means a Democracy or Republic cannot be neutral towards the values its citizens espouse, but must actively reflect those values in order to really maintain itself as a government "for the people, of the people".

    And if the people in question is a Christian people who adhere to the Christian view of homosexuality; then the government(as an active reflection of this people) cannot be indifferent towards those views. Just like if democracy is to truely flourish in the Middle East, it will have to reflect the Islamic values of its citizens.

    The Liberal perspective, by contrast, seems to view the government as a neutral entity that's detached from not only the values of its citizenry - but by default from its citizenry altogether. That leads open the door to forms of governance depended more on arbitrary force - even within the framework of democratic formality - "soft despotism".

    This is one danger of democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville warned about a hundred years ago in Democracy in America; if citizens simply tended to their own individual self-interests without regard to the common good, then the government would have to step in to fill the gaps. Religion was a key component to putting a check on excessive individualism and turning peoples' attention towards larger issues effecting their society.

    Hence why he noted the major importance of religion to democratic forms of government. It provides a common set of values for the citizenry, something that mere law cannot do.

    So the fact that we even have to have gay marriage on ballots is reflective how fragmented our society has become that now we have to decide basic moral issues with the law.

    The Jurist Carl Schmitt also noted that the long-term survival of any political system depends upon its ability to call upon its citizens to sacrifice their lives in time of need. Yet Liberal individualism undermines this concept, which claims a person shouldn't have to fight if they don't want to. The problem then becomes that in such a case, the system becomes vunerable and ultimately defenseless.

    As he warned: "If a people no longer posseses the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not thereby vanish from the world. Only a weak people will disappear."(Concept of the Political pg. 53)

    Now what does this all have to do with Gay marriage? Well in order to be able to support gay marriage in the first place, one has to already adhere to a certain set of premises - and my argument here is that many of those premises are built on rather shaky grounds that have rather negative consequences for a society.

    In terms of marriage; we have already seen the destructive influence of excessive individualism in terms of the breakdown of the family as the basic unit of society; and a divorce rate of almost 50%, among other factors.

    Granting gay marriage would certainly be another step in that direction, since its justification is directly built upon its assumptions. Would it lead directly to animal-human marriages? [Sarcasm]Well I guess anything is possible.[/Sarcasm]

    The great irony is that gays are so staunch about getting married at a time when the institution of marriage itself is becoming more and more meaningless. Which begs the question as to why its advocates are so adamant about this.

    Well I'm beginning to loose my train of thought here, so I'll end it here. Hopefully I'll be to continue on this later.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Peguy makes a good point. If your goal is a society which will soon crumble into meaningless, then vote yes for gay marriage, etc. The culture we're approving daily today in the western world is a lot like that in Rome when no one cared enough to save it. The me-first attitude, including the position "Whatever I want to do is automatically okay." I believe in freedom, I just wish there were a way to make those others who desire freedom less ignorant about what they would have happen sociologically.

  3. #83
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Peguy makes a good point.
    I agree. Several good points in fact. And that article about youth movements embracing morality goes along with my observation that my own "Artisan" temperament group, which made up a lot of the counter-culture movement that produced the "sexual revolution" has never given up their counter-culture ways, and the more that the dominant culture moves toward a relativist morality, the more likely we are to oppose it, and actually embrace what is viewed as an "old-fashioned" or "backward" point of view, as a rebellion against what has become the accepted norm in society.

    There has already been a lot of evidence of these type of movements in groups like "straight edge" and Stephen Baldwin's Christian Xtreme Sports stuff. These are the people that i relate to myself and not those that are ritualistic in their religion like it seems a lot of SJ "Guardian" type people are. And I also don't relate to the relativist super-logical people or the political-correctness-John-Lennon-Idealist folks who I think are the main pushers of the current movements for changing marriage laws and eliminating restrictions on abortion as well as trying to limit parental rights and label physical discipline as child abuse.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  4. #84
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Someone said to me last week that if people oppose gay marriage because it undermines traditional marriage, they should pass laws that make traditional marriage more binding rather than prevent people who wish to from marrying.

  5. #85
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Long time no see Peguy. I was quite happy sitting back in the shadows and leering over this discussion like some forgotten troll from the past, but you had to use the words “homosexual agenda”. Those words, which hold the meaning that gays are secretly out to corrupt children and destroy the moral fabric of society, are a challenge I can’t ignore.

