User Tag List

First 172526272829 Last

Results 261 to 270 of 319

  1. #261
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    More benefits for civil unions than for marriages.
    Why would you do that?

  2. #262
    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
    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.
    You can change it to interracial marriage if you prefer. Same idea.

    Even the latest polls show that 75% of Americans still identify as Christian one way or another.
    Yes, as I said, a significant part (25%) of America is not Christian at all (and this number is rising). I'd wager that a good chunk of Christians are more moderate than you see in the news and certainly a proportion of them support gay marriage (I know a couple of those personally, so I know they exist). From the few polls I've seen (flawed, no doubt) it seems that there is by no means a strong majority of Americans that want to prevent gay marriage/civil unions. It seems to hover somewhere between 40-60% depending on the poll. I could be wrong, but it's not very important to my argument either way (although it seems to be for yours)
    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.
    Why? What about those with different beliefs (minimum 25%, as you say)?

    Why is there a need for such intense reflection that it blinds a minority, when the majority can already see their reflections perfectly well?

    What do you think should happen when Christianity is not the religion of a majority of Americans?

    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.
    Certainly truth is important. So translating to real life, I'd like you to tell me how exactly the government should go about proving that these beliefs are true within say, 10 years. 50 years? 100 years?

    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.
    I guess you haven't heard about the state-sanctioned murders of Christians in some of the more extremist Islamic countries, then. Converts or not, they are still your brothers in faith, are they not?
    -end of thread-

  3. #263
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    You can change it to interracial marriage if you prefer. Same idea.
    Actually no. Interracial marriage issues tended to center around the status of mixed-race offspring, among other things.

    Yes, as I said, a significant part (25%) of America is not Christian at all (and this number is rising).
    And?

    I'd wager that a good chunk of Christians are more moderate than you see in the news and certainly a proportion of them support gay marriage (I know a couple of those personally, so I know they exist). From the few polls I've seen (flawed, no doubt) it seems that there is by no means a strong majority of Americans that want to prevent gay marriage/civil unions. It seems to hover somewhere between 40-60% depending on the poll.
    Which does little if anything to address my point.

    I could be wrong, but it's not very important to my argument either way (although it seems to be for yours)
    No actually it isn't. Im arguing more from first principles, not popularity contests.

    Why? What about those with different beliefs (minimum 25%, as you say)?
    They're still part of the commonwealth and still have the same legal rights as everybody else - including freedom of religion.


    Why is there a need for such intense reflection that it blinds a minority, when the majority can already see their reflections perfectly well?
    Read above. I myself belong to both a religious and ethnic minority.

    What do you think should happen when Christianity is not the religion of a majority of Americans?
    Well then inevitably that's going to be reflected in that change. Will America still be America if or when that happens? I doubt it.

    Certainly truth is important. So translating to real life, I'd like you to tell me how exactly the government should go about proving that these beliefs are true within say, 10 years. 50 years? 100 years?
    It's not the job of statesmen to go about proving truth, that's for philosophers. As Richard Weaver noted "Ideas have consequences."

    I guess you haven't heard about the state-sanctioned murders of Christians in some of the more extremist Islamic countries, then.
    Yes I have. Whether that's reflective of actual Islamic teachings is another thing. St. Catherine's Monastary for example has a personal letter signed by the Prophet Muhammad himself promising tolerance and protection to Christians under Islamic rule. You can read it here.

  4. #264
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Why would you do that?
    Because homosexuals have it harder in life than heterosexuals, and they have been repressed for so long: They deserve some compensation.

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Because homosexuals have it harder in life than heterosexuals, and they have been repressed for so long: They deserve some compensation.
    Uhho; I'm not disagreeing with your point, but how would you work out a fair distribution for that system and is it really right to stigmatize heterosexuals as being wrong just for being heterosexual? I'm not sure if you've fully thought through the consequences of positive discrimination.

