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 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 258

  1. #191
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Why no, Socrates, I don't believe that it is.
    Don't look at me like that! I'm trying to put this together in my brain.

    So it's beginning to look like this

    Unsavory religious practice + done for other reasons that are acceptable = legal, because of freedom of practice

    Unsavory religious practice + is known to cause exploitation and/or coercion = illegal, because of potential for exploitation and/or coercion

    Unsavory nonreligious practice + does not necessarily cause harm but is considered 'unnatural' = ???
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #192
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    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.

    Truth discriminate against falsehood.


    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.
    No sir, you are wrong. referring to Roman society is far from providing conclusive evidence of universal truths. You simply refer to universal truths within the Western religious sphere. That is certainly referring to ONE interpretation of the bible and does not in fact refer to Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, none of which condemn homosexuality in their original texts (Quran, Vedas being just some examples). if these are condemned they are only condemned in laws written by a patriarchal society that in the case of Hinduism came centuries after the original texts were written. In Indonesia, TODAY the world's most populous Islamic country, society does not condemn homosexuality, it condemns a vision of men as less than macho. Strange but true particularly for the cities.This is both now in writing as well in practice.

    Let us take your conjecture that marriage in the religions you have mentioned would be for the purpose of child-bearing and child-rearing alone. If we were to apply this strictly to all society, then in practice, men and women who cannot conceive children or do not desire to do so should be denied this privilege.

    Secondly, if we were to accept that while those who may not be able to conceive children may still be able to rear them and thus marriage would still be a useful institution to them why would this not apply to gay couples? There is NO scientific or other evidence to prove that gay couples make worse parents if not bot better. If allowing gay couples to marry and adopt would give more children without homes the safety of being reared in a 'family' environment, why would religion oppose that?

    With artificial insemination, many gay families bear children of their own and rear these children -- why wouldn't we want to allow them the same protections if that is the sole purpose of the religious beliefs pertaining to marriage?

  3. #193
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tenINsFJ View Post
    People are born into ethnicities, that's an obvious proven fact.

    No one knows whether or not homosexuality is choice. So in one person's eyes, the analogy really is an insult to those who face/faced racial discrimination versus those who believe homosexuality is inherent.
    My point was not that there is moral equivalence between the two forms of discrimination, but rather that Jeffster failed to provide a basis for differentiation in his earlier posts. In his later post he implied, but did not clearly state, that popular morality could not impose discriminatory laws against those born into any particular race, but that still leaves the triad of proscripted actions I proposed in order to challenge the theoretical basis of his position.

  4. #194
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    It seems that everyone who is opposed to this is doing it based on a view of religion that sets it above other things in terms of deciding what should and should not be allowed.

    It's one thing to have a religion, and apply the codes to yourself and your own conduct. That's perfectly healthy behavior. But when you start taking those codes and trying to use them as a roadmap for society, and hold other people accountable to such codes regardless of their personal beliefs on such issues... well, I don't like the kind of precedent that sets. It effectively shuts down any potential for real debate with an assertion of the supremacy of the code.

    In other words, it seems to push towards a world where we can't question, debate, or seriously affect anything because rules and values are all decided for us, and have been deemed perfect apart from ourselves. I don't know about the rest of you, but that is not a world I'd like to live in.

  5. #195
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    No sir, you are wrong. referring to Roman society is far from providing conclusive evidence of universal truths. You simply refer to universal truths within the Western religious sphere.
    I provided Roman law as but one non-Christian example. And since we are primarily discussing this from within a Western perspective, it does much to add greater context here.

    That is certainly referring to ONE interpretation of the bible and does not in fact refer to Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, none of which condemn homosexuality in their original texts (Quran, Vedas being just some examples).
    For now, I'll leave it to the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist members to deal with your argument here.

    if these are condemned they are only condemned in laws written by a patriarchal society that in the case of Hinduism came centuries after the original texts were written.
    Even if true, it's all irrelevant.


    In Indonesia, TODAY the world's most populous Islamic country, society does not condemn homosexuality, it condemns a vision of men as less than macho. Strange but true particularly for the cities.This is both now in writing as well in practice.
    Gay marriage is not recognised in Indonesia, so your point is moot here. As I stated before, even societies that have been more tolerant of homosexuality did not recognise gay marriage. Homosexuality was tolerated in non-marital contexts.

    Even the berdache practice that Aerithria mentioned does not disprove this, since it was not even considered homosexuality among the Native peoples who practiced it. To argue that it was is to impose an anarchronism here, which is often the case in discussions on this issue.


    Let us take your conjecture that marriage in the religions you have mentioned would be for the purpose of child-bearing and child-rearing alone. If we were to apply this strictly to all society, then in practice, men and women who cannot conceive children or do not desire to do so should be denied this privilege.
    Once again, you're setting up a strawman and knocking it down.

  6. #196
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    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.
    There is no issue with you being articulate. It leads to an intelligent discussion. No one is complaining about the articulation of your beliefs, we complain about their validity.