    To begin, you brought up that religion and state are inherently tied together in this country. I don’t disagree. In fact I’m quite happy that you brought up our deist founding fathers because deism does not lend itself well to your brand of Christianity. This nice little definition of deism from wiki should put your arguments into historical context…

    “Deism is the belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world.”

    Somehow I doubt you believe in a natural God, or that humans can derive religious truths from reasonably observing the natural world as opposed to just reading them out of the Bible. However, most of our founding fathers did. Otherwise, why do you suppose they created a Constitution which gives citizenship to believers and non believers alike?

    Now let’s take a look at a little document called the Declaration of Independence in which the founding fathers just happened to define equality...

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    Isn’t that an interesting definition for equality? I wonder how equal is it to deny same sex couples the right to marry while granting that right to heterosexual couples? It doesn’t seem like all men are created equal in that respect. How equal is it to deny people in a minority the right to visit their significant other in a hospital or to adopt children? How much liberty, or freedom to choose, is there in legislating who a person should spend the rest of their life with? What special right do you have to decide how others should go about pursuing their happiness as long as it doesn’t harm others?

    That statement has influenced millions of people across this world over the centuries. It was a staple in the Civil Rights movement. Feel free to argue it, because I would love to draw parallels between a fundamentalist Christian and the racists of the 60’s. I see your bet of one traditional definition of marriage and raise you one traditional definition of equality.

    Sadly, you chose the words, “homosexual agenda” which has a very significant meaning. For those unfamiliar with the gay agenda, it is an alleged six point plan that has been crafted by Christians to describe a secret plot by gays. You may recognize some of the arguments below…

    Gays don't want "equal rights" they want "special rights". First off, they want the right to be as open and obscene in the public about their lifestyle as possible in order to normalize it and brainwash the masses. Just look at gay pride parades. Second, they want special hate crimes rights because they want everyone to think of them as victims of circumstance, who were born the way they are rather than having chosen to be that way. Third, they want the right to marriage in order to normalize their perversion. Everyone already has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so that is clearly a special right. Fourth, they want access to children so they can corrupt them while they are young and produce more homosexuals. That is why they want special rights to adopt kids as a same sex couple, they want special protection so they aren't prohibited from being teachers in public schools, and they want public schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and natural. That is also why they all secretly want to lower the age of consent. It is a statistical fact that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. Fifth, they want to discredit the scriptures in order to quiet any moral disagreement with their actions. Sixth, they work alongside feminists and communists using propaganda and science in order to attack American family values in order to destroy the basic unit of the moral fabric of society, thus bringing about America's decline.
    Does that encompass your views Peguy?

    Next, let’s address your views on population. I love that you make the Biblical assumption that slowing population growth is a terrible thing. For those of us who don’t believe that Jesus will come at the last minute and save us all, we can observe that the world has limited resources and reason that eventually all countries are going to need to get control of their population growth. Also, you are flat wrong in your assumption that Conservatives supply the population growth of this country. Native Liberals and Conservatives combined amount to just barely over replacement population. Immigration is what leads to population growth in this country, hence why in three decades this will no longer be a white nation, but a Hispanic one.

    Next, lets talk about your views on the prospective history. I actually have one from a former fundamentalist Christian who took a statistical approach to examine the up and coming generation. Perhaps you should give his views a look.

    http://www.gen-we.com/sites/default/...ntireBook3.pdf

    But perhaps it can’t compare to that little article you posted.

    Now as far as your arguments on “negative liberties”….how much of a negative liberty is a state sanctioned marriage?

    And FYI, people are passionate about arguing for gay marriage for the same reason people are passionate arguing against gay marriage. People inherently want to do what they perceive is best for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #86
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Peguy makes a good point. If your goal is a society which will soon crumble into meaningless, then vote yes for gay marriage, etc. The culture we're approving daily today in the western world is a lot like that in Rome when no one cared enough to save it. The me-first attitude, including the position "Whatever I want to do is automatically okay." I believe in freedom, I just wish there were a way to make those others who desire freedom less ignorant about what they would have happen sociologically.
    I tend to agree with this, though I'm not really opposed to gay marriage. The majority of people need some sort of moral structure and something that gives their life purpose, especially SJs. There are some people who can handle not having an externally defined purpose, but they're in the minority.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #87
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Hey Kiddo, long time no see.

    Well...........finally a real response to my arguments.


