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 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 258

  1. #111
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    These all involve bearing children.
    They can involve bearing children, but it certainly is not the purpose.

    Actually, scratch what I wrote about introducing genetic variability. That certainly is about reproduction.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  2. #112
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    They can involve bearing children, but it certainly is not the purpose.
    You're basically splitting hairs here. In order for any of those purposes to be fufilled, then children have to be produced. Especially if the marriage is done to further political alliances and whatnot.

  3. #113
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    How do laws apply to everyone equally when some consenting adults are allowed to get married and others are not?\
    all consenting adults are allowed to get married to the opposite sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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.
    it's not offensive, it's an analogy. i thought a bunch of NTs and NFs would appreciate that! i know it's found in other species... unless there's another species that mates strictly for pleasure, i dont think any of those cases would continue doing so if they werent confused about which hole is which because the purpose is reproduction. since we are aware and do it anyways, it's a conscious choice. it's not necessarily harmful, but intended? i have yet to see why it would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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.
    there isnt... the only genetic mutations that are sustained are those that help their host sustain the species, survival, finding food, mating, etc. if it is genetic, then it is just one of many mutations that dont benefit the species in any way and thus are quickly phased out (in as little as a single generation, in this case) so it would never survive as a genetic trait.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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?
    it generally is something you should deny, yes. if something is true in principle, then it will remain true regardless of scale, and if we all stopped having natural sex then yes, there would be a problem. the comparison to other forms of sex don't apply the same because those are things that hetero couples do in addition to natural sex and would not affect reproduction. this is the true of anything that is unsound in principle... a few cases are not going to cause an issue, but the principle still remains true and therefore applies generally. i have given it a lot of thought, but i would probably be inclined to give it more if i didnt know that when you look for a justification, youre bound to create one. unfortunately, logic doesnt cater to our emotions in such a subjective pattern.


    you want to focus in on this one tiny element, but this isnt an argument and even me responding so thoroughly suggests that homosexuality is any more out of line than things people do several times a day, every day without even thinking, it isnt. there are lots of things people do that they generally shouldnt, this is one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Centuries ago, a group of people discriminated against those who were left-handed...
    functionally speaking, being left handed or right handed makes little or no difference, so yeah, that would be ignorant.

  4. #114
    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're basically splitting hairs here. In order for any of those purposes to be fulfilled, then children have to be produced. Especially if the marriage is done to further political alliances and whatnot.
    From what I understood, the power was in the alliance, regardless of whether or not children or born. It's kind of like a merger between two companies. It means that in-laws become responsible for each other, and that financial wealth and power is amassed between all of them. Having children is certainly a plus, but is not required for the union to be successful.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    I'm not entirely clear on why it wouldn't be appropriate to revoke the marital privilege from fertile, voluntarily childless couples under this line of thinking or why gays who already have children should be excluded. If marriage is solely about having children, and building families, no infertile person should ever be allowed to marry, right?

    It seems that the only people that should ever be allowed to marry are those that have established their fertility by already having one child and anyone over the age of fifty could not be allowed to remarry if they were widowed since the likelihood of reproducing at that age is almost nil.

  6. #116
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    From what I understood, the power was in the alliance, regardless of whether or not children or born. It's kind of like a merger between two companies. It means that in-laws become responsible for each other, and that financial wealth and power is amassed between all of them. Having children is certainly a plus, but is not required for the union to be successful.
    No, but lack of children makes the marriage(and thus the alliance) more easy to break. A good example of this off the top of my head here is how the Borgia family in Renaissance Italy operated when it came to political marriages.

    So political factors greatly compel the couple in question to produce children.

  7. #117
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Peguy your arguments make no sense... I'm gonna be honest. Why can't people marry just for the sake of love? You can have kids without going through some ritual us humans have made up... Putting a ring on someone's finger to symbolize staying together basically. Why can't same sex couples marry just for the sake of love? I really see no issue. What does marriage without kids honestly do to our society? Nothing. No harm whatsoever.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  8. #118
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I'm not entirely clear on why it wouldn't be appropriate to revoke the marital privilege from fertile, voluntarily childless couples under this line of thinking or why gays who already have children should be excluded. If marriage is solely about having children, and building families, no infertile person should ever be allowed to marry, right?

    It seems that the only people that should ever be allowed to marry are those that have established their fertility by already having one child and anyone over the age of fifty could not be allowed to remarry if they were widowed since the likelihood of reproducing at that age is almost nil.
    Well I'm not arguing for neither a managerial state nor eugenics here.

  9. #119
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I'm not entirely clear on why it wouldn't be appropriate to revoke the marital privilege from fertile, voluntarily childless couples under this line of thinking or why gays who already have children should be excluded. If marriage is solely about having children, and building families, no infertile person should ever be allowed to marry, right?
    I don't get it either. By that logic, you'd almost have to give consenting adults requesting marriage fertility tests before allowing them to proceed. And I have no idea how you'd go about testing already-married couples to see if they're regularly trying to procreate. This is exactly why anti-sodomy laws make no sense to me: how can you tell? The rule is probably more about implicit social pressure than anything else.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  10. #120
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    No, but lack of children makes the marriage(and thus the alliance) more easy to break. A good example of this off the top of my head here is how the Borgia family in Renaissance Italy operated when it came to political marriages.

    So political factors greatly compel the couple in question to produce children.
    True, but again, it was not the be-all-end-all reason for the marriage in the first place. I'm not denying the value of children in this type of arrangement, but your point was that the entire reason for marriage in every culture was for procreation.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

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