User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay marriage rights

Voters
170. You may not vote on this poll
  • Should be given

    158 92.94%
  • Should not be given

    9 5.29%
  • Could tolerate gay couples, but can't tolerate gay marriages

    9 5.29%
  • Can't tolerate gay marriages or couples

    3 1.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 23313233343543 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 591

  1. #321
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You know its interesting, I thought I'd always vote on fiscal policy and try to ignore whatever philosophical window dressing a party possessed but as time has gone by and particularly with this topic I've begun to think differently, I could see myself voting for an economically capitalist party now, even perhaps a radical one, if it where still in tune with reality and choose not to make decisions to validate minorities and alienate the majority.
    This issue is not seeking to take rights away from anyone. The majority still keeps all the rights they have ever possessed for their own marriages and personal lives. The only right conceivably taken away is the right to control other people's personal lives. I have said this before, but some people understand freedom as the ability to establish their basic human rights, while others see freedom as the right to control others. Controlling the choices of other people's personal lives is not an inherent human right. No one is forcing the heterosexual to be denied marriage rights, or to be forced to marry someone of their same sex. All this issue is asking for is to let people live according to their own conscience. To deny someone this is a deeply unethical position.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  2. #322
    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 fia View Post
    100% in favor of legalizing gay marriage. The U.S. Declaration of Independence claims "all men are created equal" and have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Falling in love and wanting to make a declaration of that in marriage is as pure a form of a pursuit of happiness that there can be. A gay person has this as an unalienable right.

    This quote that I've lost the name of the author for also sums it up nicely...

    "Asking you to give me equal rights implies they are yours to give. Instead, I must demand that you stop trying to deny me the rights that all people deserve."
    I think you mean inalienable, the problem with that though is that those natural rights theories are based upon natural law, a body of philosophical thought which would reject homosexuality out of hand as unnatural.

    I can understand that you think love and happiness are good things and you want to be happy yourself and may even find your happiness in that of others, however, you are asking that the sexual behaviour of a minority, which is a minority and will always remain a minority, be validated and embraced by the majority, who if they have no sense of disgust or any strong feels about homosexuality at the very least do not share homosexual feelings or experience homosexual feelings and therefore shouldnt be expected to have to validate those feelings.

    So the majority should not have to transform their most fundamental and organic social institutions in an effort at that validation, its a shame that people confuse that with hatred or that others have conflated this, reasonable, objection to movement towards making homosexuality socially normative, with their hatred for homosexuals or homosexual behaviour too.

  3. #323
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There's no hatred here, its just a recognition that there are certain things government cant do and shouldnt even try, its not within government's gift to convince anyone of the wisdom of homosexuality or of its parity with heterosexuality. Where is the hatred in that? That some people wish their children to grow up with the benefits of the cultural background which they themselves benefited from growing up, where is the hatred in that?

    Its not even a matter of banning gay "marriage", which would be a little like banning people from flying by flapping their arms really hard, its newspeak right out of 1984 to suggest that marriage is anything other than a relationship between two people of the opposite sex.

    I just dont understand that at all, there are people who need there to be hatred, who need a bogey man to struggle against and feel their choices and those of their friends or others are validated in the process, that's a shame and I think the wrong way to seek to give your life meaning or to find meaning. I really hope that eventually people will come to their senses about this topic and once the emoting drains away, which I dont expect to be for a very long time yet, perhaps it will take a decline in the popularity of secularism, amorality or moral relativism, so those things are out of the equation too and it can be really considered calmly.
    You are ruminating the same nonsense you have been praying for years, all of which has been rebutted in the past, yet you have changed nothing. Conclusion: There is no point in talking to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont keep a blog. I also dont believe you are interested in my posts.
    Slowly but surely you are catching up.

  4. #324
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You know its interesting, I thought I'd always vote on fiscal policy and try to ignore whatever philosophical window dressing a party possessed but as time has gone by and particularly with this topic I've begun to think differently, I could see myself voting for an economically capitalist party now, even perhaps a radical one, if it where still in tune with reality and choose not to make decisions to validate minorities and alienate the majority.
    Gosh equal rights for minorities... thats just totally fucking insane. You do realise that any marginalised person is considered a minority? (versus the mainstream majority)... So you want to lump in...lets see... mentally ill people, single mothers, the unemployed persons...oh i know a good one...vunerable children (the list could continue). So lets tot up that total and see where the majority lies now... thats right Lark your majority is now a minority... oh dear...what now?.


