User Tag List

First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 300

  1. #181
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The contested issue is whether gays are really being discriminated against. Gays have the same civil rights as you or me. Marriage is not a civil right, and it's not legally open to everybody. I can't marry my sister(not that I would even want to), nor can I have more than one wife - to give a few examples. And polygamy is banned even though it formed an important tenent of the Mormon faith, and Mormons argued on grounds of civil rights too. We also have the tricky issue of Civil Rights by default being based upon conceptions of moral absolutes(which usually derive from religious sources) - Martin Luther King Jr. himself(as I just cited) based the concept upon the natural law explained by St. Thomas Aquinas(and further elaborated by other theologians I should add). For the most part gays can enter into whatever relations they want without fear of legal recriminations. That wasn't so back in the 1960s with Black and white couples, married or no.
    So, like, you know marrying your sister can potentially lead to mutated, damaged offspring. So that's understandable why it's illegal. Same thing with beastiality - the animal can't give consent because it's not human.

    Gay sex, on the other hand, isn't going to produce retarded or deformed children, and two gay adults can give consent. Therefore, keeping them from marrying is illogical.

    The law is in place to prevent real harm, not to promote someone's religion - the two things should be kept seperately (and it's supposed to, according to the constitution.)

  2. #182
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I don't think the drive for sex goes away the longer you don't have it.
    It works for catholic priests who live as a celibates. Oh, wait... Hm.

  3. #183
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    I disagree that it isn't a matter of what sin is "worst". You can't divert responsibility for your own decisions to ostracize another based on your belief that you are right (less sinful), and they are wrong (more sinful, in your eyes). Yes, it's about people disagreeing on what is "socially intolerable", I agree with that, but it's still about you believing that their behaviors are morally reprehensible as a whole, but that yours, while sinning like the dog you are, are not. Your behavior is possibly just as "socially intolerable" to me as theirs is to you. It's a personal choice, and a personal decision.
    Um, ok. I guess you can assert that I believe something that I claim I don't believe.

    What do you mean "as a whole"?
    My issues with homosexuals are limited to a very narrow set of their behavior. Government jurisdiction is limited to that activity which effects society.

    Sex does not merely effect society... IT CREATES IT. Moreover, only rightly ordered sex creates society. So you see this isn't just a personal choice issue. Those choices can be limited to the extent they are anti-social. SSM falls within that anti-social category. Really any activity that separates sex from it's procreation and spousal unity function threatens society. But, sadly since the rise of the sexual revolution we have seen this happen and rather than bringing freedom it has simply devalued sex and cheapened relationships. Sex is no longer about love and concern for others but about selfishness and self gratification.


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    Yes, with "socially tolerable" being the word. No sin is, within the bible, "socially tolerable", so does that mean you should also be ostracized for sinning? We all sin, on a daily basis, so that means we are all acting with behaviors that are socially intolerable, daily. Rational people do not believe that what is socially acceptable is always right. And the government lol, now that's laughable. The government has been wrong, wrong, and wrong, again and again and again, throughout history. I can't imagine wanting to place my personal decisions and choices in the hands of someone else, much less a government.
    I don't think you understand me. I don't think what the government does is inherently right... actually that's probably the logical conclusion of what you believe.

    The government should not have the power to enforce laws outside of it's jurisdiction. This means that there is a whole slew of non-behavioral sins that it cannot punish. However, it is within the jurisdiction of government to order society. Putting limitations on marriage is certainly within that right.


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    I think most people at some point or another have had sex outside of marriage, and they don't see that as any worse than having gay sex, in the christian rulebook.
    Yes, this is what happens. People don't want to be judged so they want to make a deal with society that everyone will just stop caring each other. That's not loving. Sex outside of marriage always has consequences, but people will find ways to ignore the harm to make themselves feel less guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    You however, have created more rigid rules, even for yourself, and wish for everyone else to see the use for them and to live by them. Let's hope that you don't have a mental breakdown one day because of the rigid rules you have imposed on yourself that no normal human being can possibly adhere to.
    I live under grace. I've committed fornication a million times in my mind and that is just as offensive to God. Instead of hiding my guilt and shame I confess my wrongdoing. God has promised that he will love me no matter what I do. So this isn't just about guilt. I actually have every reason to feel free from guilt. In response to the promise of God's love I want to promote a society that is rightly ordered and will provide an environment not where people can simply hide their guilt and shame from one another, but can avoid the pitfalls of wrongful selfish behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    Man, you are going back to the stone ages.... I wish we had a time machine, we could let you try it out and then tell us what you think. You aren't considering history.
    How am I not considering history? I've talked a hell of a lot about history.

    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    While i would, like you, like to eliminate abuse within families, and for the environment to become more healthy, it has already been proven that the methods you instigate actually create more harm for people than good.
    where is this "proof"?


