User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay Marriage - Yes or no?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    67 93.06%
  • No

    7 9.72%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 245

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    I'm wondering why this thread is appearing in arts and entertainment and why its appearing at all really since we've pretty much discussed it for the Nth time.

    Is Highlander engaging in some sort of clever satirisation of the topic as "Arts and Entertainment"?

  2. #22
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Nicodemus

    Also if my above post didn't make sense:

    Saying they are going to legalize gay marriage is like saying they're going to legalize freedom.

    It's like looking at someone and saying "We have decided to grant you the status of full citizen" or "We have decided to make it legal for you to not be a slave"

    Typically these things should work the opposite way. They don't make it legal, they make discrimination of it illegal because equality is something that you are supposed to already possess inherently.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Ftr, I'm done with this topic and won't respond to any other responses to me. I had just wanted to make a simple statement about the constitution and not get dragged into a long conversation. If anyone wants to know my opinion then they can go back and read any of the dozen or so other old threads about this topic.
    Word.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @Nicodemus

    Also if my above post didn't make sense:

    Saying they are going to legalize gay marriage is like saying they're going to legalize freedom.

    It's like looking at someone and saying "We have decided to grant you the status of full citizen" or "We have decided to make it legal for you to not be a slave"

    Typically these things should work the opposite way. They don't make it legal, they make discrimination of it illegal because equality is something that you are supposed to already possess inherently.
    So you would criminalise law abidding and peaceable individuals who are conscientious objectors to redefining what marriage has meant to everyone for generations to what it means for same sex couplings presently?

    Doesnt seem like a good idea to me, if you think the war on drugs and war on terror have been a bad idea or waste of money just wait until you begin the war on heterosexuality in ernest.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm wondering why this thread is appearing in arts and entertainment and why its appearing at all really since we've pretty much discussed it for the Nth time.
    highlander asked: "Do you think the supreme court should legalize it or not?" Here is why: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ere-we-go.html

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @Nicodemus

    Also if my above post didn't make sense:

    Saying they are going to legalize gay marriage is like saying they're going to legalize freedom.

    It's like looking at someone and saying "We have decided to grant you the status of full citizen" or "We have decided to make it legal for you to not be a slave"

    Typically these things should work the opposite way. They don't make it legal, they make discrimination of it illegal because equality is something that you are supposed to already possess inherently.
    Well, in an ideal world many things are different. But history has already happened, laws are already in place. So I suppose from a legal point of view it does make sense to tackle the issue at one point or another.

  6. #26
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    So you would criminalise law abidding and peaceable individuals who are conscientious objectors to redefining what marriage has meant to everyone for generations to what it means for same sex couplings presently?

    Doesnt seem like a good idea to me, if you think the war on drugs and war on terror have been a bad idea or waste of money just wait until you begin the war on heterosexuality in ernest.
    I would not criminalize conscientious objectors based on their right to have their ceremony and culture and beliefs. If a priest doesn't want to marry two people, he has the right to refuse to do so in his chapel.

    All I am saying is that the state should not hold the position that this is just now legal (and was once illegal) but rather it should be illegal for the state to deny anyone from performing a legal union.

    Basically if someone has the power to perform marriage and wants to marry two gay people, they should be able to do so.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    @Beorn

    How can you not see how hypocritical your position is? How can you call it tyranny for people to want to take part in legal marriage. Religious marriage is a deep rooted tradition and the Supreme Court cannot change the religious perspective on marriage. What it will change is the legal status and that is a matter of extending rights already guaranteed to heterosexuals to homosexuals. Heterosexuals will remain unaffected except in the instances that they want to control the behaviors of other people which in my opinion is tyrannical.

  8. #28

    Default

    The thing is, no one should be asked to change how they feel about the morality of gay marriage. If someone feels it is wrong, they are still allowed to feel that way. That is not the issue. It is about a legal recognition of a partnership. I think @cafe explained it very well, so I won't rehash.

    I just have difficulty understanding why people care who gets married. You're not marrying them, so why do you care? I mean this as a genuine question of logic, not as a judgment. I truly don't get it.

    Churches don't have to marry people if they don't want to. I've known heterosexual couples who have been refused by churches for a variety of reasons. I don't believe this should change. Churches are founded on a certain doctrine, and in this country, that is protected (at least in principle) and that is as it should be.

    Legal unions, however, are about recognition from the state. Neither of my two marriages were sanctioned by any church, but that did not make me any less married.

    And as far as an attack on heterosexuality? I really don't get that. I've never met a single gay person that gives a single crap that i'm straight...well, ok, perhaps the girls I've turned down may have given a crap that they didn't get to sleep with me, but no differently than the men I've turned down. I'm free to love and marry who I want & I don't see why i'm special because I prefer the opposite sex.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    @Beorn

    How can you not see how hypocritical your position is? How can you call it tyranny for people to want to take part in legal marriage. Religious marriage is a deep rooted tradition and the Supreme Court cannot change the religious perspective on marriage. What it will change is the legal status and that is a matter of extending rights already guaranteed to heterosexuals to homosexuals. Heterosexuals will remain unaffected except in the instances that they want to control the behaviors of other people which in my opinion is tyrannical.
    I think the final line of this is deeply ironic.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think the final line of this is deeply ironic.
    How so?

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  3. Preschool, Yes or No?
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:18 AM
  4. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 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