  6. #266
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan of Devin View Post
    Why should polygamy/polyandry be illegal?
    Because, unlike gay marriage (or interracial marriage, which has also been brought up), there is ample evidence to suggest that in practise polygamy has very negative utilitarian consequences dinstinct from the actions of the larger society towards its practicioneers and could potentially decrease overall protection of individual rights and equality under the law. Its kind of like the debates around the (il)legality of personal machine guns or crack cocaine; people disagree on the basis of which rights they choose to prioritize, and what they consider the consequences will be in terms of aggregate rights protection.

  7. #267
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Because, unlike gay marriage (or interracial marriage, which has also been brought up), there is ample evidence to suggest that in practise polygamy has very negative utilitarian consequences dinstinct from the actions of the larger society towards its practicioneers and could potentially decrease overall protection of individual rights and equality under the law. Its kind of like the debates around the (il)legality of personal machine guns or crack cocaine; people disagree on the basis of which rights they choose to prioritize, and what they consider the consequences will be in terms of aggregate rights protection.
    I'd like to know exactly what negative utilitarian consequences are invoked by legalized group marriage that are absent from casual cohabitation of multiple sexual partners (which, I'm pretty damn sure, is legal almost everywhere in the US)?
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  8. #268
    Another awesome member. Curator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    eNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    901

    Default

    My question as well Fan of Devin.

    @peguy, I was just curious as to your stance on the that particular subject, my original post was only confusing to those who aren't able to conceptualize that two people can truly love each other and want to be together forever without wanting to have sex, seeing as the majority of people in the world do not feel the way I do about that, it is understandable that one could find my post confusing.

    please correct me if I have misconstrued your points in our little exchange, but I take what you have said to mean that if one doesn't have sex their marriage is invalid? Id like to point out that there is no support for this statement in the bible that I have been able to find, or in U.S. Law, U.S. law does state that that a marriage can be annulled if coitus has never taken place within the marriage, however most states place a limit on this of around 1 year from what Ive read in the past, so after that time period is up, if you have not already applied for an annulment, you are legally married whether coitus is ever performed or not.

    I do see your point in a spiritual aspect however, If one considers making love to another human being, as being married in the eyes of the lord, so a marriage is spiritually invalid till they perform coitus, but then that opens another can of worms then doesn't it?

    Anyway, now that my curiosity is mostly sated, i think I shall wander elsewhere on this forum, Also, marmie, your kinda awesome...

  9. #269
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Curator View Post
    @peguy, I was just curious as to your stance on the that particular subject, my original post was only confusing to those who aren't able to conceptualize that two people can truly love each other and want to be together forever without wanting to have sex, seeing as the majority of people in the world do not feel the way I do about that, it is understandable that one could find my post confusing.
    Alright, fair enough. Well I understand that there are various forms of love and friendship; simply put, the kind of love you're talking about is not the same as the kind of love marriage is built upon. Does that make it less valid? No, it's valid in a different sense. Kinda like how St. Francis and St. Claire had a very close bond, even though it was celibate and they were not married.

    please correct me if I have misconstrued your points in our little exchange, but I take what you have said to mean that if one doesn't have sex their marriage is invalid? Id like to point out that there is no support for this statement in the bible that I have been able to find, or in U.S. Law, U.S. law does state that that a marriage can be annulled if coitus has never taken place within the marriage, however most states place a limit on this of around 1 year from what Ive read in the past, so after that time period is up, if you have not already applied for an annulment, you are legally married whether coitus is ever performed or not.
    I was speaking largely from a Catholic perspective, obviously there's different twists to the application involved here. In principle, a marriage is considered valid when it's been consumated.

    I do see your point in a spiritual aspect however, If one considers making love to another human being, as being married in the eyes of the lord, so a marriage is spiritually invalid till they perform coitus, but then that opens another can of worms then doesn't it?
    Within Catholic teachings at least, a marriage is certainly ratified if it hasn't been consumated yet; but unless it is fully consumated, it's not fully valid. That's why the Church has often discouraged people who are unable to perform to marriage(or so I've been told).

  10. #270
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Alright, I think I've said more than my fair share here - including carrying along much of the last 10 pages. It's time for me to retire from the discussion. Carry on!

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