User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 91

  1. #81
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    And, Peguy, I'm less concerned about the unique qualities of fatherhood and motherhood than the values of committed parenthood in general.
    You can't seperate them really. BTW, Lowtech is the one who argued about fatherhood and motherhood.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    491

    Default

    As a gay myself, I'm pretty much 'for' gay marriage, so I'll just post what I think about it.

    I don't see why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

    One, it doesn't affect you. If you're scared your children will turn 'gay', well you should just know that he/she probably wouldn't. People around me are straight, how come I don't turn 'straight'. It's a stupid argument.

    Two, the world doesn't have to bend to your decisions. The world isn't yours. God made the world so that there would SHARE and GIVE and LOVE. Maybe us homosexuals are a test, a true test. Do you talk more with words, or more with your heart? If you don't believe in God, then you wouldn't be opposing this because the bible says so anyways.

    Three, 'if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow gay adoption +other rights.' OF COURSE! What do you think? 'But gay people adopt children who will turn gay.' I was born from straight parents, raised by two parents. Was I straight?

    There really isn't much else. Other than people who just hate SEX between two men. That's your fault; a relationship isn't just about sex. The sex works, so I don't care.

    If I hated vaginal sex, would you stop it too? It's that kind of thing..

    Sorry didn't mean to say all these crude words...

  3. #83
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I just don't happen to know many people personally IRL who get married in a non-church setting.
    Far more than two decades ago, especially in more secular regions of the country. I expect only a bare majority of friends and acquaintances to marry in a church, many of them according to the wishes of their parents.

    Making the delineation very clear might be a start in terms of letting religious people see their own turf as separate and distinct and unrelated to the state's decision to either allow or disallow same-sex marriage... You're right, as far as this comment of yours is concerned. It should be very simple to permit same-sex marriage without stepping on church turf.
    I think it's reasonable; relatively low-hanging fruit for supporters.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default Welcome to....



    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    my sister is getting married next month! whoohoo!!
    just felt like sharing....
    Is she gay?

  5. #85
    @.~*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 htb View Post
    Far more than two decades ago, especially in more secular regions of the country. I expect only a bare majority of friends and acquaintances to marry in a church, many of them according to the wishes of their parents.
    Interesting. I actually did have two friends recently get married at the courthouse, but they were the first people I actually knew who did that.

    I hate this area sometimes. Everything in PA between Pittsburgh and Philly might as well be like living in Alabama, and I can't see what other areas of the country are like and it skews my big-picture sense sometimes.
    "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. #86
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Interesting. I actually did have two friends recently get married at the courthouse, but they were the first people I actually knew who did that.

    I hate this area sometimes. Everything in PA between Pittsburgh and Philly might as well be like living in Alabama, and I can't see what other areas of the country are like and it skews my big-picture sense sometimes.
    In Philadelphia, we called that area "Pennsyltucky."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #87
    @.~*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
    In Philadelphia, we called that area "Pennsyltucky."

    ROFL!

    It's only funny cuz it's true.... arg.
    "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

