User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 91

  1. #11
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I think Jennifer summed it up well.

    Suffice it to say, the majority of this disagreement is based on the fact that government screwed up by sticking its nose into marriage in the first place.

    Now we have all this confusion because most people don't even realize that civil marriage (which two straight atheists can have without ever setting foot in a church) and religious marriage (which is not even recognized by government on its own) are two completely different things.

    The problem happened because government termed its civil ceremony "marriage" instead of something else, so now we have two different ceremonies with the same name and it makes religious conservatives really upset.

    Funny, though, that you never see them complaining that we should get rid of straight civil "marriage", despite its total ungodliness. If marriage is a sacred religious ceremony, how can a purely secular governmental institution be granting any such religious benefits for gay or straight people?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #12
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Lockean liberalism was never supposed to be static.
    There's a difference between continuity and discontinuity.

  3. #13
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    You guys are lame. I never said all SJs are conservative and against gay marriage. I just meant to imply that most conservatives against gay marriage are SJs.

  4. #14
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    You guys are lame. I never said all SJs are conservative and against gay marriage. I just meant to imply that most conservatives against gay marriage are SJs.
    You can't point out generalized trends here without somebody getting in your face and "informing" you that OMG IT'S NOT TRUE IN 100% OF CASES!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, it is pretty lame.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #15
    @.~*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 Peguy View Post
    This article sure does a nice job exposing the fact that what really exists within American discourse today is simply two variations of the liberal paradigm; therefore ultimately "conservatives"(classical liberals in actuality) don't have much chance arguing on moral issues within this paradigm.
    Actually, I was hoping you would post more since you're usually well-read and have a better understanding of classical politics than I do.

    Could/Would you explain a bit more on how you think a true conservative would approach this issue, versus the classical liberalism that was addressed in the article?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You can't point out generalized trends here without somebody getting in your face and "informing" you that OMG IT'S NOT TRUE IN 100% OF CASES!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, it is pretty lame.
    I have to say I'm sort of disappointed at a lot of the fluff that goes on, without making an attempt to address the issue. If someone doesn't have anything to say, it would be better just not to say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Now we have all this confusion because most people don't even realize that civil marriage (which two straight atheists can have without ever setting foot in a church) and religious marriage (which is not even recognized by government on its own) are two completely different things.
    yes, Religious marriage in actually is something else (i.e., a marriage recognized by a church/faith, with all marriage privs within the church that apply)... but pastors are legally allowed to marry people and it stands as a civil decision and bequeaths legal rights and privs.

    So I don't know what you mean by this:

    The problem happened because government termed its civil ceremony "marriage" instead of something else, so now we have two different ceremonies with the same name and it makes religious conservatives really upset.
    My issue is confusion caused by allowing a religious official to officiate a legally binding ceremony.
    "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

  6. #16
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    There's a difference between continuity and discontinuity.
    Yes. Discontinuity has the letters "d" "i" and "s" in it.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I'm not really a conservative, I'm at most I've got some cultural affinities but I have to say I'm opposed to same sex "marriage", simply because marriage is a bond between two people of the opposite sex.

    There's civil unions, civil partnerships, all the contractual and ceremonial trappings if some people of the same sex want that, its sufficient, Elton John has said as much himself.

    I'm afraid that the agitation to change the meaning of marriage just strikes me as a misconception of equality as uniformity or sameness, it also has all kinds of unintended consequences like reinforcing deep seat but some what misplaced grievances, it alienates people who generally dont care about homosexual lifestyles and is part of the profiling of private relationships issues as political ideology which I dont like much.

  8. #18
    @.~*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 Lark View Post
    I'm not really a conservative, I'm at most I've got some cultural affinities but I have to say I'm opposed to same sex "marriage", simply because marriage is a bond between two people of the opposite sex.
    You know, of course, that that's an arbitrary definition. The logic of the argument here is: "This is how marriage was originally defined, so we will consider it the best way to do things since it is how we've always done it."

    What if it had been defined differently, in a way that was detrimental to you?

    Would the appeal to tradition still work for you?

    There's civil unions, civil partnerships, all the contractual and ceremonial trappings if some people of the same sex want that, its sufficient, Elton John has said as much himself.
    Elton John is a gay musician.
    He also speaks for himself and his partner.
    Obviously a lot of other gay people differ on the matter, and sometimes strongly, because they are not Elton John and have different things they value, like any human being.

    Let's spin it around:

    1. Would you feel the same way if homosexual unions were called marriages and all you could get as a het guy was a civil union? Would you feel socially like you were considered "less than" all the gay couples around you? What other impact might such an arrangement have on you? Maybe nothing; but to some people it's a big deal.

