User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?

Voters
135. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes and I'm an NF.

    48 35.56%
  • Yes and I'm an NT.

    51 37.78%
  • Yes and I'm an SP.

    10 7.41%
  • Yes and I'm an SJ.

    4 2.96%
  • No and I'm an NF.

    5 3.70%
  • No and I'm an NT.

    4 2.96%
  • No and I'm an SP.

    2 1.48%
  • No and I'm an SJ.

    7 5.19%
  • I don't know and I'm an NF.

    2 1.48%
  • I don't know and I'm an NT.

    1 0.74%
  • I don't know and I'm an SP.

    1 0.74%
  • I don't know and I'm an SJ.

    0 0%
First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 258

  1. #101
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    No... the laws apply to everyone, so it isnt a matter of who's rights, but what's right. And in that regard, again, I dont think people understand the real issue, legalizing or not legalizing homosexual marriage doesnt make much of a difference.
    How do laws apply to everyone equally when some consenting adults are allowed to get married and others are not? Legalizing gay marriage WILL make a difference to those who want it. It will be THE difference between laws applying equally to them and not.

    we are not puppets, we each have control of ourselves and our actions, we do not choose our ethnicity but we choose our actions, so i wont agree that the two are the same. if you are going to define homosexuals vs heterosexuals by the mere existence of their desires, then we'd have to reclassify everyone in a similar manner (by what they desire rather than what they actually do/how they seem to us) and i doubt people would call me a dog for wanting to walk around on all fours because i desire to do so, or sympathize with me because the human world is not designed for such a method of travel, for that matter.
    This is highly offensive in so many ways. You have compared someone's sexual orientation to walking around on all fours. This is also absurd. Calling you a dog has nothing to do with your desire to walk on all fours - if that's what you want to do, by all means...I won't be the one telling you your two leggedness wasn't biologically meant to support that activity.

    The biological argument is a poor one -- homosexual behavior and mating is found across species. This is well documented. The idea of homosexual desires being some sort of abnormal desire is really old and well abandoned by most of the psychological profession.

    You define homosexuals and heterosexuals by the existence of desires. Many of us do not. Many of us including all of the scientific research being done on the 'gay gene' leads us to believe that that there is genetic basis to homosexuality. In that sense, many within the scientific world and outside of it believe you don't choose your sexual orientation.

    Even if you don't buy the biological argument, please think carefully about the analogies you draw. If you believe that environment may have something to do with desiring someone from the same sex, that is still a lifetime of desiring people of your own gender. It is not an impulse that emerged overnight that you can deny or that you should deny. What is wrong with desiring another adult who desires you and consents to the relationship? Yet to see a rational argument against this.

    Really? Biological parts not meant to go together? That's the best you could come up with? So not only is homosexual behavior wrong, anal sex is wrong, oral sex is wrong, any other form of sex that does not involve male and female parts in the missionary position must be wrong. Sad life for both homos and heteros now. Not only the above but also since clearly these parts were put there for procreation, in your view, then it must also be wrong for people who do not wish to procreate or who cannot procreate to have sex at all. Let's ban that too, shall we?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I'd say that wins the thread. ^
    Really? Far from it.


    Jaguar

    +2

    The only rational argument against gay marriage is that made by the gay community from within. Why would the community want to buy into and perpetuate an institution that is inherently flawed and has been used to oppress women for centuries? Having said that, I'd like everyone to have the equal right to reject the institution. Being granted the right to participate would be a first step in this regard.

  2. #102
    Senior Member thinkinjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    248

    Default

    They should absolutely be allowed to marry. As citizens they should be able to do anything any other citizen should be able to: who are we to deny a fellow person a right that harms no one. I do not see how their marriage affects the marriage of straight couples or how it is their business. If money is the problem then we should stop bailing out those AIG and friends a**holes

  3. #103
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    No... the laws apply to everyone, so it isnt a matter of who's rights, but what's right.
    You must live in another country other than the USA, pal.
    The states that have ruled in favor of gay marriage,
    did so because of rights.
    Not what is right.

    we are not puppets, we each have control of ourselves and our actions, we do not choose our ethnicity but we choose our actions, so i wont agree that the two are the same.

