User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 205

  1. #181
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I don't see why people would want to mince meat with 'civil union' for homosexuals but call atheist heterosexuals 'married'. That seems silly and out of sorts. If 'civil union' was what people typically called married couples outside of religious ceremony, then yeah I could see it for sure. Married if you were married in a gay-friendly church, civil union if you were married at the ole' JP. But since it's all called married, I don't think civil union is appropriate. I think it's just one more stupid thing bigoted people try to shove in there to make a distinction between their vastly-superior-hetero marriage and those dirty homosexuals loving each other for the rest of their days.
    If "marriage " is a religious term for the coupling of a man and a woman then it does make sense to not have it for same sex couples regardless of them having religion.

    I do admit though that the water was muddied before thus became a "thing" and as such it should be applied universally or not at all.

    I wonder how the religious see it when one of the two people are transgender post-op? Do they judge in how you were made by their deity or by how you are now? Can they even find out?

    Now that could be a great curve ball for them to handle!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #182
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    If "marriage " is a religious term for the coupling of a man and a woman then it does make sense to not have it for same sex couples regardless of them having religion.

    I do admit though that the water was muddied before thus became a "thing" and as such it should be applied universally or not at all.

    I wonder how the religious see it when one of the two people are transgender post-op? Do they judge in how you were made by their deity or by how you are now? Can they even find out?

    Now that could be a great curve ball for them to handle!
    I cant speak for everyone and I cant speak authoritatively for religions, even my own, there are much better sources than me for anyone honestly interested in becoming informed.

    Although I would not believe it makes sense to take an example such as mention here, which I would consider anomalous and highly unusual, and seek to make a universal case on the back of it.

    Which is a little bit like what I think about the question of homosexual demands to change the norms and social institutions which hail from eras in which homosexuality itself wasnt thought of or was truly anomalous.

    I think its a shame that religion has to keep being brought into this matter, I dont think that religion has an exclusive claim to heterosexuality, nor does it have an exclusive claim to objections to attempts to over turn heternormativity.

    There's a lot of the pro-homosexual camp which I can see are motivated by a dislike of religion, a dislike of conservatism, a dislike of convention and what they perceive as mundane even, and those dislikes and the power they exercise on those peoples thinking actually prevent them seeing the issue for what it is.

    If all you have is a hammer dont be surprised if everything looks like a nail.

  3. #183
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Lots of talk, no arguments. What a surprise.

    #GayAgenda : ~55.

    It was said of McClellan that he possessed 'a special faculty for realizing hallucinations'. The parallels continue.
    Likes Hard, 93JC liked this post

  4. #184
    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 Lark View Post
    There's a lot of the pro-homosexual camp which I can see are motivated by a dislike of religion,
    Yes, and rightfully so. Because religion is quite frequently a motivation to dislike homosexuality, and the vast majority of individuals who seek to hault homosexuality in one way or another, are indeed religious and religiously motivated. Which, in itself can not rationally be uses as a basis to be against homosexuality and think it is wrong. Because they are using something irrational to force upon others, it creates quite a bit of contention, and it is quite reasonable to be motivated by this dislike of religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    a dislike of conservatism,
    Like the above, conservatism is quite frequently against homosexuality and seeks to damper, halt, or worsen their lives in various ways. If something is fighting against you seeking to ensure your life is more difficult and unfair, it's quite reasonable to dislike it.

    That said, while the majority of homosexuals as a demographic are not conservative and dislike it, not all of them are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    a dislike of convention and what they perceive as mundane even,
    This is just silly. Motivated by a dislike of convention? Who the fuck cares what is conventional or not. Homosexuals just want to be treated fairly. And for the record, I like convention, sometimes to a detriment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    and those dislikes and the power they exercise on those peoples thinking actually prevent them seeing the issue for what it is.
    Not even close. We see the issue quite clearly. It is you who does not.
    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. #185
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    What could be more conservative/mundane/conventional than getting married? Trust me, the gays who are against conservative/mundane/conventional things are not fighting to get married.
    Likes Hard, Totenkindly, Passacaglia liked this post

  6. #186
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    9,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    What could be more conservative/mundane/conventional than getting married? Trust me, the gays who are against conservative/mundane/conventional things are not fighting to get married.
    Just like the hetero couples that don't want to get married. Being in a relationship is plenty/we don't need a piece of paper kind of thing.

    Several of the gay couples I know work in conservative fields (attorney, doctors, pharmacists, architect, nurse and one is a master electrician). They are all fiscally conservative people (as my husband and I are). With the exception of one couple, they all attend church regularly. They easily look like the most mundane, bland, boring group of people on earth. Until you realize that they're gay.

    They're my friends, my neighbors, my kids coaches and professionals in my community. The kind of people they are is the only thing I care about. I don't think of them being in a gay relationship or homosexual lifestyle and I KNOW they could give less of a shit what I do in my heterosexual lifestyle or straight relationship.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  7. #187
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    ^That's my experience as well. Most of the gay people I know, I know through church.

