UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2012, 05:41 PM   #51
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
Actually, total equality of male and female is a great idea. As far as Hooters, I disagree with the fact that it objectifies and demeans both genders with its "Hooters Girls" and would not be opposed to them hiring both men and women, neither dressed so scantily as the hooters girls are so often done. As for the abuse against females vs the abuse against males (I believe brought up in the presidental candidate thread, where you claimed women should always be payed less than men and always quit her job to raise the kids and stay in the kitchen and whatnot), I think that each should be punished the same, and that if a man gets abused or raped, no matter by who, the penalty should be the same to the abuser as if he had done the same to a woman. Because some of us aren't trying to make men and women completely unequal. And don't start with the supposed biblical evidence that women deserve less because their sole duty is family, or their husbands, because quite a few don't want family or husbands, and you can't force archaic tradition on a modern society and expect no backlash or resistance.

And, here's another one. We are not asking for exclusive special rights. We just want to be able to get married.

um: But Kairne, you already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex!

And having same-sex marriage held to the same standard as opposite-sex marriage won't give LGBTQi people any special rights, because, you know what? It would even give straight people the right to marry their same gender. So it's not giving special rights to any one group or persons. Same concept you're so fond of using.

EDIT: How about, for marriage's definition, "A bond between two (or more) consenting adults, recognized by government, with possible, but not necessary, endorsement by one's religion"?
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.


Last edited by Slash; 05-16-2012 at 05:44 PM.
Slash is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 06:04 PM   #52
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>King Solomon's marriage habits were most certainly untraditional- compared to what all the other Israelites practiced as tradition at the time, so it's pointless to use such an example.

I hardly think so; if the Bible is your source of choice for how to conduct your life and one of its greatest heroes conducts his life in a way that contradicts what (you seem to think is what) it dictates, then that's an internal inconsistency and puts a strike against it.

Though I think Mr. Green presented quite a few other compelling arguments against a "traditional definition of marriage" being traditional. So, feel free to choose from any of those.

>The problem with legalizing same-sex marriage, is, you in turn mess up the legal definitions of Male and Female and make them the exact same entity, opening up the potential legal basis to rule in favor of a slew of crazy lawsuits like whether or not a man can force Hooter's to hire him as a Hooter's Girl, where they specifically hire only females for that position- for a reason.

This is a pretty ridiculous strawman and you're pretty much creating an issue where there is none.

There is no reason for us to change gender in order to legalize gay marriage. If gays get married, we're not going to be changing anything about how people perceive sex and gender. They're still going to be the same. Places that have legalize same-sex marriage have had no change in any kind of gender definition as a direct result of this legalization.

You also are getting dangerously close to a massive misogynistic and homophobic stereotyping game. By connecting same-sex marriage and gender identity, I read it as your thinking that there are clearly established gender roles in a marriage. It makes it sound like the institution of marriage is what defines gender which is totally and completely ridiculous. If everyone was banned from getting married, would that change your status as a man or a woman? No. It is equally ridiculous to say that legalizing all marriages would make you feel any differently because there is no connection between the law and gender identity.

>Furthermore, if we're going to talk about legal injustice and discrimination,same-sex marriage opens up a legal pathway to Sue-FORCE churches to accept and perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs and conscience, under the guise of "preventing discrimination" or "ensuring 'equal' 'rights.'"

That's not how it works; there is overwhelming precedence (supported by the 1st Amendment!) that churches can pretty much do what they want and not suffer any legal action because of it. They are protected by the big, robust concept that is Freedom of Religion and any judge in any court in the United States would throw the case out under that pretense. As long as the church is not breaking any criminal laws (which, by the way, they wouldn't be for refusing to marry a homosexual couple since, as I have said before, the church and the state/law are two entirely separate entities) they can get by scot-free.

>which really are quite divergent from societal norms.

This is a pretty awful basis for creating a system of governance.

Forty years ago, racism was the social norm. We created a lot of laws based on this norm and we all agree now that it was a horrible idea that discriminated against millions of people on no meaningful basis.

Just because something is the social norm does not make it right or justifiable.

>In order words, they want to pervert or adulterate what is considered "fact" to suit their needs.

I don't think you actually understand how semantics works.

Definitions of words do change. There really is no "fact" in the meaning of a word - only general consensus, which can change if a large enough group of people recognize its change. So, from a pretty basic linguistic standpoint, this is a rather flimsy argument.

You're running a little low on arguments, um. If you want to pontificate about definitions, feel free, but that's hardly going to get you anywhere.

Note: using the term "a gay", while not directly offensive, can be perceived as belittling or diminutive. I'd recommend the use of "a gay person" to be a bit safer.
Jerichi is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:02 PM   #53
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milotic111 View Post
Sad as this may be (or not depending on your point of view), coming from a country where gay marriage is both legal and not controversial (anti gay marriage lobbies don't even have to think about it) this point stands true. With gay rights being legally equal to every other person's, people now start to demand that same attitude from the church.

