User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 223

  1. #101
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Indeed one has been the foundation of western civilization and the other has come into mainstream vogue in about the last 10 years.
    History and antiquity does not make a right, nor devalue the new.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  2. #102
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    History and antiquity does not make a right, nor devalue the new.
    The new does not devalue the old, newness does not make a right.

  3. #103
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    History and antiquity does not make a right, nor devalue the new.

    The supreme court would differ with you.

  4. #104
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The new does not devalue the old, newness does not make a right.
    Yes. However, I am not claiming that because gay being more common in the public eye suddenly makes it more correct. Nor am I saying that it suddenly devalues the history of "how things have always been".

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The supreme court would differ with you.
    In most cases this is correct. This is referring to a matter of precedent on how past matters are dealt with. The vast majority of the time the precedent is set and valid.

    It's also distracting from the original point that I made that religion and homosexuality are not the same thing and can't be compared to how they affect another. The latter can not be avoided because it is how a person is.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  5. #105
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Yes. However, I am not claiming that because gay being more common in the public eye suddenly makes it more correct. Nor am I saying that it suddenly devalues the history of "how things have always been".



    In most cases this is correct. This is referring to a matter of precedent on how past matters are dealt with. The vast majority of the time the precedent is set and valid.

    It's also distracting from the original point that I made that religion and homosexuality are not the same thing and can't be compared to how they affect another. The latter can not be avoided because it is how a person is.
    Uh, it's not a matter of being more common. It's a matter of homosexuality being created. It is a social construct.

    I have no idea what your response to me is getting at. What I was getting at is that the Supreme court actually defines fundamental rights as being "deeply rooted in a nations tradition and history."

  6. #106
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Uh, it's not a matter of being more common. It's a matter of homosexuality being created. It is a social construct.

    I have no idea what your response to me is getting at. What I was getting at is that the Supreme court actually defines fundamental rights as being "deeply rooted in a nations tradition and history."
    Dred Scott v Sanford anyone? That was a decision made on fundamental rights that was based on our nation's history and tradition, was it correct? (Though, the supreme court was half right in its ruling of the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, but that's an entirely different matter)

  7. #107
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Uh, it's not a matter of being more common. It's a matter of homosexuality being created. It is a social construct.

    I have no idea what your response to me is getting at. What I was getting at is that the Supreme court actually defines fundamental rights as being "deeply rooted in a nations tradition and history."
    One of them being the freedom to pursue life liberty and happiness. Which, homosexuals have the right to pursue with no more or less hinderance than others.

    Homosexuality isn't really a social construct, as it is a label we use to describe how one is attracted to other individuals. That's getting into unneeded semantics. The idea that it's "created" doesn't devalue it anyway.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  8. #108
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    In regards to the corporate pressure in AZ I though this was relevant. Not that I can really convince most people in disagreement that it's not simple ignorance and bigotry fueling the entirety of the opposition to same-sex marriage.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...al-bedfellows/

    Quote Originally Posted by Corporatism and Gay Marriage: Natural Bedfellows by Patrick Deneen
    ...Long before the current debate over gay marriage, modern capitalism required the redefinition of the family and marriage. Gay marriage is only the logical conclusion of a long process of the redefinition of marriage into a largely private, interpersonal bond whose main purpose is the self-actualization and personal fulfillment of the contracting individuals, to be made and remade at the convenience of both or even one of the contracting parties.

    Marriage had to be redefined by the demands of the modern economy, no longer a bond between man and woman, each a part of intertwined extended families, embedded in a community rooted in multiple generations of memory, joined together as contributors to the future of that community by the generation of new life, bound by the self-sacrificial acceptance of debt to the past and obligation to the future. Marriage was not merely, and perhaps even not primarily, about the “love” of the two (or, increasingly, more) individuals—important as that certainly was and is. Rather—as the publishing of the “banns” indicates—it was the entry of a new family into the life of a community—and the community was thought to have a say in whether the marriage should proceed (“If anyone should have any cause….”).

    To liberate individuals from such deep commitments to people, place, and generations, marriage had to be redefined in accordance with our self-conception as utility-maximizing consumers, free agents who are not permanently locked into any arrangements that might not prove to be continuously pleasing or rewarding (or, which forestall other, better arrangements). Defined today as one of our “rights” (rather than as part of our duty), marriage should be like a consumer good—something that satisfies us, in accordance with our desires. It does not partake of a moral and natural and communal and sacramental ecology. Rather, it is part of our dominant marketplace of choice, a marketplace extensively constructed by the modern economic realm, and in which the modern corporation flourishes. The Grammy’s showed modern marriage in its purest redefined form: the focus was on countless couples, unfamiliar with each other, before an assembly of total strangers and televised on commercial television which exists to sell things.


    The modern corporation and modern marriage are born of the same philosophical roots: rootless individuals seeking self-gratification in whatever way they see fit, short of “harming” another. Marriage is just another consumer choice, with the added advantage of tax benefits (it’s especially interesting to witness the Left’s insistence on gay marriage as a means for wealthy, oft-childless homosexuals to avoid inheritance taxes. After all, U.S v. Windsor wasn’t about “love,” it was about money). Corporations thus defend gay marriage for the same reason (and using the same tactics) they seek to undermine unions, environmental regulations, and tax policy—most obviously short-term gain, but more deeply, a society that needs to be remade in such a way that short-term gain seems the only game left in town: a thoroughly mobile society devoted to personal satisfaction, composed of individuals whose relationships are fungible and who have no strong relationship to place, history, or the generations stretching between the past and the future.

    ...

  9. #109
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maybetmp View Post
    Whether it's right or wrong, taxation is stealing when it forcefuly extracts funds with the use of fear or violence. If you had a voluntary tax system, that would be different. And "thou shalt not kill" doesn't literally apply to murder; it's just a general term for a violent transgression against another person (imprisonment for not paying taxes, for example). Even if we set this issue aside, how do we deal with the logical inconsistencies within the Bible? If it were clear-cut, we wouldn't have all of these various spin-offs of the Judeo-Christian religions. Interpretation varies drastically from one sect to the other. How would we, as imperfect humans who have been demonstrably shown as incapable of correctly interpreting God's Law establish an entire government based on it?
    It would probably need to be incorporated by individuals, churches, and communities first. Then the natural progression of that is to government, as government represents the people.

    Of course, you have freedom on the one hand, and on the other you have government control.

    Ideally, people freely exercise their obedience to God's Law, and everyone is happiest.

    Government control and more man-made laws are usually not the answer. The answer is a shifted heart and mindset that you can really only get when you believe in living like Christ.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #110
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Homosexuality is fine but the second it requires another individual to conform to it, it's not.
    I don't see anyone forcing other people to be gay. We still have folks pressuring gay folks to be straight, though. It's a double standard.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  2. Reconciling Evolution to Religious Beliefs
    By Mort Belfry in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 11:41 PM
  3. As if I needed another forum to check every day...
    By Cogwheel in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 07:09 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. Add another INFP to the list...
    By Cindyrella in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 01:47 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