User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 102

  1. #71
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Changing it just for the sake of semantics, or to not disrespect religion, doesn't seem like strong enough reason. Some support it just to spite gay people by making it harder for them to get "married".
    It's not for the sake of semantics. There is a real difference between a marriage and a civil union. One should reside in the realm of conscience, the other in the realm of civil law.

    The "spite" argument works both ways, too. There are many on the pro-gay marriage side who wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions that were exactly the same as marriages except in name. They want marriage defined in their own manner. They don't deserve to force their views on anyone else, either.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #72
    @.~*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 Athenian200 View Post
    I don't doubt that the justice had good intentions. He genuinely believes that the children produced in such a marriage will be at a disadvantage. But I think he needs to realize that what he did was beyond the scope of his authority.
    Yes, basically it isn't UP to him to make these decisions for the couple in question. He can have his opinions, but that's not his decision to make. He is acting as a hand of the government, and the government doesn't make that decision for people.


    In short, I don't think he's a racist. I think he just applied his personal experiences, made a judgment call without careful reasoning or understanding of the implications, and didn't take proper regard for his level of authority in relation to existing law.
    I don't think he is racist either, it sounded from the quote in the OP that he had some "rational reasons" for believing the children of the union will suffer some issues later in life, and he could easily be correct.

    But yes, again, it's not his choice to make. He can choose not to marry interracially himself but has no right or privileges to refuse another that decision to marry, and he's also mispresenting the authority that granted him power to represent 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

  3. #73
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yes, basically it isn't UP to him to make these decisions for the couple in question. He can have his opinions, but that's not his decision to make. He is acting as a hand of the government, and the government doesn't make that decision for people.




    I don't think he is racist either, it sounded from the quote in the OP that he had some "rational reasons" for believing the children of the union will suffer some issues later in life, and he could easily be correct.

    But yes, again, it's not his choice to make. He can choose not to marry interracially himself but has no right or privileges to refuse another that decision to marry, and he's also mispresenting the authority that granted him power to represent it.

    He very well may not be racist, but this is a textbook example of someone in government trashing someone's rights even while you are "there to help."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #74
    @.~*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 pure_mercury View Post
    He very well may not be racist, but this is a textbook example of someone in government trashing someone's rights even while you are "there to help."
    I think that's what I said.
    "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

  5. #75
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think that's what I said.
    And I agree! I was just trying to point out that this is a pattern. A lot of damage done by those in power is not out of stupidity or venality, but misguided benevolence.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #76
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's not for the sake of semantics. There is a real difference between a marriage and a civil union. One should reside in the realm of conscience, the other in the realm of civil law.

    The "spite" argument works both ways, too. There are many on the pro-gay marriage side who wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions that were exactly the same as marriages except in name. They want marriage defined in their own manner. They don't deserve to force their views on anyone else, either.
    They aren't trying to deny anyone any specific liberty, but the anti-gay side is. So it's not the same, and not really out of spite, they just want the dignity of being "married".

  7. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I call this imposing your morals on others and I HATE THAT attitude!

  8. #78
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    They aren't trying to deny anyone any specific liberty, but the anti-gay side is. So it's not the same, and not really out of spite, they just want the dignity of being "married".
    Your argument doesn't hold water. If it's just a question of semantics, then why would it matter whether it's a civil union or a marriage? It's the same mentality, just from a different angle. Which specific liberty would be denied if there were civil unions for gays that were exactly the same as marriage, but not called marriage? None whatsoever. And you are kidding yourself if you don't think that extremists on the pro-gay marriage side don't have any spite involved. You think that sticking it to conservative religious people doesn't animate some of them?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #79
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's not for the sake of semantics. There is a real difference between a marriage and a civil union. One should reside in the realm of conscience, the other in the realm of civil law.

    The "spite" argument works both ways, too. There are many on the pro-gay marriage side who wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions that were exactly the same as marriages except in name. They want marriage defined in their own manner. They don't deserve to force their views on anyone else, either.
    The obvious solution is just to call all marriages "civil unions".

  10. #80
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    The obvious solution is just to call all marriages "civil unions".

    You landed in this thread like a smoke jumper, my man.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 03:08 PM
  2. [MBTItm] enfp intj marriage
    By saffron in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 03:01 PM
  3. Pre marriage counseling
    By ptgatsby in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 08:24 PM
  4. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 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