User Tag List

First 162425262728 Last

Results 251 to 260 of 319

  1. #251
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Now why don't civil unions deserve the same benefits as marriage? Simple, it's not marriage and not on the same status as marriage.
    Then civil unions shall have more rights than marriages.

  2. #252
    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 Peguy View Post
    Now why don't civil unions deserve the same benefits as marriage? Simple, it's not marriage and not on the same status as marriage.
    Peguy, I have respect for your reasoning process if not your ideas, so I trust you can come up with better reasoning than this.

    "Why don't blacks deserve the same benefits as whites? Simple, they are not white and not on the same status as whites." It is so, therefore it deserves to be so....? Really?
    -end of thread-

  3. #253
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Peguy, I have respect for your reasoning process if not your ideas, so I trust you can come up with better reasoning than this.
    Civil Unions are not marriage, as I already explained the essence of marriage earlier in the thread. I also explained why it's important for the state to santcion marriage. Civil unions share neither the essence nor the social function of marriage. So one can't really view it as equal to marriage, unless one is operating upon a rather abstract conception of "equality."

    "Why don't blacks deserve the same benefits as whites? Simple, they are not white and not on the same status as whites." It is so, therefore it deserves to be so....? Really?
    The issue of state sanctioning of monogymy as opposed to polygamy is a far better analogy to try to use.

  4. #254
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    What about my proposition, Peguy?

  5. #255
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    What about my proposition, Peguy?
    What proposition? No benefits for neither marriage nor civil unions?

  6. #256
    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 Peguy View Post
    Civil Unions are not marriage, as I already explained the essence of marriage earlier in the thread. I also explained why it's important for the state to santcion marriage. Civil unions share neither the essence nor the social function of marriage. So one can't really view it as equal to marriage, unless one is operating upon a rather abstract conception of "equality."

    You can do better than that. The issue of state sanctioning of monogymy as opposed to polgyamy is a far better analogy to try to use.
    I think you can do better. Yes, civil unions aren't equal to marriage, that's the problem with granting them (perhaps I'm misunderstanding and you actually mean "gay marriage in general"?). Yes, they have a different definition. Yes, marriage has historically been defined as male and female. You still aren't saying why they should be considered differently, other than "because they are different and have always been". I had read the thread already, but there is an overabundance of "this is so" rather than "this is so because" (other than "god said so"). Not just you, everyone.

    I think the polygamy analogy would also be a good one, personally, although that one gets people riled up nearly as much as gay marriage. I don't think that makes my anaology flawed, though. We're still talking about denying people legal rights for purely religious reasons (well, the racism argument wasn't purely religious, so you could say this is actually an more unfair situation in that sense). Worse, a religion that a significant part of the country doesn't agree with. Surely you would be unhappy if Sharia law were somehow imposed in the USA (not that it would ever happen and it's a very flawed analogy, but there are still some similarities).
    -end of thread-

  7. #257
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    What proposition? No benefits for neither marriage nor civil unions?
    More benefits for civil unions than for marriages.

  8. #258
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Why should polygamy/polyandry be illegal?
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  9. #259
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    It shouldn't.

  10. #260
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I think you can do better. Yes, civil unions aren't equal to marriage, that's the problem with granting them (perhaps I'm misunderstanding and you actually mean "gay marriage in general"?).
    Well granting gay marriage and equality for civil unions are functional equivalents.

    Yes, they have a different definition. Yes, marriage has historically been defined as male and female. You still aren't saying why they should be considered differently, other than "because they are different and have always been".
    I really can't explain it any simpler than I have. I talked about the issue of Nominalism and how it views everything as arbitrary "definitions", as opposed to Realism which advocates for the existence of universals.

    I think the polygamy analogy would also be a good one, personally, although that one gets people riled up nearly as much as gay marriage. I don't think that makes my anaology flawed, though. We're still talking about denying people legal rights for purely religious reasons (well, the racism argument wasn't purely religious, so you could say this is actually an more unfair situation in that sense).
    No it's still flawed, because marriage is not a civil right. Homosexuals have the same civil rights that you and me have. Are we denying homosexuals their right to vote for example? As far as I know if I inflict physical harm to any homosexual or their property, I can still be charged with violating their civil rights. This wasn't the case with Blacks. Opposition to gay marriage does not entail one is opposed to the legitimate civil rights of homosexuals.

    I'll address the religious argument below.

    Worse, a religion that a significant part of the country doesn't agree with.
    Even the latest polls show that 75% of Americans still identify as Christian one way or another. If a government is supposed to be of the people and for the people, then its laws have to reflect the history, customs, beliefs, etc. of that people. This is what is commonly called the unwritten constitution of a nation. Now does that mean "tyranny of the majority"? No, for a just order depends upon the respect of the human person and communities which seeks to maintain the common good.

    There's even the more fundamental issue that all political perspectives are reflective of certain metaphysical and theological presuppositions. This gets back to the Nominalism vs Realism dispute. Not to mention that if the religious reasonings are actually correct, then on what grounds can one dispute it being enshrined in law? Law after all is supposed to be based upon or reflective of the truth. Without truth there is no justice. Without justice, there's only tyranny.

    Surely you would be unhappy if Sharia law were somehow imposed in the USA (not that it would ever happen and it's a very flawed analogy, but there are still some similarities).
    If a country is predominantly Islamic, one way or another its laws are going to be reflective of that fact. I do believe in freedom of religion, and IIRC I'd still be protected under Sharia law as a Christian.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] The Limits of Awesomeness (alternatively, Common ENTP Issues)
    By Qre:us in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-09-2011, 10:23 AM
  2. The issues of fatherlessness.
    By guesswho in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 12:40 AM
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 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