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    If we went your way, there would be a lot more unhealthy, sick people.... including me, and screw that. Tried it, and it didn't work for me. Not even close. The more I go towards freedom, the healthier I become. I believe in freedom-with-regards-to-health-and-responsibility. It's a heavy call, but I think if we strive to, we can one day reach it as a whole nation.
    Self-imposed rules without meaning and purpose are harmful. All the things I'm suggesting promote, community and love.


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    At the end of the day, give gays a chance. Many of them can and do act with responsibility, and it will get better as they become more accepted.
    It's very easy to rebel when you have a lot to rebel against, and you are in-the-fringes simply by being born (of course, I've mostly chosen that, just because that is what I am, as well, and I prefer it). There are just as many heteros acting without responsibility as there are gays, but taking away their freedoms will just make things worse. The trend is toward education, and therefore, appropriate and healthy choices, with regards to others we are affecting.
    The fact that this limited set of behavior and it's societal acceptance has such a profound effect on individuals other actions only fuels my argument that sex is terribly important and has a huge impact on society.

    I already talked about freedom above. Sexual freedom has led to a devaluation of sex, relationships and love. Divorce rates have sky rocketed since the sexual revolution and fatherlessness has dramatically increased. Sex is not about love anymore it is about self gratification.

    Education??? Education of what? Without truth or goodness education is an empty methodology. It has no ground on which to stand and cannot possibly promote love and community.



    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    End result is: the government can't and won't save you, and religion can't and won't save you. You have to learn to save yourself, and to make yourself happy.
    You can practice hedonism and ignore relationship with God and others, but you were not made an independent self-sufficient being. We need God and we need community without them the only choice is to make yourself drunk on selfish pleasures.


    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    Let's face it: the Bible was written a long fucking time ago. I don't think they ever tested whether it would work if we allowed gay people to marry, and knew the consequences of that decision. So let's give it a shot, and see for ourselves what happens. I think that whatever bad comes of it, we can handle, and we can make it work.

    We as a people have the responsibility to help everyone find happiness and health! (I also admit to being annoyed by hypocrisy and superiority complexes lol......)
    Testing society? I think I've already made clear my distaste for the social sciences. You don't experiment with society. You cannot simply supplant old religious based ideas of marriage and see how new ones "work". This is because you are testing without a standard to measure how things "work".

    I like this quote by albert salomon:

    the classic blunder of modern, scientific, secular civilization concerning religion [is] the assumption that religion is just one other cultural motif, like some particular technology or philosophy . . . Whereas, in fact, religion as a social constituent is of secondary significance. Primarily, the religious experience is the axis around which all other experience revolves. It sets the center and describes the horizon of the human scene, and so disposes into their places all the other goods of civilization without ever being itself disposed by them. Once the whole has been so experienced, a man will be better able to consider any aspect of reality, including that aspect which is society—the grandeur and misery of man’s lot.
    http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/...When:13:00:19Z
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #184
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    9,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    The less a person gives into any drive, the less "driven" they are for it. The longer a smoker goes without smoking, the less need they have for a cigarette.
    No. I was a smoker for many years. I haven't smoked for about 3 years now. I assure you, I still want/need a smoke.

    Sex is very much the same. I mean, like I've said before, I'm a virgin. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with my own anatomy though, *hint hint.* The longer I've gone without giving into an urge, the easier it becomes.
    Sexual intercourse with another living breathing person is not the same as masturbation. Not. The. Same. At. All. You have no basis for comparison.

    To a certain extent, thoughts are determined by actions. Even food, while its true a person can't live without it, after not eating for about 3 days, the feeling of hunger goes away.
    Yes and then is replaced by physical problems, the body goes into starvation mode and eventually things begin to shut down. You're making it sound like if you can suck it up for 3 days, you're good to go.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  5. #185
    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 Beefeater View Post
    Wow... how can I spell this out.

    Ok, I know you're canadian, but the U.S. constitution charges the federal government to "promote the general welfare." Forget about beauty for now, but if truth and goodness are completely subjective than this essentially is a meaningless clause.
    Aww, do you need some spelling out, too? "promoting the general welfare" = improving quality of life for people. That's not exactly difficult to interpret; nor does it require an instruction manual. You don't need to have a god-defined ideal of "truth and goodness" to improve quality of life for people. If anything religion harms the quality of life for many (but that's getting off-topic).

    This is because in a completely subjective world one cannot align government action with any fixed standard. Thus, the government action devolves into pure exercise of power devoid of any meaning and really making it impossible to argue for or against any policy. There is no reason in an entirely subjective world. This is another reason why the best argument for ssm is "meh, why not?"

    The government will pretend that it is acting in accord with "hard facts" that provide the basis for rationality. But, the problem is (and as I have been saying this is the result of popular postmodernism) that with no real meaning behind those facts public policy merely becomes a purposeless methodology.