  8. #188
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    If "marriage " is a religious term for the coupling of a man and a woman then it does make sense to not have it for same sex couples regardless of them having religion.
    But marriage is not used in that tone *only* is my point. Just because it has been man + woman all this time (mostly due to religion, social bias, etc. etc.) does not mean it was religion (particularly Christianity for that matter, which came much much later than many other religions) that created that term. Case in point: Atheists are not religious, and while they are a man and a woman, they are not getting a religious marriage. But they are a marriage. If religion had a say in it, you'd think 'sinners' of all sorts would be denied, not just the homosexual 'sins'. But they aren't. They are simply marrying. It is secular in its entirety. Religion does not define their marriage. Religion can no more define an atheist marrying than it can define a homosexual marrying. We use marriage as a term to signify a particular ceremony and all it entails. A religious ceremony can still be completely separate and it's own entity, while still not claiming all rights on a word that is far older than itself.

    I wonder how the religious see it when one of the two people are transgender post-op? Do they judge in how you were made by their deity or by how you are now? Can they even find out?

    Now that could be a great curve ball for them to handle!
    I find that modern Christians are far more about jesus's principles of acceptance and generosity and kindness than they are about trying to figure out who's sinning more than the other. And that older generations are, typically, less benevolent. Not to say the two don't have plenty of opposites and deviants of that stereotype. Just a personal note.

    I remember reading an essay once in a Methodist church I was working for... Essentially the writer and all its supporters felt it was a mental illness, no different from an eating disorder, anxiety disorder, or any other mental illness. They even compared it to pedophilia at one point, big shocker. Essentially.. people having unrealistic goals about what their body is 'supposed to be' and creating a thought that they must drastically change to be 'better' or whatever. It was a lot of hogwash about how God did not make a mistake that needs correcting.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  9. #189
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Which is a little bit like what I think about the question of homosexual demands to change the norms and social institutions which hail from eras in which homosexuality itself wasnt thought of or was truly anomalous.
    Substitute "black" for "homosexual" and then see how it reads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think its a shame that religion has to keep being brought into this matter, I dont think that religion has an exclusive claim to heterosexuality, nor does it have an exclusive claim to objections to attempts to over turn heternormativity.
    Religion has - or at least should have - exclusive claim to arbitrary and dogmatic requirements that cannot be supported by evidence or logic. They are supportable at all only by a subjective and personal belief system. This has no place in legal and civic affairs, where equitable treatment of all should be "the norm".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There's a lot of the pro-homosexual camp which I can see are motivated by a dislike of religion, a dislike of conservatism, a dislike of convention and what they perceive as mundane even, and those dislikes and the power they exercise on those peoples thinking actually prevent them seeing the issue for what it is.
    That is not surprising given the reception that gays have long been given by religious, conservative, and conventional groups. Gays seem much better disposed toward and even participate in religions that welcome them without judgment. Just another way in which they are just like everyone else.
    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...
    Likes Hard, Ivy liked this post

  10. #190
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    That's the biggest issue I have with opponents of this. Gay folks marrying will have absolutely zero impact on any other marriage, beliefs, expectations, etc. I have no idea why this conversation is still going on anywhere.

    Sometimes I wonder if the scariest thing (to opponents) is that, when it comes right down to it, there's nothing actually harmful in being gay. There's no rational reason to oppose it. As all the previously instituted associations to harmful behaviors (like pedophilia, bestiality- situations that harmful because they involve an un-consenting participant, and have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality) are slowly stripped away, there's no rational argument left as a deterrent. The single only scary thing about this boogey man is that Scripture says it's wrong- and in a way (if someone believes dogmatically in Scripture), I can see how that makes it an even scarier boogey man than the things that are clearly wrong and easy enough to argue the wrongness of.

    Taking this into account:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Religion has - or at least should have - exclusive claim to arbitrary and dogmatic requirements that cannot be supported by evidence or logic. They are supportable at all only by a subjective and personal belief system. This has no place in legal and civic affairs, where equitable treatment of all should be "the norm".

    I can see why this conversation is still happening. I don't directly understand dogmatic faith in any religion or religious text- but I can see how, if my reality revolved around having faith in some text, the prospect of a blasphemous and damning behavior becoming normalized and largely acceptable might be threatening. The 'impact' of removing that (irrational) negative social stigma (and 'normalizing' homosexuality) is that it could eventually lead a lot of innocent people astray (according to that pov), and it would make it a lot harder to pass the subjective belief system (in its entirety) onto their children. [I'm not saying I think this is okay- because as Coriolis said, this has no place in a system where reality must be shared with people who don't subscribe to the same Scripture- it's not okay to expect others to live with fewer rights just to maintain an environment more conducive to passing on one's own subjective belief system. I'm just saying I can see how this all might look threatening to someone whose entire reality depended on their religious Scripture being true *and* the fate of the immortal souls of that person and all those they love (which is some pretty serious shit) depend on the ability to pass on that belief system in its entirety. <- I can see how it would impair one's ability to think rationally and fairly.]

    What I don't understand is- quite often I see this kind of dogmatic adherence coming from people who wear cotton/poly blend tshirts or other such things they'll freely admit are 'outdated' exceptions. So....it's okay to say that about some pieces of Scripture, to apply critical thinking to some parts, but not others? If they can concede it is the case with some pieces of Scripture (without fearing some kind of spiritual corruption, or eternal damnation, or whatever), that it does happen, why exactly is the prospect of doing the same thing with the bits about homosexuality so different? Especially since this is about an opportunity to be compassionate and fair (which supposedly is Jesus' whole thing). Who exactly decides which pieces are 'outdated'? That's where the record skips for me.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-24-2017, 10:49 PM
  2. Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 01:28 PM
  3. all scans says my computer is clean
    By prplchknz in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 07:07 PM
  4. What type would you say this guy is?
    By Samvega in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 05:01 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