User Tag List

First 3111213

Results 121 to 130 of 130

  1. #121
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yeah, I've got different sources from you MP, its obvious to me that its about as innoxious a thing as someone promoting KFC over BK. I understand where you're coming from but its not a perspective I can share in.
    The problem is that you stop right there. Why can't you share my opinion? There is surely a rationale behind your position.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #122
    @.~*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 Magic Poriferan View Post
    The problem is that you stop right there.
    ^^^ that.

    Put out the rationale. That's all anyone wants. Otherwise this is a waste of everyone's time.
    "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. #123
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Holy crap, Lark, did you really make six posts in a row without input from anyone else? I assure you that your reputation here is based much more on the content of your posts than your post count. Go easy on that shit, dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If I stop commenting on anything to do with the US I'm going to be able to participate in very little you know.
    It really seems like you're delibately missing the point, tiger. Jennifer obviously wasn't suggesting that you refrain from commenting on anything to do with the US; rather, she was simply suggesting that you should become informed on such matters before commenting on them.

    It's much easier to take someone seriously when they've shown an interest in learning about the issue rather than simply shouting their opinion at others, and it's also easier to take someone seriously when they know what they're talking about. I think the problem here is that you have demonstrated neither of those with regards to this issue.

    I find your viewpoint on this to be bigoted and hateful, but like Jennifer, my biggest problem has become your way of approaching this. It's not apparent that you're interested in assimilating any information that doesn't support what you already believe. You seem totally uninterested in objective, open-minded examination of the issues at hand, and you appear to be actively resisting critical thinking. This kind of thing makes Ti doms want to jump off a cliff.

    Or at least me, since I probably shouldn't speak for all of us. If anyone needs me, I'll be down by the cliff, praying for humanity and muttering angrily to myself.

  4. #124
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    The idea's to ram home acceptance for seeking and give a minority lifestyle parity with the majority,
    Acceptance is an awful thing, isn't it? Darn those blacks, darn those women, darn those Christians for seeking acceptance; things should have stayed the way they always were: let discrimination reign, once and for ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    to consciously, consistently and deliberately undermine the perception of the majority lifestyle as "normal"
    Yes, I can see it now: someone being called a weirdo because he's holding the hand of a woman, like 95% of the male population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    there's a boldness about deliberate attempts to undermine the pervasiveness of heterosexuality which simply could not be displayed vice versa.
    I see now. There's a conspiracy on the part of homosexuals to turn everyone gay. I have no doubt they'll be more successful at altering straight people's tastes than straight people were theirs.

    So basically you have a fear of acceptance, combined with arguments from tradition and popularity, laced with a conspiracy that doesn't exist and could never succeed if it did. You might deny that interpretation, but I can't imagine the truth is any better. You've already explicitly stated that you don't believe homosexuality can lead to the decline of society, and from a legal perspective that leaves you with very little room to complain about anything; any complaint you do make is just another description, in a seemingly endless chain of them, of your attitude toward homosexuality.

    What you're doing is somewhat like a person repeating the fact that they dislike pickles, over and over, and going into all sorts of details about how awful pickles are, while everyone else munches on their pickles and has fun while they're at it. The only one getting hurt by this is you, and the one thing that hurts you is the attitude you've adopted toward a way of being that is by itself harmless. Instead of letting go of things that have nothing to do with you--nothing whatsoever--you've chosen to fixate on them in a manner that causes suffering both to yourself and to the people who would otherwise live their lives in happiness.

    That is unhealthy, not homosexuality.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #125
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    As I said before, sexual "orientation" did not exist in the Greco-Roman or even Biblical for that matter worldview. It's a concept dating from the 19th century.
    I don't think anyone was disagreeing with you about sexual orientation. Whether what the concept describes existed or not is open to interpretation. I did find Richard von Krafft-Ebing's story interesting as an early (pre-Fredian) researcher who decided that homosexuality was not an illness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Interesting theory, but it would fall flat on some grounds. The emphasis on intimacy within marriage goes back quite a few years, even if one simply looks at the Christian tradition for example. In fact it's often argued that Christianity actually helped free marriage more from political-economic concerns, and placed it more on the intimate bond of two sould before God.
    Well, promoting a passing thought to "theory" is generous of you. I agree with your later statements that "courtly love" was a major influence to changing the nature of marriage.

    As far as the Christian tradition and marriage, I think Jesus' opposition to divorce was amazingly compassionate given that divorce at that time could leave a woman effectively without a family and in poverty. Paul is more of a mixed bag, since at various points he sounds very revolutionary ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") while at other points he seems to be advocating against marriage (apparently since he thought time was short) or conforming to the culture of the day (women submit and be ruled by their husbands, not speak out in church, cover their heads, etc.)

