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 35434445464755 Last

Results 441 to 450 of 591

  1. #441
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I'm really bothered when I see commandments in the Live New Posts.

    This is how prudes must feel when they see me say things like "fuck" and "sucking balls."

  2. #442
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    morally the best president the states had in the last century. except for that guy who said that he is a berliner.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #443
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Queers can be married if they want, but it's not the role of the state to marry them.

    So if they want to create their own church or a casino or night club when they can have a ceremony of marriage and wear a white wedding dress, that's their freedom, but it's not the buisness of the state.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  4. #444
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    What's the problem with normalizing homosexuality? It should be normalized. There's no inherent danger or problem with homosexuality,
    There's not more reason to normalize homosexuality than to normalize zoophilia. There's not inherent danger to zoophilia either. Less actually. There's more danger to get AIDS fucking with a man than fucking with a horse. So we should even more legalize inter-species marriages than gender marriage actually.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  5. #445
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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?
    At the least I think it's extremely unrealistic to expect the benefits of cultural background to be static.

    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.
    I don't really understand it either, except that different people have varying connections to themselves and their opinions, and so assume that other people must be tied to their opinions that intimately as well. I am as annoyed by people mixing up your particular "philosophy" with prejudice or with your own identity, as I'd be amused and facepalm if you suggested there must be a casual relationship between my social and/or sexual orientation and my replies.



    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.
    Or maybe because some people don't care as much about social conservatism as you apparently do.

    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.
    I don't think you give people enough adaptability credit. I do not underestimate the effects of alienation, they are widely seen, for example in the recent past, for the group of people who found same-sexuality acceptable. Alienation to some extent is pretty unavoidable though, for as far as we know there's always going to be an important opinion we have that a lot of other people find distasteful.

    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.
    I'm not sure which "natural feelings of heterosexuals" you are talking about at this point, but I doubt there are many people who would treat heterosexuality as an illegitimate orientation.

    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.
    If there is glee in this newfound confusion I don't understand where your fears are coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Would you suggest then that the minority of individuals who are blind should have an equal, uniform, right to visit art galleries or exhibitions?
    I wouldn't have to suggest it, they already have the automatic right to visit art galleries. To outlaw it would be absurd, what harm is there for a blind person to go? Whether there is a benefit to this person for doing so is completely irrelevant to the law. I'm interested to see exactly where you are tying this in though....

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I do not believe that purely by virtue of having the status of being a minority or a majority that anyone possesses particular rights or entitlements.
    You're right, it's by being, not by being something in particular.

    This is why the campaign for gay "marriage" is wrongful, it is the destruction of words, in a very real sense the undermining of the meaning of words and by extention the norms and values and mores which accompany them. There's no fear in that either, it is just a simple fact that ideas and actions have consequences and most often these are not foreseen or anticipated or prepared for where hopes and optimism will suffice in its place.
    I understand what you mean about undermining the meaning of words..... but what is to be particularly taken into consideration is if the shifting of the meaning of the word is actually creating a negative effect. This is why I do not think "gay" should be changed again into also being synonymous with "stupid," as it reinforces a negative and childish take toward sexual orientation at impressionable ages. But is the current evolution of the word "marriage" actually hurting us?


    he suggested that the reverence for potential in popular ideology and consumerist mores and norms left people terrified about the path not taken or any perceived limits to choices.
    Terrified? Are you sure that what you are seeing is fear, and not just certain people's preferred take towards the universe, finally seeing light?


    Now that is something I've never done, I've never tried to talk anyone out of their identified sexuality once they have made it clear that its not a phase, novel experience or anything else like that.
    Does this mean that you have tried to talk people out of it if they haven't made this clear? I'm also skeptical that you have ever run into a circumstance where someone who identifies as heterosexual made clear that it's not a phase or novel experience.

    What I make of that is that homosexuality is as much a normative or cultural movement as it is anything else, whether a genetic or biochemical causative factor is discovered or not, and given that everything seeks to try to reproduce itself, and homosexuals can not do that as heterosexual families can they will seek to do it in other ways, culturally, by the spreading and uptake of their norms.
    Nah, people just like to be showy about what they like It's just that being showy about heterosexuality is a given and showiness about homosexuality is something new.


    My last sentence is the one about ambivalence to authority? The legacy of the repeated attacking of authority per se since the war, usually with reference to totalitarian states and illegitimate authority as authority per se, has resulted in people becoming ambivalent about who should be affirmative about it, so you have people in authority who are sufficiently worried about being authoritarian to sacrifice being authoritative. The result are parents who dont really want to parent and attempt to pair bond with their children or treat them as peers, there are other sorts of abdicating of authority too, leaders who dont lead etc.
    You just like conservatism in general don't you? Forget whether actually letting children have some power may actually have some merits or not....

