User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 65

  1. #51
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,776

    Default

    I never got why this was ever an issue. it's marriage, so what? it's not slavery. I just don't think you can bring religion into the argument, when most people these days don't get married for solely religious reasons.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  2. #52
    metamorphosing Flâneuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    InFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    996

    Default

    Glad to hear this. Unfortunately, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions passed in North Carolina two years ago. It's probably a long way away from being overturned, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it'll get tossed out sooner than I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    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.
    I strongly agree with this view.

  3. #53
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    Your analogy suggests that young people pretend to be something they are not, namely: old.
    They're not pretending to be old. It's more brazen than that. They're redefining what it means to be "elderly" by tacking on an adjective to the word.

    That is why marriage needs to be redefined or, rather, improved.
    Redefining is a means of circumventing certain criteria, no? You can't get around it. If the requirement is that the relationship must involve 1 man and 1 woman, then redefining it eliminates that criteria, renders it irrelevant. Surely you see this.

    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.
    Same thing. Redefine = "I'm too good for the criteria you impose on me, so I'm going to change the criteria."

    Religious traditions have nothing to do with it.
    Agreed. I have not mentioned religion at all.

    Your analogy is also misleading in pretending that the state could grant special favors to certain groups of people without proper justification.
    Do you really think this? I believe Obama gave Caroline Kennedy an ambassadorship because she has a nice smile. Would that be considered proper justification? He gave a multi million dollar contract to Michelle's college buddy over at CGI because they donated to his campaign. Is that proper as well?

    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.
    Both are examples of privileges. The reasons for granting those privileges do not matter and the nature of the group receiving the privileges do not matter. Society can grant privileges for any reason they see fit.

    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.
    You are arguing for rationality and fairness in the granting of privileges; I merely acknowledge that the process has always been somewhat unfair and arbitrary.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #54
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Listening to the discussion between you an @Nicodemus seems to show that really, the point of contention seems to be about what is considered to be "fair". It's not something that can easily be objectively defined across the board, and I don't really see middle ground being reached for that reason.

    With that said, I don't really agree with what you've said. It seems like the whole point of it all is being missed; people are attempting to fix a wrong. You don't want to redefine things, for the sake of redefinition being unfair (which in this case I don't see that as the case even in the slightest, but that's another matter). Others want to change the definition as they see the current definition being unfair. Really, it has to be a matter then of which is more unfair. Changing criteria can be a bad thing, but it's certainly not always a bad thing, and in this case I can't see how it is a bad thing no matter how the argument is given. It simply does not hold any weight to begin with. The world changes and evolves over time, this is how it has been and has always been. As things change, the systems need to be adjusted to best fit it. This is how all kinds of things are supposed to work; science, psychology, politics, etc.
    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. #55
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    With that said, I don't really agree with what you've said. It seems like the whole point of it all is being missed; people are attempting to fix a wrong. You don't want to redefine things, for the sake of redefinition being unfair (which in this case I don't see that as the case even in the slightest, but that's another matter). Others want to change the definition as they see the current definition being unfair. Really, it has to be a matter then of which is more unfair.
    That's not my argument. I'll state it very clearly. I believe that the power and authority to grant privileges should come from society as a whole because these privileges very often carry a cost that's bourne by the taxpayers. If a certain group decides they want a privilege, then they should petition society as a whole and put the matter to a vote.

    That's not what we're witnessing with gay marriage activists. What they've done is eliminated society from the equation. They're saying that they don't give a shit what society thinks; they don't care what the costs are or what the consequences will be; they want this privilege and they're going to use the courts to get it. This is a naked power grab; if "gay marriage" is really important to them, they should go through the proper channels for obtaining the privilege.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #56
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    That's not my argument. I'll state it very clearly. I believe that the power and authority to grant privileges should come from society as a whole because these privileges very often carry a cost that's bourne by the taxpayers. If a certain group decides they want a privilege, then they should petition society as a whole and put the matter to a vote.

    That's not what we're witnessing with gay marriage activists. What they've done is eliminated society from the equation. They're saying that they don't give a shit what society thinks; they don't care what the costs are or what the consequences will be; they want this privilege and they're going to use the courts to get it. This is a naked power grab; if "gay marriage" is really important to them, they should go through the proper channels for obtaining the privilege.
    Then you are missing the entire point of individuals seeking this. Society should drive decisions the vast majority of the time. However, society as a whole, is sometimes wrong. In this case, those that disagree with gay marriage are wrong. When society is wrong, they have to be overruled. As it has been pointed out in the courts, and by individuals here, not permitting same-sex marriage is an unfair limitation, a hindrance to human rights, and has financial implications. This is the proper channels for dealing with these issues. Rights, are not something that can nor should be voted on. They are rights for a reason. It's simple "all are created equal", the banning and limitation of gay marriage flys in the face of that.

    Sometimes, cost needs to be taken out of the equation. There are some things in this world, that are simply needed and cost can't be, and absolutely should not be the end all be all decider of decisions every single time. It's absolutely important, and and it's very rare that it doesn't take precedent. However, this is one of those rare cases. To think money rules every single thing always is incredibly short sighted.
    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


  7. #57
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    However, society as a whole, is sometimes wrong. In this case, those that disagree with gay marriage are wrong. When society is wrong, they have to be overruled.
    Society is very frequently wrong, but there is a process for redress. Instead of trying to change minds by education, by setting a good example, by sound reasoning, what we've seen instead is judicial tyranny and intimidation by name calling.

    I also disagree with your position that those who oppose gay marriage are wrong. This is merely your opinion. I could just as easily find people who think we should allow marriage between humans and anime characters. Who gets to decide on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a position? I think it should be those who pay for it. If gay couples want to create their own resort and call their relationships "marriage", I'd have no problem with it since it doesn't affect me.

    To think money rules every single thing always is incredibly short sighted.
    But every lefty cause costs money.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #58
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Society is very frequently wrong, but there is a process for redress. Instead of trying to change minds by education, by setting a good example, by sound reasoning, what we've seen instead is judicial tyranny and intimidation by name calling.

    I also disagree with your position that those who oppose gay marriage are wrong. This is merely your opinion. I could just as easily find people who think we should allow marriage between humans and anime characters. Who gets to decide on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a position? I think it should be those who pay for it. If gay couples want to create their own resort and call their relationships "marriage", I'd have no problem with it since it doesn't affect me.

    But every lefty cause costs money.
    You're the one that calls it judical tyrrany. It's a term uses quite wantonly now a days. I could say the exact same thing about other rulings and judges I disagree with, but I'm not going to call it that, and I am not going to get into those at the risk of getting away from the discussion. It's a matter of judges ruling how they see fit.

    It is wrong. I already explained how. If you don't see that, then there isn't anything to discuss. As I said, this is a situation where cost is not and should not be a factor, as it is a matter of rights. Your example about anime characters is nothing but a straw man. You can't use it to compare as it isn't even comparable.

    There's really no point to the last thing, and you seemed to miss the point I made so there's not even anything to address there.
    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


  9. #59
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    As I said, this is a situation where cost is not and should not be a factor, as it is a matter of rights.
    It's not a right; it's a privilege. If it were a right, then cost shouldn't matter and society's opinion on the issue shouldn't matter.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  10. #60
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's not a right; it's a privilege. If it were a right, then cost shouldn't matter and society's opinion on the issue shouldn't matter.
    This is were we will never agree. It is a right. It's an infringement upon rights to disallow it. If you don't see that then, well, that's that.
    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


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