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 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 258

  1. #131
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Umm, I think he was funnin' with us a bit.

    Religious zealots don't have much of a sense of humor.

  2. #132
    Senior Member Warm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    What if that society tells you it's okay to exclude, or even kill, people who are a different religion or race than you? Is it okay to believe what society says then? Should others respect your right to believe in what society says in those instances?
    You missed my point. I asked the question as one who does NOT go along with society because society is hastily moving toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I thought christianity was about loving your brother and leaving god to do the judging. If homosexuality or being a jew or being black is a sin isn't a good christian obligated to let god dole out justice? How can a mere mortal ever stand in as a surrogate for the divine?
    Yes, loving others is a part of Christianity. Being against homosexuality/same-sex marriage does not mean that one does not love a person. It simply means that one does not agree with the person's actions. It's like continuing to love one's child even when he does something wrong. Saying what is right or wrong does not mean that one is doling out justice; it just means that the person realizes the difference between right and wrong.
    By the way, who said that being black is a sin?
    "Your voice is like chocolate...dreamy."
    --WildHorses

  3. #133
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think one of my issues is that, rather than Judeo-Christianity determining the culture, the culture actually shaped Judeo-Christianity (much as when Paul gave some practical advice to a church or two about womem in the church, but it was never really meant to be a "pronouncement from on high," it was the religion adapating to the culture and the current needs at the time), and at that time period procreation was much more important than it is now. I don't think that procreation is necessarily a part of what makes Christianity "Christianity."
    This gets into issues of what is called "Inculturation", ie how Christianity not only relates but even adapts to culture. However this usually applies more to issues of customs rather than dogma and doctrine. For example, St. Paul stressed that Jewish customs like circumscision or dietary laws do not necessarily apply to Gentile Christians. The Apostles determined that people can celebrate the faith within their own cultures.

    As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, the faith doesn't negate nature but transforms it. Same logic applies here in relational to cultural issues.

    As I stated in the other thread: Christianity is universal and preaches universal truths. That means it applies to all cultures, all people, all times. But of course how it applies in each unique context is different. Universal, but not uniform. This of course is part of the larger paradox that is at the heart of the Christian faith.

    It's not about practicing the faith as people did in Biblical times or the 14th century. It's about practicing those universal truths within our own contemporary context. Although we can certainly understand much about how to do that by looking the examples given by people in Biblical times or the 14th century.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warm View Post
    You missed my point. I asked the question as one who does NOT go along with society because society is hastily moving toward legalizing same-sex marriage.


    Yes, loving others is a part of Christianity. Being against homosexuality/same-sex marriage does not mean that one does not love a person. It simply means that one does not agree with the person's actions. It's like continuing to love one's child even when he does something wrong. Saying what is right or wrong does not mean that one is doling out justice; it just means that the person realizes the difference between right and wrong.
    By the way, who said that being black is a sin?
    Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification.

    Isn't legally excluding another citizen, or group of citizens, from certain rights on the basis of individual belief doling out justice though? I'm really puzzled about how one can vote against certain members of society having access to a common pool of rights held by every other adult citizen on the basis of a disagreement about lifestyle and say it's not a case of doling out justice.

  5. #135
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Religious zealots don't have much of a sense of humor.
    I'm responding to you aren't I? So there!

  6. #136
    Senior Member Warm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification.

    Isn't legally excluding another citizen, or group of citizens, from certain rights on the basis of individual belief doling out justice though? I'm really puzzled about how one can vote against certain members of society having access to a common pool of rights held by every other adult citizen on the basis of a disagreement about lifestyle and say it's not a case of doling out justice.
    I don't think they should have the right to legal marriage because I believe that homosexuality is wrong just like most people don't think that others should have the right to randomly kill because that's wrong. How can I put murder and homosexuality in the same boat? I do it the same way that I classify both broccoli and cauliflower as vegetables; they are different but in the same category.
    "Your voice is like chocolate...dreamy."
    --WildHorses

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warm View Post
    I don't think they should have the right to legal marriage because I believe that homosexuality is wrong just like most people don't think that others should have the right to randomly kill because that's wrong. How can I put murder and homosexuality in the same boat? I do it the same way that I classify both broccoli and cauliflower as vegetables; they are different but in the same category.

    When loving relationships between consenting adults end up in the same category as the intentional, premeditated destruction of human life we have officially left the domain of rational moral evaluation. Thank you for entertaining my questions, it's been interesting.

  8. #138
    Senior Member Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    217

    Default

    If commitment in marriage actually existed in a widespread way in our culture, I might actually feel it to be a cogent argument against gay marriage, even if I disagreed.

    However, the practice of long term commitment to marriage is so unusual these days that I wonder if the outcome of this question really matters. Man/woman marriage is considered disposable by so many people, holding the line at gay marriage seems ex post facto.
    Quote Originally Posted by pippi View Post
    Fiver is correct, it is freeing to not have to impress someone, to be accepted for who you really are.

  9. #139
    Senior Member Warm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    When loving relationships between consenting adults end up in the same category as the intentional, premeditated destruction of human life we have officially left the domain of rational moral evaluation. Thank you for entertaining my questions, it's been interesting.
    Again, we just have a different way of looking at things. Wrong is just wrong. There are no degrees of wrongness.
    "Your voice is like chocolate...dreamy."
    --WildHorses

  10. #140
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Concerning your claim that individual rights are the foundation of democracy, read below.


    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.
    Fair enough (as a liberal-conservative I regard your position largely as a religiously inspired version of social democracy, with similar defects manifested in different ways), but that is not primarily what the founding principles and ostensible purpose of this particular country is. As a matter of fact, even the (non-GOP) Republican aspects of this country (Republican versus Liberal is not exactly dichotomous) promotes classical liberal values as this countries' version of those civic virtues you were talking about. And in accordance with those civic virtues, the effective (albeit not technical) violation of individual liberty and equality under the law through traditional marriage laws must be demonstrated to have objectively defined (and preferably measurable, though the latter is not strictly necessary) and significant public interests value, or else they are morally untenable in respect to statutory law (rather than private or popular morality).

    Under this criteria, can you think of a compelling reason for gay marriage to remain unrecognized by the state? Technically, I'm a so-called "heterosexist" myself (sorry guys, but male-female relations ARE the ultimate foundation of any sustainable human society), but I can discern no objective public-interests reason for gay people to be denied marriage rights (to each other).

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