    2. Would you be offended if you complained and people used the same arguments to dismiss you? Would you allow yourself to be dismissed?

    I'm afraid that the agitation to change the meaning of marriage just strikes me as a misconception of equality as uniformity or sameness,
    I understand why you say that.

    However, for people whom it impacts, it's seen as prejudiced and demeaning. This is why the comparison between gay rights and black rights in our country occurs, and why black people had to use different bathrooms, etc.

    it also has all kinds of unintended consequences like reinforcing deep seat but some what misplaced grievances,
    ? So... it's okay as long as gay people suffer quietly and let the hets go on their merry way and don't make an issue of things? Did i misunderstand this? (I'm not sure, but that's how I read it.)

    it alienates people who generally dont care about homosexual lifestyles and is part of the profiling of private relationships issues as political ideology which I dont like much.
    It takes two people to fight, not one.

    I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to complain in ANY arrangement if the negotiated terms do not suit them.

    This whole gay thing became an issue not just because gay people wanted to be able to actually marry their partners but because those who opposed them (often spearheaded by religious conservatives in this country) on a personal basis chosen to mobilize and keep them down, and spent a hell of a lot of money to do so. The fight occurred on both sides. Just like any other social issue where one side has an investment and the other wants change.

    It's sort of like trying to blame either Russia or the US for the cold war arms race. No, it was both... and both finally had to come to terms and try to work out an arrangement that was good for both of them.
    "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

  9. #19
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm not really a conservative, I'm at most I've got some cultural affinities but I have to say I'm opposed to same sex "marriage", simply because marriage is a bond between two people of the opposite sex.

    There's civil unions, civil partnerships, all the contractual and ceremonial trappings if some people of the same sex want that, its sufficient, Elton John has said as much himself.

    I'm afraid that the agitation to change the meaning of marriage just strikes me as a misconception of equality as uniformity or sameness, it also has all kinds of unintended consequences like reinforcing deep seat but some what misplaced grievances, it alienates people who generally dont care about homosexual lifestyles and is part of the profiling of private relationships issues as political ideology which I dont like much.
    First of all, "separate but equal" rarely seems to fare well as a long term strategy for equality.

    Otherwise, I generally agree. I personally think it would be ideal if the government got out of the "marriage" business altogether, and left marriage to individuals, churches, or other private organizations (as appropriate). The legal rights could be granted with a "civil union" for all couples, gay or straight. That would better delineate the rights, privileges and obligations the government bestows vs. the religious and private meaning of a wedding ceremony. It would also make it clear that "gay marriage" isn't going to force your church to marry gay people.

    I agree the term "marriage" brings along a lot of religious baggage and does get people's dander up who might otherwise be sympathetic.

    As a practical matter, though, there is a lot of legal history and case law that centers around marriage (including things like one not becoming unmarried when one crosses state lines). Setting up a separate but equal framework seems like a far more herculean legal task then expanding the definition of marriage and moving on. I wish that weren't the case. I do have sympathy for people (like members of my family) whose hackles are raised by the term "gay marriage." It's not what I was brought up with, either. I'd just as soon have the rights without all the fuss, but it doesn't seem to be a practical option.

  10. #20
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I have to say I'm sort of disappointed at a lot of the fluff that goes on, without making an attempt to address the issue. If someone doesn't have anything to say, it would be better just not to say it.
    I'm not sure if this is directed at me or the people I was referring to or both, suffice it to say, "You talk too much" is a common introvert criticism that most extroverts are used to hearing (and have come to wholly disregard.)

    If an internet forum dedicated to a pop psychology movement isn't the place to chat about irrelevant nonsense, I don't know what is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    yes, Religious marriage in actually is something else (i.e., a marriage recognized by a church/faith, with all marriage privs within the church that apply)... but pastors are legally allowed to marry people and it stands as a civil decision and bequeaths legal rights and privs.

    So I don't know what you mean by this:



    My issue is confusion caused by allowing a religious official to officiate a legally binding ceremony.
    I've never been married so I don't know firsthand, but surely the religious official still has to notify the state of any such ceremony if the couple intends to reap the governmental benefits of civil marriage. You still have to get a marriage license--a church doesn't have the power to grant that without the state's approval, even if the pastor or other religious official files the paperwork for you.

    If you get a religious marriage in a church and never notify any civil government official, how would the government even know about it? Are you saying that religious leaders are able to grant legally binding marriage licenses without notification of or approval from civil government?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Make the Case for Your God(s)
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 07:27 PM
  2. The Case for Reparations
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 09:58 PM
  3. The Case for Gamma
    By Kierva in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 10:14 AM
  4. The issue of gay marriage
    By Torai in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 10:45 PM
  5. 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

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