    To begin, you brought up that religion and state are inherently tied together in this country. I don’t disagree. In fact I’m quite happy that you brought up our deist founding fathers because deism does not lend itself well to your brand of Christianity.
    I'm well aware that many of our Founding fathers were deists. That's also rather irrelevant. Not only were the vast majority of Americans Christians(with a small Jewish population); but much of America's basic cultural and legal concepts derived from religious sources. This is especially true since our legal system was based off Anglo-Saxon common law, which was based on the notion of the secular authority ruling on the behalf of Christ.

    Let's also keep in mind that our system of government was based of that of Presbyterian church government.

    So dance around it as much as you wish; but you cannot ignore the importance of Christianity in America's concept of itself.


    Otherwise, why do you suppose they created a Constitution which gives citizenship to believers and non believers alike?
    It was basically a continuation of a process that was in place since the Medieval period. In the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas argued that non-believers were not to be forced to convert, for that violates their free will before God. Then of course the religious wars in wake of the Reformation had its impact upon this development in jurisprudence.

    The Neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain noted the strong similarities behind the basic premises of the American constitution and the constitutions of the Franciscan and Dominican orders.

    Now let’s take a look at a little document called the Declaration of Independence in which the founding fathers just happened to define equality...
    Oh boy....here we go again.

    Isn’t that an interesting definition for equality? I wonder how equal is it to deny same sex couples the right to marry while granting that right to heterosexual couples? It doesn’t seem like all men are created equal in that respect. How equal is it to deny people in a minority the right to visit their significant other in a hospital or to adopt children? How much liberty, or freedom to choose, is there in legislating who a person should spend the rest of their life with? What special right do you have to decide how others should go about pursuing their happiness as long as it doesn’t harm others?
    You basically transformed equality into an abstract value that has very little to do with the Founding Fathers were even talking about. I'm a little short on time and Ni, so I'll have to get back to this later. I'm sure you can understand, especially with the Ni part.


    That statement has influenced millions of people across this world over the centuries. It was a staple in the Civil Rights movement. Feel free to argue it, because I would love to draw parallels between a fundamentalist Christian and the racists of the 60’s.
    Go ahead, make my day.

    I see your bet of one traditional definition of marriage and raise you one traditional definition of equality.
    Traditional definition of equality would be of a concrete nature, wheras you're advocating an abstract one.

    Sadly, you chose the words, “homosexual agenda” which has a very significant meaning.
    I fail to see what's so offensive about that term.

    Does that encompass your views Peguy?
    I think if anything it shows your determination to pigeonhole my views into a stereotype.


    Next, let’s address your views on population. I love that you make the Biblical assumption that slowing population growth is a terrible thing. For those of us who don’t believe that Jesus will come at the last minute and save us all, we can observe that the world has limited resources and reason that eventually all countries are going to need to get control of their population growth.
    Yeah and that's why Christian social doctrine advocate for more sustainable economic systems. My knowledge of Protestant Social Gospels on this issue is less than that of Catholic Social Doctrine.

    Also, you are flat wrong in your assumption that Conservatives supply the population growth of this country. Native Liberals and Conservatives combined amount to just barely over replacement population.
    The highest birthrates in America are among Mormons in Utah.

    Immigration is what leads to population growth in this country, hence why in three decades this will no longer be a white nation, but a Hispanic one.
    No not really, at least not how you and the media try to protray it.

    Even by most mainstream estimates whites will remain 40% of the population, and continue to be a powerful minority. And most of the Hispanics concentrate in a few areas, usually in the Southwest.

    Next, lets talk about your views on the prospective history. I actually have one from a former fundamentalist Christian who took a statistical approach to examine the up and coming generation. Perhaps you should give his views a look.
    When I have time. I have read other sources making similar arguments.

    But perhaps it can’t compare to that little article you posted.
    Yeah ok...the author of that article also wrote an entire book further explaining her arguments. So maybe you should read give her vies a look:
    Colleen Carroll Campbell

  8. #88
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    So dance around it as much as you wish; but you cannot ignore the importance of Christianity in America's concept of itself.
    Anyone can read the Declaration of Independence and decide for themselves whether the ideas presented represent traditional Christian values or Enlightenment values. Also, I could argue that our conception of a nation with states as defined in our Constitution is derived from the Iroquois, of whom Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers spent considerable time with and analyzed quite closely. I won't argue that Christianity hasn't played a role in the formation of our government, because it has, but it is only a part because our Constitution was inherently designed to be pluralistic. That is why we have a government which can demonstrate mutual respect for many different cultures, and why each culture should be allowed to express itself free from prejudice and unreasonable discrimination.