    I dont believe that there is much in the way of seeking to "persuade" homosexuals to "adopt" or "be" heterosexual, definitely not in the media, not culturally either, infact the contra IS true, anyone who approachs a professional or adult with feelings of ambivalence about their sexual orientation is likely to be immediately bombarded with gay positive messages, not impartial acceptance of whatever choices or decisions they eventually make.
    Professionals are not culture or media, professionals learn whatthe best things they can do to make sure the patient remains alive and psychologically stable. While western media/culture doesn't outright persuade sexuality, up until semi-recent times a lot of it did pretty much implictly present heterosexuality as THE option, which does have the potential of sending the message to people feeling homosexuality that they must be nearly insane. Alienation is a powerful thing. Professionals know that and must keep the health of the patient in mind, it's so much of a given that the culture has given messages that heterosexuality is not insane, that the bombardment need not be two-sided.

    I'm not in favour of prohibiting anyone from benefiting from legal contract, civil partnerships are fine.
    Civil patnerships would clear up this whole ridiculous issue entirely, if the contract of civil patnership had all the same legal benefits as the marriage contract, but many sources I've found on this suggest that they do not.

  6. #446
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Queers can be married if they want, but it's not the role of the state to marry them.

    So if they want to create their own church or a casino or night club when they can have a ceremony of marriage and wear a white wedding dress, that's their freedom, but it's not the buisness of the state.
    Sure, and they can create their own hospitals and schools and freeways and groceries stores in order to ensure they're never involved in the state in a way that disadvantages them due to the fact their partner is of the same sex. While you know, people who fall victim to this compulsion to spend the rest of their lives with someone of the opposite sex can, you know, just get married and go on merrily with their lives with government benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    There's not more reason to normalize homosexuality than to normalize zoophilia. There's not inherent danger to zoophilia either. Less actually. There's more danger to get AIDS fucking with a man than fucking with a horse. So we should even more legalize inter-species marriages than gender marriage actually.
    As honorable as I find your implication that the horse could consent to the same capacity you can, I'm afraid that it just isn't that simple to know whether the horse is traumatized or not. "I do" is pretty simple.

    Hmmm, but I suppose you're right. We should all remain abstinent from humans and only copulate with animals since with humans there is the risk of the dreaded HIV.

    (Is my sarcasm mic on?)

  7. #447
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Good thing my quote is in the first post. Now this thread has only spiraled into 45 pages so far

  8. #448
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    Sure, and they can create their own hospitals and schools and freeways and groceries stores in order to ensure they're never involved in the state in a way that disadvantages them due to the fact their partner is of the same sex. While you know, people who fall victim to this compulsion to spend the rest of their lives with someone of the opposite sex can, you know, just get married and go on merrily with their lives with government benefits.



    As honorable as I find your implication that the horse could consent to the same capacity you can, I'm afraid that it just isn't that simple to know whether the horse is traumatized or not. "I do" is pretty simple.

    Hmmm, but I suppose you're right. We should all remain abstinent from humans and only copulate with animals since with humans there is the risk of the dreaded HIV.

    (Is my sarcasm mic on?)
    I don't see what makes sense in your post and what it is supposed to prove. Gays can go to an hospital if they pay and they have not less access to social security. And marriage is not only about consentment between two individuals, but the union of two families in order to etablish the rights of the natural children of the couple. Basic notion of law that you and every supporter of gay marriage don't have.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  9. #449
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    personally i dont have anything against gay marriage, but i think the decision whether to marry a gay couple or not, should be a decision made by the church(or priest), not by law. imo law shouldnt say that its illegal for church to marry gay couples, if the church is pro gay marriage, neither should the law say that church has to marry gay couples if the church is against gay marriage.

    when it comes to this what ever marriage type of thing that doesent involve church, but just legally registering people as a couple, it should be allowed.

    i think its fucked up if some church doesent want to marry gay couples, but this is based on their religious beliefs. if some church discriminates gay people, i dont think the religious belief that the church holds, is the right one for gay people -> they should go to a church that doesent think homosexuality is some wicked sin invented by the satan
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #450
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    how is it not the role of the State? 'Queers' are also citizens, they didn't drop from the moon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Queers can be married if they want, but it's not the role of the state to marry them.

    So if they want to create their own church or a casino or night club when they can have a ceremony of marriage and wear a white wedding dress, that's their freedom, but it's not the buisness of the state.

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