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 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 258

  1. #201
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Taking your suggestions to their logical conclusion in practice is not setting up a strawman argument.
    Misrepresenting my views, especially after I addressed a similar argument from another member, is indeed setting up a strawman.

    You argued that there is a universal truth against homosexuality and hence legalizing gay marriage would be opposing this universal truth.
    No, as you can read here the dialogue went as follows:

    ergophobe: There is no universal truth opposing gay marriage.

    Peguy: 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 we were clearly talking about gay marriage here, not homosexuality in general. And I clearly stated as well that: "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."

    So you're clearly misrepresenting not only my argument, but even your own.

  2. #202
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    How about we get back on topic...

    Out of 47 NFs total so far
    41 - Yes (87.2%)
    4 - No (8.5%)
    2 - I donít know (4.3%)

    Out of 45 NTs total so far
    41 - Yes (91.1%)
    3 - No (6.7%)
    1 - I donít know (2.2%)

    Out of 12 SPs total so far
    9 - Yes (75%)
    2 - No (16.7%)
    1 - I donít know (8.3%)

    Out of 9 SJs so far
    3 - Yes (33.3%)
    6 - No (66.7%)
    0 - I donít know (0.0%)

    The only thing scarier than a same-sex marriage supporters and non-supporters conflict is an NT/SJ conflict. But these two have become the same and shall be finally brought into the open. Does it come down to the SJ nature of taking in past experiences and coming to decisions based on them that causes their opinion on legalization to differ so much, or is it much more than that (possibly the fact that there are only 9 SJs here to respond)?


  3. #203
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    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.
    On the other hand, it is an example where marriage does not lead to the procreation of children, which is the point I was trying to make.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  4. #204
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    On the other hand, it is an example where marriage does not lead to the procreation of children, which is the point I was trying to make.
    Then it's an exception that proves the rule.

  5. #205
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    What I'm really interested in knowing is what does any of this retarded history citing have ANYTHING to do with same sex marriage and it's current state? I was reading in this thread randomly and I saw something about George Washington attending something... WTF??

    Another thing I'm interested in is generally Christians seek to promote peace generally, so why hold such a strict standard toward something that does no harm to the world? I know you'll bring up the procreation argument here, but I'd say that there are a LOT more heterosexual couples than homosexual ones, and I'm pretty sure the population of the world is continually growing daily. The population is not an issue, so the fact that you can't procreate in a homosexual relationship is a non issue honestly. Why not hold a strict standard to something like, say, hate crimes, poverty and starvation? If this much energy were devoted toward those problems with humanity then imagine what would get done.

    This bickering is retarded. Learn to accept that people will do what they want, and your own personal beliefs will change nothing of that.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  6. #206
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Voted no.

  7. #207
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hmm View Post
    Voted no.
    I'm interested in your no vote.

    And I was wondering how you would vote for Civil marriage.

    I mean if there was no compulsion for chuches, synagogue or mosques to marry lesbians or gays or queers, would you still vote no to lesbian, gay or queer Civil marriage?

    Would you still vote no if Civil marriage and religious marriage were legally separate?

  8. #208
    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
    Misrepresenting my views, especially after I addressed a similar argument from another member, is indeed setting up a strawman.



    No, as you can read here the dialogue went as follows:

    ergophobe: There is no universal truth opposing gay marriage.

    Peguy: 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 we were clearly talking about gay marriage here, not homosexuality in general. And I clearly stated as well that: "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."

    So you're clearly misrepresenting not only my argument, but even your own.
    Thanks so much for pointing out that you are only interested in universal truths as related to gay marriage alone. These are clearly related, in my opinion. When there is no universal truth that opposes homosexuality, how can there be one opposing gay marriage? One is related to the other.

    Your argument, as presented, then implies that marriage (gay or not) is universally based on the idea of child bearing and child rearing. I have addressed this already and there was no strawman argument there. I applied your argument to situations involving both gay and heterosexual couples where child-bearing may not be a choice or option. You did not refute that. Again, calling a refutation a strawman argument is a poor form of refutation.


    I was only refuting the argument you made. I will stand by my argument that there is no universal truth opposing homosexuality and hence, logically deducing from that, gay marriage. When the act is not harmful why would its recognition be? There is no misinterpretation of my argument, thanks.

  9. #209
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Thanks so much for pointing out that you are only interested in universal truths as related to gay marriage alone.
    In this particular context and discussion, yes. Concerning the morality of homosexuality in general is certainly related, but not exactly the same here.


    These are clearly related, in my opinion. When there is no universal truth that opposes homosexuality, how can there be one opposing gay marriage? One is related to the other.
    Please read my previous posts.

    Your argument, as presented, then implies that marriage (gay or not) is universally based on the idea of child bearing and child rearing. I have addressed this already and there was no strawman argument there. I applied your argument to situations involving both gay and heterosexual couples where child-bearing may not be a choice or option.
    I dealt with much of this in previous posts addressed to other members. In response to Juggernaut's argument about only fertile couples being allowed to married; I clearly stated that I am not in favor of a managerial state nor eugenics - from which such policies would be derived from. I actually uphold the family as being more important than the government.

    In response to BlackCat I addressed the issue that certain forms of homosexual bonds have and can be recognised, but a sharp distinction is made between these bonds and those of marriage.

    I also noted that not all marriages have children, but these are seen as exceptions to the rule, and exceptions do not disprove a rule.

    You did not refute that. Again, calling a refutation a strawman argument is a poor form of refutation.
    As I said, I addressed much of your argument before to other members. So you're still guilty of creating a strawman.

  10. #210
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Why the heck does this concern anyone but homosexuals? What right does anyone have to judge what liberties they get? They are human beings, we have equal rights. Anything but equal rights just promotes hate.

    The concept of not having equal rights really doesn't make sense to me in the first place. "Well this group of people is different from the majority, so I guess they can't have everything the majority can." Sure makes these people who believe these things sound human doesn't it? Hating/segregating other humans just for being how they are, you're doing it right!

    From a government standpoint wouldn't it just be easier to let everyone have totally equal rights? Where is the honest issue here? GOVERNMENT, not religious.

    Anything holding back equal rights is basically telling everyone (including our children) that being prejudiced against other humans is an okay thing to do.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

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