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 16242526

Results 251 to 258 of 258

  1. #251
    Senior Member forzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    X/0
    Posts
    547

    Default

    I don't think same sex marriage should be legal. Marriage should be reserve to a man and woman, since the foundation of marriage is between opposite gender. Of course it wouldn't really bother me if they did legalize it.
    This post grammatical errors had been intentionally left uncorrected.

  2. #252
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    693

    Default

    I echo the sentiments for leaving the church out of it. Neither side should be able to force their beliefs on the other. Legal? We should be encouraging that shit. They are the only ones generally not reproducing and further contributing to the depletion of our resources. You np's could also get "Gay Day" off of work.

  3. #253
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The reasoning goes something like this; the two-parent, mother and father family core sustains society by educating and socializing children, not only in practical matters but in terms of gender relations as well, which is ultimately the primary foundation of all sustainable societies. Such socializing is mostly unconscious, rather than deliberate, with the parents acting on the basis of their parents actions, and so on. This process, like all patterns of socialization, is presumed to be somewhat fragile, with unhealthy upbringings often leading to parental shortcomings, thereby contributing to personal and (if endemic) societal ills that may take generations to redress. Therefore, all else being equal, two-parent mother and father families are best for children and society and should be encouraged. Legal gay marriage will be promoted as intrinsically the same as heterosexual marriage, upsetting the normative support structure for this most vital of institutions as well as handicapping their children's ability to interact with the opposite sex as a parent.

    In all honesty, I don't completely disagree with the aforementioned line of reasoning, but I always keep certain things in mind that makes it, for me, insufficient grounds for effectively violating the spirit of personal liberty and equality under the law:

    1.) Even while making the effort to remove completely subjective considerations from the equation, there is still an inherently large degree of subjectivity and uncertainty with this arguement.

    2.) In reality, all else is NEVER equal, and other inequalities (which are not, practically can not, and morally should not be grounds for marriage illegality) are much more salient, so why deny gays the same opportunities to pursue happiness as other people? Especially when so many children need adoption.

    3.) Countries that have legalized gay marriage don't seem to be experiencing any substantial problems as a consequence.
    I can see how that might make sense in theory, but I think it's a little outdated. For one thing, socialization has changed a lot. Children no longer only go to parents for support, nor do they solely get their influence from parents. Peers play a big part of their development nowadays, almost more than the role parents play. That, plus other adults along the way (teachers, for one) also set examples for them. Even if a kid were to be raised by a single parent, no possible chance for a male/female-like dichotomy, there are plenty of other places where they can pick up these unconscious traits, if that's even relevant to proper development (but that's a larger topic for another day).

    I agree with you though. Perhaps if some day in the distant future when kids didn't need to be adopted, then a discussion on who's more fit to raise kids can occur (which I suspect will be more on their capabilities than their orientation). Until then, is not allowing willing parents to adopt really the right thing for these kids?

    Yeesh. The more I look at it, the less relevant do I see this to gay marriage. As has been stated before about heterosexual couples, marriage doesn't necessarily lead to raising the children. It's two completely separate issues. Well, two partially related but ultimately separate issues, I guess.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  4. #254
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I didn't claim to. I meant that I dismissed the ones who said or implied I should value my family. Not the ones who said they valued theirs.
    I do think family is meaningful, but that's assuming it's a reasonably healthy family. In some cases, family ties can be destructive and unhealthy, and I wouldn't fault someone for cutting ties with a destructive and unhealthy family. Just because you were born into a family doesn't mean you have to stay in it.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #255
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    I really don't think there's a lot of use in arguing between Christians/religious people who oppose gay marriage (and, sometimes, homosexuality in general) and those of us who support it. They believe the bible. The bible says it's wrong. Others don't look to the bible, and the fact that the bible says something is wrong doesn't influence our thoughts. The end, really.

    All I'm saying is there's really no reconciliation to be had there. Do I think people who use the biblical argument are wrong? Yes. Do they think I'm wrong? Yes. Is there much chance of either side using logic to convince the other? highly doubtful.

    (Peguy I'm still interested in your thoughts, but it's possible that they boil down to "because the bible says so" as well - I don't know)

    P.S. This isn't a slam on religious people. You have every right to believe what you believe and I respect that. I just disagree and, on a certain level, find the attempt at logical argument a little disingenuous.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  6. #256
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Actually, I don't. To me, "family" is the arbitrary excuse people use to demand that I write them cards at specific times during the year, value their opinion, and help them out when they need it, while offering nothing in return.

    In other words, they're basically strangers, but they use some arbitrary connection to claim I should value their feelings and welfare. Ironically, I care more about most strangers than my family, because they try to relate to me as an individual and engage in give and take. They usually don't show up randomly with a bunch of arbitrary demands and expectations, and then walk off and forget about me soon afterwards.

    Despite what everyone says about the beauty and value of family, I've never had any trouble dismissing those leeches the same way I would anyone treated me that way, and it annoys me when people tell me I'm wrong to do so. I pretty much despise people who say family is meaningful, and generally dismiss them out of hand. I think society would be better without the whole idea of family permeating things. I know that few entertain or express such ideas, though, because most people are like dogs... hopelessly loyal even when mistreated. I'm more like a cat.

    This post right here offers me a lot of insight as to why you can't get along with "SJ's."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #257
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I didn't claim to. I meant that I dismissed the ones who said or implied I should value my family. Not the ones who said they valued theirs.
    Actually, you did. "I pretty much despise people who say family is meaningful, and generally dismiss them out of hand." People who say that mean it as a generalization for everyone. Your reaction is mindlessly hateful.


    Well, that's just how my mind works. I always find myself making assumptions to fill in the gaps when I'm short of data. It has led to some embarrassing moments and created a few misunderstandings.
    I notice that you write "embarrassing moments" and "misunderstandings," but you don't write "sometimes, I'm wrong."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #258
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    I can see how that might make sense in theory, but I think it's a little outdated. For one thing, socialization has changed a lot. Children no longer only go to parents for support, nor do they solely get their influence from parents. Peers play a big part of their development nowadays, almost more than the role parents play. That, plus other adults along the way (teachers, for one) also set examples for them. Even if a kid were to be raised by a single parent, no possible chance for a male/female-like dichotomy, there are plenty of other places where they can pick up these unconscious traits, if that's even relevant to proper development (but that's a larger topic for another day).

    I agree with you though. Perhaps if some day in the distant future when kids didn't need to be adopted, then a discussion on who's more fit to raise kids can occur (which I suspect will be more on their capabilities than their orientation). Until then, is not allowing willing parents to adopt really the right thing for these kids?

    Yeesh. The more I look at it, the less relevant do I see this to gay marriage. As has been stated before about heterosexual couples, marriage doesn't necessarily lead to raising the children. It's two completely separate issues. Well, two partially related but ultimately separate issues, I guess.
    I shall disagree with that, but I do see where you are coming from. The real reason why Kids depend on peers,friends,gangs,etc.... because the Families are not functional anymore. There are no more key figures in the family.. The father is not in the household, mothers not in the household. The absence of the extended family. Families are not whole anymore and kids look up to other kids of their age which will not always be a bad thing but more than likely it is.

    I think if we can repair the family, then the kids shall once again look up to their parents for guidance.

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