    Centuries ago, a group of people discriminated against those who were left-handed.
    They said left-handed people were servants of Satan.
    Now, who could perpetuate such inane thinking?
    Who could suggest someone "evil," for being left-handed?
    The same group of people who for years has claimed the same of homosexuals:

    The Catholic Church.


    I'll close here with the words of a homosexual I spoke with:

    "If homosexuality were a choice, or a lifestyle,
    would I choose a life where people spit on me and tell me they hope I die of AIDS?
    Would I choose a life where I was beaten for who I am?"

  4. #104
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    No reason why it shouldn't be. It's legal where I am and society still seems to function.
    It has occurred to me that this is a much more significant point than is generally acknowledged; Burkean concerns regarding the unintended consequences of revolutionary societal and/or institutional changes (which I personally take very seriously in general, and is a major reason that I oppose polygamy despite my libertarian leanings) have basically proven to be a null factor in this case within multiple countries. Something to keep in mind when debating people who are sincerely worried about unintended consequences and slippery slopes (and probably much more effective than blithely labeling more than half the poulation as "bigots").

  5. #105
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    There is no universal truth opposing gay marriage.
    You are wrong. There is indeed a universal truth opposing it. The purpose of marriage in pretty much every culture is centered around the procreation and upbringing of children. This is true of Christian and non-Christian cultures throughout time. A very good example would be Roman marital law.

    As Emperor Augustus remarked to the Senate, according to the historian Livy:
    "If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them...we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."
    By default, gay marriage cannot fufill the obligation of producing children; and thus is largely just legally-sanctioned mutual masturbation.

    Even in cultures that were more tolerant towards homosexual relations, those relations always occured in non-marital contexts. Even then, the manner in which such relations were viewed is significantly different from that advanced by gay rights advocates.

    Supporting one theological viewpoint over another is inherently discriminatory.
    Truth discriminate against falsehood.
    Secondly theological presuppositions makes it sound like the Christian bible
    Not necessarily, although I am arguing from a Christian perspective. As I just showed above, one need not adhere to the Bible to be opposed to gay marriage.

    (THE theological presupposition you refer to is a literal text that is not open to interpretation?).
    That would only be true if we're talking about an Evangelical-like perspective. However, I'm Catholic, and thus do not adhere to a literalist interpretation of scriptures. I'm also aware of much of the history behind this: particularly that Christianity grew out of the more allegorical traditions of Judaism.

    That is itself is a weak presupposition and should be questioned.
    No actually it isn't.

    Are you basing your view on one such interpretation of limited passages?
    Long story short: no.

    If not, what are these views based on?
    As I explained to Jennifer here, one has to look at the overall logic presented within scriptures as a whole. You can't just nitpick this or that verse. And when you view Biblical teachings on marriage; homosexuality, much less gay marriage, is simply incompatible with it.

    As I said above, even in non-Christian societies that tolerated homosexuality; it was only when it was conducted in non-marital(usually extra-marital) contexts.

    Without providing the basis of your own views, it seems you only provide a partial argument against the pro-gay marriage view based on a literal interpretation of the Christian bible and a decision to not honor individual rights as important (the foundation of democracy).
    Well you could say that, and you'd be quilty of creating a strawman argument. Sorry but I grow very tired of this discussion; not to mention you people don't bother reading my posts anyways when I bother to more fully articulate myself. In fact it's not uncommon for people to bitch and whine about me being too articulate.

    Concerning your claim that individual rights are the foundation of democracy, read below.

    Should we also abandon democracy as an ideal since you think the foundation isn't important?
    We should abandon the liberal interpretation of democracy, which is built upon the assumption that the government should provide a framework of rights that respects people as free and indepedent agents, capable of choosing their own values. Under this assumption, the government should be neutral in regards to peoples' values and not seek to impose any one viewpoint on everybody.

