User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 207

  1. #101
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    Gay rights - I hate that they want more rights than anyone else.
    What rights are those? I've never heard of gay rights groups asking for anything more than what the straight majority gets.


    Gay marriage - Completely against it. Marriage is religious and should be defined by religious groups as they see fit.

    Marriage should be a religious institution; civil unions should be legal. I agree with Wolf on this matter, simply because I don't think we should FORCE the Southern Baptists to perform gay and lesbian marriages. However, I don't think that the fact that they (and other groups) WON'T should prevent homosexual people from marrying who they wish to marry (or being legally united to that person, whatever).

    Most homosexuals are not religious and therefore have no way or reason to be married.
    I don't think this is really true; homosexuals have just been marginalized out of those religious institutions where they might want to be accepted. But there are definitely churches that will do gay marriages for those who are religious or want religious recognition of their unions.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  2. #102
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    Marriage should be a religious institution; civil unions should be legal. I agree with Wolf on this matter, simply because I don't think we should FORCE the Southern Baptists to perform gay and lesbian marriages. However, I don't think that the fact that they (and other groups) WON'T should prevent homosexual people from marrying who they wish to marry (or being legally united to that person, whatever).
    My sentiments exactly.

    I'm also in favor of civil union rights for cohabitating heteros.

    The structure of the family has changed in our society and our laws should change to reflect that. That's how governments "by the people" are supposed to work.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  3. #103
    Senior Member Gen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    He seems to be answering rather well imo. As far as I can tell from his posts, he's saying there's a difference between desire and acting on it and though you can't do anything about your desires you can choose how to act. Which means he thinks being gay isn't immoral, but acting on it is. As same sex sexual activity isn't morally acceptable in his opinion, marrying isn't morally acceptable as it is a continuation of and accept of the immorality. He bases this on religious reasons and WOULD probably jump off a bridge if the holy spirit told him to, but it's not telling him to and will not in the future, so the hypothetical scenario is irrelevant in his view. Correct, Jeffster?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Yeah, that's pretty much dead on.
    Hold ON. So they should live out their entire lives going against their inner feelings, likely feeling inner disharmony forever, probably becoming depressed? They should do this even though there are others who feel the same way and no one gets hurt when they do follow their instincts? They should do this because some people become uncomfortable otherwise?

    I realize I've been abrasive lately but how is something immoral just because it makes judgmental people uncomfortable? I think its more immoral to make other people feel guilty for something that doesn't hurt anyone nor affect you.

    Meh, I have nothing new to add to this argument really.

  4. #104
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen View Post
    Hold ON. So they should live out their entire lives going against their inner feelings, likely feeling inner disharmony forever, probably becoming depressed? They should do this even though there are others who feel the same way and no one gets hurt when they do follow their instincts? They should do this because some people become uncomfortable otherwise?

    I realize I've been abrasive lately but how is something immoral just because it makes judgmental people uncomfortable? I think its more immoral to make other people feel guilty for something that doesn't hurt anyone nor affect you.
    I understand Jeffster's logic, and it follows.

    The problem (as typical in these sort of discussions) is the underlying assumptions. Until the assumptions are agreed upon, there won't be any agreement on the conclusions.

    Personally, I am very pleased that society is changing... and its assumptions along with it. Boomer mentality is dying off, because the older generations are literally passing away, and a lot of the conservatism is going away because of it; and the Gen X/Y/Z crowd has different assumptions because they evaluate more on their actual tangible experiences rather than just trying to jam square pegs into round holes based on the assumptions they were handed.

    I've experience much more acceptance from the younger generations, they don't seem to be flustered or bothered... because they see people who are different from them as real people and judge more on how someone treats them and others personally. Who loves? Who hates? Who gives? Who denies? Who is compassionate? Who is selfish? Their standards are much more practical.

    In my different but related situation, I'm glad we go out into the community like normal human beings and let ourselves be seen... because we are normal human beings, just like everyone else, and this helps people realize we're just the same as them. Same dreams, same loves, same hates, same longings, same fears. It's not a moral choice, it's a practical one. People don't get that sometimes until they run into the situation head-on.

    I just saw an article on a support site this morning about a gay adoptive couple featured in USA Today. They're getting a bunch of crap from antagonists in the comments section. (Those comments sections tend to be wastes anyway, it's usually just a bunch of pissy people who finally have a little soapbox, and there's no sense in trying to have a reasonable conversation in that context...)