    P.s I believe ukip is recruiting
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  5. #325
    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 fia View Post
    This issue is not seeking to take rights away from anyone. The majority still keeps all the rights they have ever possessed for their own marriages and personal lives. The only right conceivably taken away is the right to control other people's personal lives. I have said this before, but some people understand freedom as the ability to establish their basic human rights, while others see freedom as the right to control others. Controlling the choices of other people's personal lives is not an inherent human right. No one is forcing the heterosexual to be denied marriage rights, or to be forced to marry someone of their same sex. All this issue is asking for is to let people live according to their own conscience. To deny someone this is a deeply unethical position.
    There is absolutely no compulsion being exercised by heterosexuals presently, they are not depriving homosexuals of anything. This is part of the misunderstanding of what is at stake here, there is no oppression in admitting difference and fundamental difference and recognising it. Heterosexuals are not controlling homosexuals lives presently.

    However, what is being proposed is that the organically evolved social institution of marriage, a relationship between a man and a woman, which is a universal social institution and exists despite the wonderful diversity and disparity of human societies and cultures will no longer exist or will not be permitted to exist.

    That is a dramatic and radical change being proposed, much more radical than any other in human history, not even in the heights of French or Russian radical subversion of tradition or wild utopianism has such a change been desired. That in itself is pretty unwise in my opinion. Any innovation should be balanced by reflective conservationism and this is not happening, its not dreamt of because the people aiming at innovation believe they are fighting oppression or injustice and dont give a thought to that.

    The only people being controlled are those, the majority, whose norms are not homosexual and who find the progressive aim of making homosexuality normative alienating. The consequences of alienation, I think are underestimated, mankind is not infinitely adaptable and some of the revolutionary upheavels in history, whatever forces succeed in taking advantage of them are are remembered as central to it all, are surely as a consequence of people being expected or compelled to adapt too much, to comply and conform beyond a point were its possible for them any longer. This alienation may be conscious or it may be unconscious and I think that all that the political incorrectness of conscientious objections to homosexuality or attempts to make homosexuality normative will achieve is more widespread unconscious alienation.

    This is not based upon religion or tradition or ideology, it is based upon the natural feelings of heterosexuals, which I would suppose any open minded, conscientious liberal, whatever their bias would accept as as legitimate as the homosexual feelings they are treating as paramount presently.

    The thing is that this should be well understood, at the very least by homosexuals who have gravitated towards distinctly different communities or subcultures as a result of being alienated by heterosexuality or the fact that heterosexuality is normative. Instead it is almost an invitation to the heterosexual majority to share in the same confusion and personal troubles that they have, the crazy thing is the extent to which many heterosexuals are accepting the invitation with glee.

  6. #326
    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 Nicodemus View Post
    You are ruminating the same nonsense you have been praying for years, all of which has been rebutted in the past, yet you have changed nothing. Conclusion: There is no point in talking to you.

    Slowly but surely you are catching up.
    You are only concerned with appearing smart and making mock of your betters, in this you are entirely consistent over time. You show no ability nor any desire to learn but it is you who will live with the consequences of that.

  7. #327
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Lemmi fix this for you

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    blah blah blahThere is absolutely no compulsion being exercised by heterosexuals presently, they are not depriving homosexuals of anything. This is part of the misunderstanding of what is at stake here, there is no oppression in admitting difference and fundamental difference and recognising it. Heterosexuals are not controlling homosexuals lives presently.

    However, what is being proposed is that the organically evolved social institution of marriage, a relationship between a man and a woman, which is a universal social institution and exists despite the wonderful diversity and disparity of human societies and cultures will no longer exist or will not be permitted to exist.

    That is a dramatic and radical change being proposed, much more radical than any other in human history, not even in the heights of French or Russian radical subversion of tradition or wild utopianism has such a change been desired. That in itself is pretty unwise in my opinion. Any innovation should be balanced by reflective conservationism and this is not happening, its not dreamt of because the people aiming at innovation believe they are fighting oppression or injustice and dont give a thought to that.