    By contrast, I adhere to the Republican theory(not to be confused with the GOP); which states that liberty depends upon people sharing in self-government in accordance with the common good. However, in order to achieve this, it's necessary that the citizens adhere to certain(not to mention common) sets of civic virtues; and the government cannot be neutral in this, but has to actively promote such virtues.

    And in order for a government to truely be of the people, for the people; its laws have to actively reflect the values of the people it's governing. If we're talking about a Christian people here, then its laws must reflect Christian values. Of course, to address inevitable diversity of opinions and values, there's the concept of federalism in place.

    In regards to the promotion of appropriate virtues; it is also important for the government to protect those institutions that help in the promotion of such virtues. Classic case would be churches, whose moral teachings promote cultivation of personal character. The same also goes with the family, which is the basic foundation of society and provides for its long-term longevity.

    Wheras the Liberal interpretation of "individual rights" places more emphasis upon the viewpoint of negative freedom(freedom from restrictions and responsibilities); the Republican interpretation place more emphasis on positive freedom(freedom in accordance with responsibilities to the common good).

    There's plenty more I could add here, but I think that's enough for one night. Hopefully I'll be up for continuing on this tomorrow, since I've barely even scratched the surface of this.

  6. #106
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Intelligent people don't give a shit about "swaying" bigots.
    We have better things to do.
    Wow, your intelligence just simply overwhelms me. How could I could possibly hope to stand up to such genius?


    Centuries ago, a group of people discriminated against those who were left-handed.
    They said left-handed people were servants of Satan.
    Now, who could perpetuate such inane thinking?
    Who could suggest someone "evil," for being left-handed?
    The same group of people who for years has claimed the same of homosexuals:

    The Catholic Church.
    Burn in Hell you evil lefties, Burnnnnnn!

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You are wrong. There is indeed a universal truth opposing it. The purpose of marriage in pretty much every culture is centered around the procreation and upbringing of children. This is true of Christian and non-Christian cultures throughout time. A very good example would be Roman marital law.
    So, if gay couples already have children should they then be allowed to marry? Straight couples that choose to remain childless have their marriage priviledges revoked? I think the ramifications of this position in contemporary society are more than a little problematic.

  8. #108
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Straight couples that choose to remain childless have their marriage priviledges revoked?
    There have always been married couples who were childless, whether by choice or not. So no, not per se, but society should still be encouraging married couples to have children.

    I think the ramifications of this position in contemporary society are more than a little problematic.
    Yeah well, much of the foundations for contemporary society are built upon faulty grounds - and that's a whole discussion in of itself.

  9. #109
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You are wrong. There is indeed a universal truth opposing it. The purpose of marriage in pretty much every culture is centered around the procreation and upbringing of children. This is true of Christian and non-Christian cultures throughout time. A very good example would be Roman marital law.
    Actually, marriage worldwide tends to have very different purposes, which include but are not limited to: union of two families to establish political, social or economic power, establishing the survival of a family line, establishing the survival of an otherwise isolated genetic group (have no idea why I thought this wasn't about children), reaffirming royal power, whether political or divine (seen with more theology-based societies), and of course, as an establishment of romantic love.

    And surprisingly enough, the only culturally universal taboo when it comes to this sort of thing is incest, and even that is defined differently in different cultures. Homosexuality has been viewed as acceptable by other cultures (not all, mind you), and some are even given special places in society because of it. For example, in some North American tribes, the berdache are men that basically fulfill women's roles in their culture, which includes marrying men and assuming the mannerisms and dress of women.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  10. #110
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    Actually, marriage worldwide tends to have very different purposes, which include but are not limited to: union of two families to establish political, social or economic power, establishing the survival of a family line, establishing the survival of an otherwise isolated genetic group, reaffirming royal power, whether political or divine (seen with more theology-based societies), and of course, as an establishment of romantic love.
    These all involve bearing children.

Similar Threads

  1. What way do you think the former USA will be carved up?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-31-2017, 05:09 PM
  2. What MBTI type do you think is the hardest to be?
    By OrangeAppled in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 02:04 AM
  3. What MBTI type do you think is the EASIEST to be?
    By Such Irony in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 09:22 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