    I usually don't post, but I went and did anyway:

    Jeff and Andy, bless you guys for opening your hearts and home to a child who needs love. As an adoptive parent, I'm as amazed and overwhelmed at your desire to give of yourselves almost as I'm bewildered at how easily people can judge the hearts of those they've never met. It'll be a glorious day when people are evaluated by how often and well they love -- by their relational character -- rather than by external unrelated criteria, and the example you guys set is part of that process of growing social awareness. Don't ever give up or let it darken your hearts, you are doing a Good Thing for your son.
    So overall, I don't quite know how I feel about this. I can respect consistent logic, and I can respect people with other beliefs if they're trying to remain consistent; but I also become angry with people who consistently deny the evidence of their eyes and slander the moral quality of people who, by their very actions, are at least equal and sometimes even more loving and giving than those who would judge them from afar by some external standard.

    Logically, it makes no sense to me; personally, it's offensive. But again, everyone gets a say.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #105
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Well I can't respect people who demand that other people live by a moral code that is based on religious authority rather than practicality. The anti-gay rhetoric advocated by Jeffster and Wolf is pretty pathetic.

  6. #106
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Well, I did agree with Wolf that churches shouldn't be forced to marry people in ways that run against their beliefs. (Part of the problem in the US is that we've blurred the legal and religious act of marriage.)

    But there should be equal legal rights as well as the opportunity to be married within the religion of choice.

    Give it another 20-30 years. It'll change. It's already been changing. Once people see they have nothing to be scared of and that the objections don't hold up long-term, it'll be little more than a blip.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #107
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    Marriage should be a religious institution; civil unions should be legal. I agree with Wolf on this matter, simply because I don't think we should FORCE the Southern Baptists to perform gay and lesbian marriages. However, I don't think that the fact that they (and other groups) WON'T should prevent homosexual people from marrying who they wish to marry (or being legally united to that person, whatever).
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, I did agree with Wolf that churches shouldn't be forced to marry people in ways that run against their beliefs. (Part of the problem in the US is that we've blurred the legal and religious act of marriage.)
    Why the hell not? Should a group really be allowed to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation? What it they wanted to prevent Mexicans from getting married to whites? Same deal?

    If a religious group wants to hole themselves up somewhere and perform some exclusive ceremonies, really, I don't care that much. But as soon as they accept benefits and protections afforded by a state by virtue of their ceremony, they step out of their religious bubble and should be required to play by the rules everyone else plays by. You can't have your cake (state benefits) and eat it too (pretend like you're strictly religious). I have no pity for the Southern Baptists.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Why the hell not? Should a group really be allowed to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation? What it they wanted to prevent Mexicans from getting married to whites? Same deal?

    If a religious group wants to hole themselves up somewhere and perform some exclusive ceremonies, really, I don't care that much. But as soon as they accept benefits and protections afforded by a state by virtue of their ceremony, they step out of their religious bubble and should be required to play by the rules everyone else plays by. You can't have your cake (state benefits) and eat it too (pretend like you're strictly religious). I have no pity for the Southern Baptists.
    Hell yeah they should be able to discriminate. It's against their religious beliefs. To force them to perform homosexual marriages is a violation of the separation of church and state.

    I don't know what you're talking about 'state benefits'. There is no church welfare...at least not yet. If you mean tax exemption, all religious institutions get this and I don't really see it as a benefit as much as it's a result of the separation.

    The way I see your stance...liberals trying to use the state to force their own morality on religion. When Christians talk about an assault on their religion, they're talking about people like you. You think you're better than they are and that justifies you forcing your morality on them. I find your stance to be offensive and I'm not even religious. The use of state control to do this...that's fucking pathetic.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #109
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    Yes, and they should be able to set the rules and requirements as they see fit. If a religious group wants to marry homosexuals, it's within their rights. If they want to refuse to marry interracial couples, it's within their rights. What I've seen here is less about even love and more about attacking religious groups by forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
    I agree with that as long as your first premise is met (i.e. that social family units are treated equally by government regardless of their nature.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Governments. Social family units could exist outside of government-defined units, though government units should be sufficiently-flexible to handle human social groupings that necessitate formalizing. Since the concept creates benefits that are clearly useful and necessary for groups of people (basically, it's a blanket statement of trust in this person, a statement that you consider them someone that should receive your property when you die, etc), it seems reasonable to make it much more flexible to cover a wider array of situations and groupings.
    Ah, yes, I meant governments. I agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Better than the others.
    Yay! I'm not "such a SJ"!

