User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 65

  1. #41
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Marriage has been accessible to all adults in (non-incestuous) relationships even before the gay marriage debate. Plenty of gay men married women and vice versa.
    I take it you concede the earlier point by moving on to the next one. It is true, gay people have always had the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. Somehow, though, this opportunity does not seem to address the actual needs of a good number of citizens. Hence gay marriage. Why not improve an imperfect law?

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    Because the sovereignty of a state is steadily eroded if the federal government refuses to respect its decisions. What's the point of a state existing if the people of a state are ruled by the opinions of other states' citizens?

    We might as well just do away with states and be one federal entity.
    What purpose does the sovereignty of a state serve? Are you planning to secede again? I thought you were a patriotic American. How can the sovereignty of the state be more important than the sovereignty of the country?

    Even if states had no sovereignty left, they would still function as organizational entities of the country to address and channel concerns of a more local nature.

  2. #42
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,784

    Default

    more people can get married. yay. more cake
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  3. #43
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    I take it you concede the earlier point by moving on to the next one.
    It's a bit disconcerting to see someone defend the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as a celebration of women's rights when this particular woman was mostly likely not qualified for the job and will probably screw up like Sebelius, Napolitano, Shinseki, and Holder. I want qualified people to run the government.

    Somehow, though, this opportunity does not seem to address the actual needs of a good number of citizens.
    That's one way of looking at it. Here's how I see it.

    In the town of Waka Waka, the owner of a restaurant decided to give the elderly a discount on the meatloaf. Some 20 year olds found out about this and decided they wanted in on the deal so they began calling themselves happy-seniors. They were laughed out of the place and ignored, but being ever persistent, the happy-seniors slowly infiltrated the schools and the courts and in 10 years, they managed to successful sue the restaurant so they too could get the discounted meatloaf.

    Let's review the strategy: 1) Redefine the term by tacking an adjective in front of it and then pretend it still has the same meaning. 2) Brainwash kids and pack the courts with similar minded folks. 3) Attack those who disagree with the redefinition as bigots and haters. 4) Enjoy the discounted meatloaf.

    It's an ingenious strategy, but I see right through it.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #44
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Even if states had no sovereignty left, they would still function as organizational entities of the country to address and channel concerns of a more local nature.
    What's the point of addressing concerns at a local level if the federal government is just going to disregard them?

    The existence of that local government is moot if its power is illusory. Why bother asking your local government for anything just for the next month it be required by the federal government to do something completely different?

    The point of the state is for those citizens to live their lives in their own American way. The more we require people to live according to a nationalized standard, the higher the number of people not represented by the federal government will become. Is the Pennsylvania law ignorant and homophobic? Yes. Do they want an ignorant and homophobic law? Yes.

    If the federal government disregards their opinions and attitudes, it'll just cause hate groups to gain control.

    EDIT: E.g., the federal government imposed the will of the higher population, industrial states onto the rural South during the Civil War (which is what caused the Civil War to begin with), and afterwards the KKK terrorized the South because people were bitter.
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  5. #45
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Interestingly, in regards to allowing states to "have homophobic laws if they want 'em" -- some of the bans themselves might have been lifted through ballot initiatives if the judicial branch hadn't made the decision. It looks like the balance in PA shifted about a year ago, and since then polls show more support for same-sex marriage than not (usually in the 55-60%). Of course, polls are not votes, but... maybe it would come down to people being more accepting of the outcome if a ballot initiative were the basis for a law shift. (Part of "owning" the decision.)
    "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

  6. #46
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Interestingly, in regards to allowing states to "have homophobic laws if they want 'em" -- some of the bans themselves might have been lifted through ballot initiatives if the judicial branch hadn't made the decision. It looks like the balance in PA shifted about a year ago, and since then polls show more support for same-sex marriage than not (usually in the 55-60%). Of course, polls are not votes, but... maybe it would come down to people being more accepting of the outcome if a ballot initiative were the basis for a law shift. (Part of "owning" the decision.)
    Exactly. There need to be more votes on issues and the votes need to be respected. Prop 8? Why didn't we just vote again when there was a question about the initial vote? That would have solved the whole thing once and for all. These are peoples' opinions and choices. Losing respect for the individual voter -- be they majority or minority -- invalidates the fundamental concept of America.
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  7. #47
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's a bit disconcerting to see someone defend the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as a celebration of women's rights when this particular woman was mostly likely not qualified for the job and will probably screw up like Sebelius, Napolitano, Shinseki, and Holder. I want qualified people to run the government.
    Irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    That's one way of looking at it. Here's how I see it.