    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 independent 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).
    I have no trouble with the Republican view of democracy. It makes sense that rights and responsibilities should be considered together. However, neither exists in a vacuum as your emphasis on the latter implies. Responsibilities exist and are mentioned side-by-side in many constitutions because they circumscribe the idea of fundamental rights. Yet, both fundamental rights and responsibilities are of importance and the emphasis is still on the rights. The social contract implies that we give up some of these individual rights for the protection of those fundamental to democracy. That is where responsibility comes in, in differentiating between individual rights that are fundamental and those that are not. Yet, rights are still central to the idea of democracy, whether Republican or Liberal in inspiration.

    Considering then that rights are central to the idea of democracy and accepting that there are responsibilities, it is well within our prerogative as citizens of such a democracy to question whether our fundamental rights are equal to other citizens, particularly those already offered to other citizens, mind you in regards to marriage.

    Certainly, the state takes a role in promoting virtues it sees as beneficial for the population. Having said that, we are yet to come across an argument that cogently shows how accepting gay marriage and promoting it on a federal (meaning national in this case) basis would harm the majority of society. None yet.

    When you speak of Christianity defining the majority, you speak of Christianity as one religion with a homogeneous set of beliefs. That is simply empirically false. Also the idea of a national government promoting the beliefs of one or a few denominations is inherently discriminatory. Federalism does not solve this problem. Federalism allows each state to make its own decision - the majority may still discriminate in EVERY state where the denominations who favor gay marriage and those without religion who favor gay marriage are in a minority or who do not turn out to vote. That is still discriminatory. If we go by the pluralist rule used in most elections (the person or policy with the most votes wins, its not even reflective of a majority as a basic definition of democracy would demand).

    A national government should promote a non-discriminatory policy that applies equally to everyone and protects everyone's rights equally. That would be the virtue it should pursue. This only equates to a national government making gay marriage legal at the highest level.

    Why would this discriminate against churches who do not wish to marry gay people? This is simply logically false. Churches would still get to decide who they want to endorse as married. The national/federal government legalizing gay marriage does not imply churches being forced to marry gay couples.

    Also, why would gay people in their right minds choose to go to these non-affirming churches? Both are strange conjectures and reflect false fears rather than real arguments.


    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.
    Please do.

  7. #197
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Once again, you're setting up a strawman and knocking it down.
    Taking your suggestions to their logical conclusion in practice is not setting up a strawman argument. Calling a refutation a strawman argument is not a form of refutation.

    Gay marriage is not recognised in Indonesia, so your point is moot here. As I stated before, even societies that have been more tolerant of homosexuality did not recognise gay marriage. Homosexuality was tolerated in non-marital contexts.
    You argued that there is a universal truth against homosexuality and hence legalizing gay marriage would be opposing this universal truth. I simply showed that the basis of your argument was empirically false. You also added that societies that allow homosexuality do not approve of gay marriage. These were two separate arguments, weren't they? The universal truth one was concerning homosexuality more generally.

    The second is a moot one because the idea of marriage itself and the utility of it does in fact differ greatly from society to society. Law scholars have written tomes on this subject. I am no expert on this.

  8. #198
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Let's imagine the world reversed.
    Let's not. Might as well imagine the world is ruled by alien robots who force us to have sex with lab animals. It is equally relevant, since it's also imaginary.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post

    You are certainly entitled to advocate for or against whatever you want, but you haven't provided anything to support the validity of your position, in either theoretical or practical terms, which is what this debate is about.
    I simply answered the question posed by the topic. I didn't sign up for a debate. And I really don't care whether you respect my answer or not.

    It's amazing how this topic seems to bring out the claws in people. It's kinda sad to me. But life goes on.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  9. #199
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Let's not. Might as well imagine the world is ruled by alien robots who force us to have sex with lab animals. It is equally relevant, since it's also imaginary.
    Yes, don't exercise that imagination - bad things might happen.

  10. #200
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    When you speak of Christianity defining the majority, you speak of Christianity as one religion with a homogeneous set of beliefs.
    No actually I'm not. I'm well aware of the divisions within Christianity: between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants(which alone is made up of at least 30,000 denominations). However, they do share an overall perspective on the faith - Mere Christianity as CS Lewis termed it. There's a difference between speaking of Christianity in the general and referring to specific denominations.

    Also the idea of a national government promoting the beliefs of one or a few denominations is inherently discriminatory.
    Well that's why we have the First Ammendment. However, it should be noted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, six of the thirteen original states had established churches. Overt references to America as a Christian nation were quite common.

    In previous debates, I've cited this from the 1791 lectures of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson, where he explains the reasoning behind the precepts behind the newly adopted Constitution(of which he was a primary author, second only to Madison):

    "Of law there are different kinds. All, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1. Divine. 2. Human laws. The descriptive epithets employed denote, that the former have God, the latter, man, for their author....

    ...Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."

    Works of James Wilson
    And I've mentioned before that records show that President George Washington attended these lectures.

    Another famous example being that of Chancellor James Kent, who upheld a conviction for blasphemy on the grounds that "we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity."

    The notion that the government should be neutral in regards to religion did not even really come up untill the 1940's.

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