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I disagree. Show me a historic human group that established marriage (quite a few didn't have marriage) without a religious basis.
    Actually you're right. Most did link it with religion, so to say that it had non-religious roots was wrong. What I meant was that marriage-like arrangements emerged in a majority of cultures and religions, so even if it was linked with religion, it clearly comes from a non-religious need for stability, predictability etc. and probably a human desire to make sure your assets follow your genes (evolutionary psychology or somesuch).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Yeah, that's pretty much dead on.

    However, I would add that "religious reasons" isn't necessarily as simple as "The Bible says this.." as some people would imply. It's more of a belief in a natural order of everything, that is...augmented? (not sure that's the right word) by the Bible, but someone who doesn't have a particular religious faith could still come to the same conclusions...or something. See, I've demonstrated real quickly I'm not as articulate or succinct (?) as carebear.
    No, I see that. There is more to it than "the Bible says this", but even if there hadn't been it'd still amount to the same: You come to conclusions that are rather consistent with your premises/assumptions. Same with the pro gay marriage crowd. The only possible way to discuss it is to challenge our assumptions, which means the debate will be whether or not God exists/cares/is understood correctly etc., not whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. Since that means a huge derailment where we probably still won't agree, all we can achieve in this thread is to discover that we disagree on the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Don't worry. Most of us aren't as articulate or succinct as carebear and English isn't even his first language. He's just that good.

    Thanks, but it's not true. My English is a car with bad brakes and no servo, and whenever I manage a curve it's more a matter of luck and sweat than of being good at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen View Post
    Hold ON. So they should live out their entire lives going against their inner feelings, likely feeling inner disharmony forever, probably becoming depressed? They should do this even though there are others who feel the same way and no one gets hurt when they do follow their instincts? They should do this because some people become uncomfortable otherwise?
    No. They should do this because it's the way God intended it. We're being tested in this world, but must not let our sinful biological desires guide us away from God's plan and eternal salvation. Jesus showed the importance of not being tempted when he met the devil in the desert and refused to eat and drink even if he was hungry and thirsty etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen View Post
    I realize I've been abrasive lately but how is something immoral just because it makes judgmental people uncomfortable? I think its more immoral to make other people feel guilty for something that doesn't hurt anyone nor affect you.

    Meh, I have nothing new to add to this argument really.
    It's got nothing to do with how it makes judgmental people feel. It's not immoral to tell someone how they can live according to God's plan and be saved. If they feel guilt, it's because they know deep down they're doing something they shouldn't be. Would it be kind to let a fat person keep eating fatty food in ignorance, or would it be kinder to inform the person of how they could eat healthier? Failing to give people the possibility to be saved by accepting their ignorance isn't kind. It's selfish, because you let them loose out on eternity of happiness just because they/you might feel marginally bad about it in this life.

    No, I don't agree with any of the assumptions behind the conclusions above, but it does make sense if you do. (Not saying Jeffster share all of the assumptions above, but I know people who do and it can be very logical if you start out with the right (=imo wrong) assumptions.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  10. #110
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Why the hell not? Should a group really be allowed to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation? What if they wanted to prevent Mexicans from getting married to whites? Same deal?

    If a religious group wants to hole themselves up somewhere and perform some exclusive ceremonies, really, I don't care that much. But as soon as they accept benefits and protections afforded by a state by virtue of their ceremony, they step out of their religious bubble and should be required to play by the rules everyone else plays by. You can't have your cake (state benefits) and eat it too (pretend like you're strictly religious). I have no pity for the Southern Baptists.
    All right, I disagreed with your first paragraph, until I (duh) read the second part... which is logical and I hadn't been thinking about at the time. If they want special protection and tax breaks from the government, then the government should get a say in how they behave. (And if they don't like it, then they should be required to give up their benefits.)

    No, Lat, I think it's only fair. It's how I try to live my life -- taking responsibility for my own choices -- and you know I'm not saying this from a lack of awareness, I spent almost my entire life WITHIN the church.

    People are always free to practice how they want, but the state/feds aren't obligated to subsidize it. They're just obligated to provide an even playing field. Churches can meet in private homes if they need to, if it's just about practicing religious beliefs, they aren't required to have extravagant worship buildings; third-world countries know this, Americans don't. I don't see it as a matter of persecution; what you describe sounds far more liberal than what Edahn said, honestly.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 04:17 PM
  5. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 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