    It was basically a continuation of a process that was in place since the Medieval period. In the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas argued that non-believers were not to be forced to convert, for that violates their free will before God. Then of course the religious wars in wake of the Reformation had its impact upon this development in jurisprudence.
    Yes, I would agree that Aquinas's ideas contributed to the development of deism, which in turn contributed to the formation of our government. The fact that non believers were forced into conversion all the way up into the War for Souls by the conquistadors should probably be noted as evidence that the ideas weren't exactly embraced by Christianity prior to the Enlightment. And once again, I will let anyone read the Constitution and decide whether the ideas represent a literal interpretation of the Bible. I doubt even you would make that claim.

    You basically transformed equality into an abstract value that has very little to do with the Founding Fathers were even talking about.
    Hey, if someone wants to argue a traditional definition of marriage while slighting its historical context, I am more than free to do so with the definition of equality as defined in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's and many were slave owners. I doubt that equality meant to them what it means to us today, but that doesn't make my moral argument any less valid than yours. To the contrary, the founding fathers were more than aware that as our observations of the natural world improved, so would our ability to reason about what is fair and equitable. Hence why we have the ability to amend our Constitution.

    Traditional definition of equality would be of a concrete nature, wheras you're advocating an abstract one.
    I'm not advocating anything abstract. I'm speaking purely in terms of rights. The right to marry. The right to adopt. The right to hospital visitation. The right to choose who you live your life with. Rights of which you contest people should not be allowed to have on the basis of their sexual orientation. Feel free to explain why being gay makes you any less worthy of those rights than being straight. Or better yet, explain what gives you the special right to deny those rights to anyone.

    I fail to see what's so offensive about that term.
    I provided the historical context by which Christians have defined the gay movement. To hear a Christian use those words carries all that behind it.

    I think if anything it shows your determination to pigeonhole my views into a stereotype.
    Please, feel free to point out where you disagree. I'm not claiming that you hold to those views, I simply want to know where you differ from them.

    Yeah and that's why Christian social doctrine advocate for more sustainable economic systems. My knowledge of Protestant Social Gospels on this issue is less than that of Catholic Social Doctrine.
    I'm sure that is why America alone possesses a third of the world's wealth and uses nearly that much of its resources. Or is that the secularist liberals fault? God wasn't much of an economist if I remember. Making a slave worth 30 pieces of silver seems to demonstrate that he didn't have a conception of inflation.

    The highest birthrates in America are among Mormons in Utah.
    Okay, you named one religious group with high birth rates in this country, what does that have to do with the total population growth? If you want to go there, the states of the entire inner mountain west, of which the LDS church occupies the center, hold the highest suicide rates in the country. Not to mention that 70-80% of the homeless in Salt Lake City and over 60% of the homeless in Utah are gay teens and young adults. Not a great place to take this discussion. Also, you were talking in terms of political denomination, not religious. I know quite a few non Conservative LDS. But I'll grant you that the LDS average 4-5 kids. They are right up there with what most Immigrant family's average. Of course, that doesn't deter the point that a country should have control over its population because we can't all be hoping for Jesus to return.

    No not really, at least not how you and the media try to protray it.

    Even by most mainstream estimates whites will remain 40% of the population, and continue to be a powerful minority. And most of the Hispanics concentrate in a few areas, usually in the Southwest.
    Ooookay. What does where they live have to do with the total population growth of this country?

    When I have time. I have read other sources making similar arguments.
    I hope you take the time to enjoy it.

    Yeah ok...the author of that article also wrote an entire book further explaining her arguments. So maybe you should read give her vies a look:
    Colleen Carroll Campbell
    From what I read of her article, she focused in part on generation X. Generation X was sick of the secular system. That was how they were defined. And much of what we have seen in the last 8 years is the product of Generation X coming to age and power. Generation Y and Z, the Millennials, are an entirely different breed. Obama's election is the product of their coming to age and power. They will shape the social policy of this country in ways not conceived since the founding fathers. Neither religious nor secular, but by reason and knowledge.

    Fortunately, that does not bode well for either Christian xenophobia or militant gay activism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #89
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Hi Kiddo!
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  10. #90
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Hi Kiddo!
    Hiya.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

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