    Without the traction of truth cold government rationality becomes like a turtle on it's back moving it's legs, but going nowhere slowly.

    This is why I believe that even if ssm marriage is achieved in a country it is an empty victory devoid of any real meaning.
    I understand what you're saying, but I think you're arguing from a position of abstract philosophy rather than looking at the real-life facts. The facts are that we don't need laws from god to avoid chaos. Atheists are no more likely to murder, rape, steal, etc than religious people are. Countries with high levels of atheism don't have a lower quality of life compared to countries with high levels of religion; there's at least a trend in the opposite direction if I remember correctly.

    The reality is that marriage is not just a random social happenstance but a divine institution grounded in the natural law.
    Actually it's grounded in property, IIRC. Both literal property and the wife as acquired "property".

    Thus marriage laws that are in accord with this divine institution are enable society to experience far greater truths and much deeper meaning then your insistence that marriage is not particularly true, beatiful or good, but just is.
    That's only true if you believe that religion leads to "far greater truths and much deeper meaning". Unfortunately religion is not objectively true, regardless of your beliefs. I find "far greater truths and much deeper meaning" in a society that doesn't ostracize people for failing to follow religious laws (especially when those people don't even follow that religion). Why does your definition trump mine? Because you have a really really really old book that (kinda sorta) backs you up?

    Well, strangely that is very on topic given previous posts in the thread referring to links between gays and Fascists. Which frankly was a surprise to me and makes me ponder how far off from reality "springtime for hitler" really was.
    Not the nazi stuff, the "I'm tolerant I just disagree with their liiiifestyle" stuff. The thread is about support for legalizing same-sex marriage, not whether you agree or disagree with people having sex.

    You're just asserting that I'm off topic, but I've made numerous arguments explaining the connection between the gay rights movement and the drive towards main stream acceptance of homosexuality.
    Right, which is not all that relevant to whether it should be outright banned.
    I'm really confused now because you're speaking of "legal rights" and "immorality" and yet you believe truth and goodness are subjective.
    Yeah, you didn't read my post did you? Did you see the part where I said "I find these things immoral". As in, it's my subjective opinion, not something I wish to force on the entire country (taking away "legal rights").
    What is your basis for morality and legal rights?
    Aren't they inherently fluid concepts given your presuppositions?
    Morality for me is based on reasoning that makes sense to me and is based on equality, justice, and maximizing quality of life while preventing harm to others. I'm not going to discuss it with you because I know perfectly well you're going to claim that I'm immoral purely because I don't believe in an ancient, translated book written by savages, and I don't have the patience for that unproductive conversation today, so let's stick to the topic rather than veering off into my own personal beliefs.
    -end of thread-

  6. #186
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Personally, I'm against marriage of any kind. I don't think there should be any legal documents pertaining to marriage in the first place. Marriage discriminates against singles in more ways than one.

  7. #187
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    In response to the promise of God's love I want to promote a society that is rightly ordered and will provide an environment not where people can simply hide their guilt and shame from one another, but can avoid the pitfalls of wrongful selfish behavior.
    Here lies the entire problem: You want to impose the rules you derived from your own delusion on other people's lives. Please stop to make us your equals. We do not want to be slaves. Eat your bitter 'truth' alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Sexual freedom has led to a devaluation of sex, relationships and love. Divorce rates have sky rocketed since the sexual revolution and fatherlessness has dramatically increased. Sex is not about love anymore it is about self gratification.
    Do you find it cruel to keep a shark in a swimming pool?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Education??? Education of what? Without truth or goodness education is an empty methodology. It has no ground on which to stand and cannot possibly promote love and community.
    Would you be satisfied if somebody invented a certain absolute ruler and judge that supports absolute ethical laissez-faire, just as some late jews invented your god with his slave ethics?

  8. #188
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post


    Well, strangely that is very on topic given previous posts in the thread referring to links between gays and Fascists. Which frankly was a surprise to me and makes me ponder how far off from reality "springtime for hitler" really was.

    I love that song. Very catchy. I find myself whistling it at work.



  9. #189
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Personally, I'm against marriage of any kind. I don't think there should be any legal documents pertaining to marriage in the first place. Marriage discriminates against singles in more ways than one.
    Its not just about marriage vs. unlicenced marriage, if it where then civil partnerships would be sufficient or two people who feel they're married would be content with that. Its about policing the opinions of people who dont believe that two women or two men can ceremoniously "marry" each other and it mean the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. I dont know what its going to take to convince people that the state shouldnt be in the opinion forming and policing game.

  10. #190
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Propoganda:

    [YOUTUBE="Zhl9MLno424"].[/YOUTUBE]

    P.S. I'm not anti same sex marriage.

Similar Threads

  1. Same-sex Marriage, do you support it?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 608
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 02:49 PM
  2. Obama Administration Support for Same-Sex Marriage
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 09:23 PM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

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