    Still, I agree that that is a lot of subversion (in the best possible sense) in the idea that slaves and women are all equals as believers before God. Jesus himself clearly related to women as individuals who had worth in and of themselves. I hope that had a positive effect historically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    No the origins of "gay marriage" lay more within the mentality that prevailed in wake of the Sexual Revolution.
    Actually, it's more the gay assimilationists (rather than the gay radicals) who pushed the gay marriage issue. In most ways, it's reinforcing the institution rather than declaring it to be limiting, outdated or exploitive. It does mean excluding those with less traditional relationships (three-way relationships, etc), but I see it mostly as a positive thing, myself. I wish the "civil unions" route were more doable and defensible, since the term marriage seems to get people's hackles up.

    While I'm definitely in favor of committed relationships (and having one partner seems like more than enough work), it does seem that, in an odd way, gay marriage is a victory for the traditionalists. I do understand people at the other end of the political spectrum finding that thought ludicrous.

  6. #126
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    About damn time! Tolerance is a terrible thing, it should be outlawed!

  7. #127
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've got the book of the courtier, is this the same thing?
    Well that's not exactly what I had in mind when I made that argument, except of course on the later influence on Western literature.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    As far as the Christian tradition and marriage, I think Jesus' opposition to divorce was amazingly compassionate given that divorce at that time could leave a woman effectively without a family and in poverty. Paul is more of a mixed bag, since at various points he sounds very revolutionary ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") while at other points he seems to be advocating against marriage (apparently since he thought time was short) or conforming to the culture of the day (women submit and be ruled by their husbands, not speak out in church, cover their heads, etc.)

    Still, I agree that that is a lot of subversion (in the best possible sense) in the idea that slaves and women are all equals as believers before God. Jesus himself clearly related to women as individuals who had worth in and of themselves. I hope that had a positive effect historically.

    Well it seems very much in line with some interpretations of Political Theology, especially those that are more Left-leaning; to emphasize the more "subversive" elements of Christianity. At the same time, the view can also be argued that while Christianity certainly did bring new stuff to the table, at the same time it clearly operated from Hellenistic influences as well. This is even true with regards to marriage, hence why Nikolai Berdyaev once complained that the Church's teachings on marriage were nothing more than a mere baptism of a pagan institution.

    Actually, it's more the gay assimilationists (rather than the gay radicals) who pushed the gay marriage issue. In most ways, it's reinforcing the institution rather than declaring it to be limiting, outdated or exploitive. It does mean excluding those with less traditional relationships (three-way relationships, etc), but I see it mostly as a positive thing, myself.
    I don't think it's really reinforcing the institution, since it does require a fundamental change to the institution as it has existed in almost all cultures; namely between a man and a woman in order to provide for the reproduction and raising of children. The proper raising and rearing of children is vital to the long-term survival and stability of any society. Reproduction is an important element to marriage, and by default gay marriage can't really provide that.

    If you undermine the larger social significance of marriage and transform it into purely an individual affair, then yeah you certainly make gay marriage seem more of a logical choice. However to do so would require a fundamental shift in thinking in regards to marriage, family, sex, relationships, etc - which has happened in wake of the Sexual Revolution.


    I wish the "civil unions" route were more doable and defensible, since the term marriage seems to get people's hackles up.
    Certainly some form of recognition of male-male unions is do-able on some levels. Even some monks were arranged in such unions at times, although these relationships were celibate by nature.

  8. #128
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What? That's a weird ass post.

    I was responding to Peguy's post, I'm afraid in modern times the attitudes of mysogynists or other nasty types towards, their term, "bitches" would be the same as the example Peguy was making.
    Mmkay.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  9. #129
    @.~*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 Trinity View Post
    About damn time! Tolerance is a terrible thing, it should be outlawed!
    But....once tolerance is outlawed, only outlaws will have tolerance!

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    ...This kind of thing makes Ti doms want to jump off a cliff. Or at least me, since I probably shouldn't speak for all of us. If anyone needs me, I'll be down by the cliff, praying for humanity and muttering angrily to myself.
    *whimper* owwww.... my ankle hurts... and it's bent funny....

    ...i also pulled out most of my hair... sniff...
    "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

  10. #130
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Well I kinda see where this is heading, so here's my departing post from this thread.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM
  3. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  4. Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:58 PM
  5. Gay rights, marriage, and adoption
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:15 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