  8. #88
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm opposed to same sex "marriage", simply because marriage is a bond between two people of the opposite sex.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont believe its arbitrary, its the english language and I dont appreciate people changing words to suit their politics, Orwell wrote an appendix to 1984 about that called Newspeak.
    I understand the problem here. This does seem to be the strongest support for using the term "civil union" or whatever. It's like "I'm opposed to the union of red and blue to make green, because green is a bond between blue and yellow." But it brings into question whether the definition of marriage is really that clear in the first place. Also, perhaps it is necessary to update definitions that do not work and no longer make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There's civil unions, civil partnerships, all the contractual and ceremonial trappings if some people of the same sex want that, its sufficient
    This is the other issue. If you look at the original article, it does say that civil unions as they are today do not offer all of the benefits of marriage. It is unequal and therefore unsufficient. If the only difference between marriage and civil union was the sexes of the people involved, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I know there are states in the US which still prohibit sodomy or sexual behaviour that effects homosexuals more than others but how are they enforced?
    Also, in the article, it says that the Supreme Court overruled Texas laws against these behaviors, so I doubt these laws still exist. It is pretty silly to try to regulate the way people have sex by law. It is not enforceable unless the government turns Orwellian-1984-like.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its not fundamental to nature, but it does seem pretty fundamental to every self-perpetuating human society, and specifically modern "liberal" society.
    I don't understand what you mean here. Technically, male-female union is fundamental to nature as a means of reproduction for the survival of the species. But obviously humans are pretty good at that already. The population is almost at 7 billion. There is no need to concern ourselves with fears that we will stop reproducing any time soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Eliminate the government from marriage entirely. Civil unions only for the government, "marriages" from the priest, rabbi, personal spiritual leader, etc. In the secular sense, it should be a binary contract between two consenting adults.
    And yes, pretty much this. This issue in general is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when church and state even get a little bit muddied.

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    I understand the problem here. This does seem to be the strongest support for using the term "civil union" or whatever. It's like "I'm opposed to the union of red and blue to make green, because green is a bond between blue and yellow." But it brings into question whether the definition of marriage is really that clear in the first place. Also, perhaps it is necessary to update definitions that do not work and no longer make any sense.
    There's no moral equivalence between mixing colours in a paint palate and people, I'm not sure how you can make that comparison and consider it convincing or compelling evidence of anything.

    This is the other issue. If you look at the original article, it does say that civil unions as they are today do not offer all of the benefits of marriage. It is unequal and therefore unsufficient. If the only difference between marriage and civil union was the sexes of the people involved, there wouldn't be much of a problem.
    Well, then reform the rules government civil partnerships.

    Also, in the article, it says that the Supreme Court overruled Texas laws against these behaviors, so I doubt these laws still exist. It is pretty silly to try to regulate the way people have sex by law. It is not enforceable unless the government turns Orwellian-1984-like.
    I think its pretty Orwellian too change the meaning of words or rob them of their meaningful content as reforms of the law governing marriage would to recognise it as a relationship between anyone rather than a man or a woman. Its a perfect example of doubletalk or newspeak surely?

    I mean there was a time, and I'm sure its what Orwell was talking about, when this was mainly a political trend, commies described anything they didnt like as fascist, conservatives described anything they didnt like as socialist, neither of them were that worried about whether it was really accurate but now its move quickly on to cultural and social norms which surely cant be accetable?

    Even if it succeeds, even if the government makes rules and dictates terms no one has to listen and I'm absolutely confident they wont, instead the authorities become discredited and the public become alienated. Then that grievance is exploited by radicals, so the present felt oppressive is replaced with the alternative actually, very oppressive. I'll not buy arguments that this sort of attitude is anti-progessive or wouldnt have dealt with slavery, rapacious capitalism, communism, fascism etc. because it isnt those things that are being discussed, there are not lives and welfare at stake. There isnt any moral equivalence.

  10. #90
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Well, then reform the rules government civil partnerships.
    I really don't understand why they haven't done this. I suppose there might be people out there lobbying to "keep marriage better" with more rights than civil unions or something? It confuses me that the two don't have equal rights to start off with. Does anyone know why they're different? I'm very curious.

    I don't think the name of it should matter, only the rights. I know some people feel strongly about purely the "m" word, on both sides, but imo that's a little silly (sorry). The important thing is being legally equal and having the same rights, not the label you get.

    It does seem like making civil unions truly identical to marriage in all ways would make it easier for everyone to get the same rights, since some seem to object purely on semantic grounds.

    edit: the only problem I'd forsee is for the (presumably few?) religious gay people who want to get married in a church (I think united church is the only one that is fine with it?) and I don't think churches can do civil unions. So there, I suppose they would be missing out.
    -end of thread-

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