    In the town of Waka Waka, the owner of a restaurant decided to give the elderly a discount on the meatloaf. Some 20 year olds found out about this and decided they wanted in on the deal so they began calling themselves happy-seniors. They were laughed out of the place and ignored, but being ever persistent, the happy-seniors slowly infiltrated the schools and the courts and in 10 years, they managed to successful sue the restaurant so they too could get the discounted meatloaf.

    Let's review the strategy: 1) Redefine the term by tacking an adjective in front of it and then pretend it still has the same meaning. 2) Brainwash kids and pack the courts with similar minded folks. 3) Attack those who disagree with the redefinition as bigots and haters. 4) Enjoy the discounted meatloaf.

    It's an ingenious strategy, but I see right through it.
    That is a rather resentful view. Of course, it is also wrong in a number of ways. Do you care to know how, or are you going to pretend to 'see right through it' no matter what?

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    What's the point of addressing concerns at a local level if the federal government is just going to disregard them?

    The existence of that local government is moot if its power is illusory. Why bother asking your local government for anything just for the next month it be required by the federal government to do something completely different?
    Some rules are set by the states and some by the federal government. Some rules set by the federal government override some of the rules set by the states. To pretend that the federal government nullifies any and all rules set by the states is, you know, silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    The point of the state is for those citizens to live their lives in their own American way. The more we require people to live according to a nationalized standard, the higher the number of people not represented by the federal government will become.
    If that is the case, it is only because the US is not really a democracy, is it not? Because, theoretically, the federal government represents the majority of the people.

  8. #48
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    That is a rather resentful view. Of course, it is also wrong in a number of ways. Do you care to know how, or are you going to pretend to 'see right through it' no matter what?
    It's not resentful; it's an accurate portrayal of reality. One group seeking a privilege that was not intended for them devises a strategy to circumvent the criteria for the granting of that privilege. Add an adjective in front of the word to bastardize its meaning and then claim victimhood status when others point out that the criteria has been changed. I gotta applaud the strategy.

    One privilege is granted by the government but in my example, the privilege is granted by a private business, but I could have easily used a privilege granted by the government (there is an extra senior deduction on the income tax). Please feel free to point out any other deficiencies you think you see.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #49
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Conduit View Post
    Good. This shouldn't even be an issue in 2014.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's not resentful; it's an accurate portrayal of reality. One group seeking a privilege that was not intended for them devises a strategy to circumvent the criteria for the granting of that privilege. Add an adjective in front of the word to bastardize its meaning and then claim victimhood status when others point out that the criteria has been changed. I gotta applaud the strategy.

    One privilege is granted by the government but in my example, the privilege is granted by a private business, but I could have easily used a privilege granted by the government (there is an extra senior deduction on the income tax). Please feel free to point out any other deficiencies you think you see.
    Apparently, your resentment is so deeply rooted that you fail to see it even if pointed to it.

    Your analogy suggests that young people pretend to be something they are not, namely: old. Transferred to the subject matter, this would suggest that homosexuals pretend to be straight. They do not. In fact, their whole argument is that sex should not matter. That is why marriage needs to be redefined or, rather, improved. Adding an adjective is not a way to 'circumvent the criteria' for marriage, it is to redefine what marriage is - but not by perverting, destroying, undermining its true nature, as many religious people fear, but by exposing and reasserting its purpose and function as it is experienced and used in society today. Religious traditions have nothing to do with it.

    Your analogy is also misleading in pretending that the state could grant special favors to certain groups of people without proper justification. Additionally, marriage is not comparable to old age, because one is a contract between two (or more) people, while the other is an individual quality. Using old age as an example suggest that anybody could enjoy the same privileges if only they waited long enough, while the truth is that marriage as you would have it is accessible only to a certain group of people - without proper justification, as increasingly many people realize.

    I could not care less whether you call it marriage or civil union (although different labels do suggest a hierarchy), though. I do not think christian churches should be forced to marry homosexual people if that is against their moronic beliefs. But the state, held to the principle of equality treatment, should, because gay people love like straight people, live like straight people, raise children like straight people (and probably better, since they actually want the children they get), vote and think and profit society like straight people. People are people.

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