    The only people being controlled are those, the majority, whose norms are not homosexual and who find the progressive aim of making homosexuality normative alienating. The consequences of alienation, I think are underestimated, mankind is not infinitely adaptable and some of the revolutionary upheavels in history, whatever forces succeed in taking advantage of them are are remembered as central to it all, are surely as a consequence of people being expected or compelled to adapt too much, to comply and conform beyond a point were its possible for them any longer. This alienation may be conscious or it may be unconscious and I think that all that the political incorrectness of conscientious objections to homosexuality or attempts to make homosexuality normative will achieve is more widespread unconscious alienation.

    This is not based upon religion or tradition or ideology, it is based upon the natural feelings of heterosexuals, which I would suppose any open minded, conscientious liberal, whatever their bias would accept as as legitimate as the homosexual feelings they are treating as paramount presently.

    The thing is that this should be well understood, at the very least by homosexuals who have gravitated towards distinctly different communities or subcultures as a result of being alienated by heterosexuality or the fact that heterosexuality is normative. Instead it is almost an invitation to the heterosexual majority to share in the same confusion and personal troubles that they have, the crazy thing is the extent to which many heterosexuals are accepting the invitation with glee
    I hate gays.
    There fixed
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  8. #328
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You are only concerned with appearing smart and making mock of your betters, in this you are entirely consistent over time. You show no ability nor any desire to learn but it is you who will live with the consequences of that.
    Said the man who has (had) anyone who disagrees with him on ignore.

  9. #329
    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 HelenOfTroy View Post
    Gosh equal rights for minorities... thats just totally fucking insane. You do realise that any marginalised person is considered a minority? (versus the mainstream majority)... So you want to lump in...lets see... mentally ill people, single mothers, the unemployed persons...oh i know a good one...vunerable children (the list could continue). So lets tot up that total and see where the majority lies now... thats right Lark your majority is now a minority... oh dear...what now?.


    P.s I believe ukip is recruiting
    OK, I'll try and drain some of the emotions of for you here because you really seem not to want to emotionally self-regulate and when that happens there's no dialogue taking place at all.

    Equal rights for minorities, why is that "fucking insane"? What is your understanding of equal rights? Is it uniformity? Would you suggest then that the minority of individuals who are blind should have an equal, uniform, right to visit art galleries or exhibitions? Can you see how little sense that makes?

    I have, here, and before tried to make it clear that what is being discussed is not a right but the attempt, well intentioned as it is, to make a minority happy, the guarantee them happiness, by validating their identity and choices by throwing over organically evolved social institutions and meaning which have served the majority, who have their own legitimate identity and choices which are different to that of the minority, well and will continue to.

    Do I know what it is to be marginalised and a minority? Sure, I appear to be in the minority opinion on the forum when it comes to norms, values, tradition and on this topic, I am a Roman Catholic in predominantly protestant, british loyalist and Orange north coast of Ireland, I am a socialist thinker on a forum which is predominantly libertarian in opinion, certainly economically so, and while I identify as a socialist I oppose a lot of what passes for socialism, certainly what passes for political socialism a lot of the time and most of those within trade unions, including my own, who go by that label. So yes I know what it is like to be a minority. In those respects I am a minority. In respect of my sexuality I am heterosexual and therefore in the majority. The experience of being a minority and majority has taught me a lot about minority and majority relations but it has not taught me that by being, merely, either a majority or a minority that you are entited to something as of right.

    Why do you conflate the unemployed, mentally ill, vulnerable children etc. with homosexuals? I dont understand your reasoning there, besides some sort of confused partisanship. Similarly I dont understand why you believe I would be interested in UKIP, again I would suppose that this is to do with your own pigeon holing of my political opinions. Game playing, and particular "cow boys and indians" is a poor substitute for any meaningful dialogue or discussion.

  10. #330
    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 Nicodemus View Post
    Said the man who has (had) anyone who disagrees with him on ignore.
    I did, what of it?

Similar Threads

  1. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  2. 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
  3. Same-Sex Marriage
    By metaphours in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:52 AM
  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