Note that I do agree that gay's should have equal rights I also believe that the church should have the right to refuse gay marriage in front of God, even if it's pretty stupid as people just leave the church altogether with that attitude. (I'm an agnostian btw)
I'm glad to have at least one witness to validify my claims, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
Actually, total equality of male and female is a great idea. As far as Hooters, I disagree with the fact that it objectifies and demeans both genders with its "Hooters Girls" and would not be opposed to them hiring both men and women, neither dressed so scantily as the hooters girls are so often done.
The problem, and the point, is that Hooter's hires it's girls for a specific reason, same with Twin Peaks, and any general dance clubs: their customers are paying to see women, not men, and they're paying to see them dressed they way the company dresses them, doing the jobs the company hired them for.
When you are legally forced to provide equal service and hire men for the same jobs (wearing the same clothes/lack thereof), the customers don't want to see it, so they stop coming, and the company goes out of business- and all the employees lose their jobs. Maybe they start attracting a different crowd then they intended instead-but that's not why they went into that business, and it's certainly not fair to the employees and employers that went into that business to begin with to have to deal with that.

Quote:
As for the abuse against females vs the abuse against males (I believe brought up in the presidental candidate thread, where you claimed women should always be payed less than men and always quit her job to raise the kids and stay in the kitchen and whatnot), I think that each should be punished the same, and that if a man gets abused or raped, no matter by who, the penalty should be the same to the abuser as if he had done the same to a woman. Because some of us aren't trying to make men and women completely unequal. And don't start with the supposed biblical evidence that women deserve less because their sole duty is family, or their husbands, because quite a few don't want family or husbands, and you can't force archaic tradition on a modern society and expect no backlash or resistance.
Clarification, I was arguing that there was justification for paying women less, not that they should always be paid less. And it was simply my opinion that they should quit their after having a child in order to do the natural duty nature gave to them-raising the child, I was not arguing for it. Men and Women are equal, but on different terms, and that's how it ought to be (1 + 2 = 3 = 4 - 1). Regardless that's not the point here:

Yes, I also think that abuse/rape of either gender should be equal, but, generally women garner favorability due to their feminine nature and nature's inclination to make us feel they need extra protection. But if you legally make the punishment of raping a male the same as raping a female, it's not going to be as harsh on either one, it just won't. The punishment for a man raping a female will move over to whatever low the punishment is for a woman raping a man.

Quote:
And, here's another one. We are not asking for exclusive special rights. We just want to be able to get married.

um: But Kairne, you already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex!

And having same-sex marriage held to the same standard as opposite-sex marriage won't give LGBTQi people any special rights, because, you know what? It would even give straight people the right to marry their same gender. So it's not giving special rights to any one group or persons. Same concept you're so fond of using.
You're asking for society to pervert was was once considered an unquestionable truth- because that's what a definition is, an undeniable truth- to turn it into something it's never been.

Kairne/Jerichi/Rangeet: but unownmew, historically same-sex unions were commonplace! Just look at the Greeks and Romans.

I have two things to say there;
1. Yes, let's look at them. Both are the collapsed ruins of a long dead civilization known only in history books and ruin tours. Funnily enough, the Jews, who have historically always disagreed with same-sex marriage- are still a nation, they've been banged up a lot, but their culture is still around in force, and they're living on the same spot of land that's belonged to them since before even the Greek Civilization began, and among numerous other nations as free citizens. I think I would much rather be a part of an enduring civilization, then a dead one.

2. A legal union is different from a marriage, by your own admittance. As I predicted earlier, which, I may add, was vehemently railed against as "untrue", and has now been proven absolutely correct; the proponents of same-sex marriage are not looking for a method by which they can become a legally recognized couple, they are craving the numerous benefits that are not granted them through their "legal unions," that are afforded to "marriages." Which benefits, they are NOT entitled to by virtue of being a human being, since government can be as selective with benefits as it desires.
They're not seeking "equality" before the law, they desire an ambiguously defined "fairness."

Quote:
EDIT: How about, for marriage's definition, "A bond between two (or more) consenting adults, recognized by government, with possible, but not necessary, endorsement by one's religion"?
I'd much rather see marriage defined as "The legal recognition of a male and a female joined for the purpose of preserving the institution of the family, for the continuance and betterment of the human species."

And then we can argue the legal definition of "family" instead of "marriage".

Edit: spelling error

Last edited by unownmew; 05-16-2012 at 07:59 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:15 PM   #54
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
I highly doubt any significant number of people here will agree to a definition of marriage that specifically excludes any same-sex union.

EDIT: Or even raising family, because that would generally mean children, or the intention of which, would be mandatory, which is daft.

For the record, I do actually want to get married and have children
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:48 PM   #55
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
>King Solomon's marriage habits were most certainly untraditional- compared to what all the other Israelites practiced as tradition at the time, so it's pointless to use such an example.

I hardly think so; if the Bible is your source of choice for how to conduct your life and one of its greatest heroes conducts his life in a way that contradicts what (you seem to think is what) it dictates, then that's an internal inconsistency and puts a strike against it.

It also clearly infers that that Solomon broke the rules by doing that. Since what he did, did not correspond with the laws that were given, one must assume he broke them. He may have been wise, but he was in no wise perfect. Your point is invalid.

Quote:
Though I think Mr. Green presented quite a few other compelling arguments against a "traditional definition of marriage" being traditional. So, feel free to choose from any of those.
Only one of note I wanted to bring up atm.

Quote:
>The problem with legalizing same-sex marriage, is, you in turn mess up the legal definitions of Male and Female and make them the exact same entity, opening up the potential legal basis to rule in favor of a slew of crazy lawsuits like whether or not a man can force Hooter's to hire him as a Hooter's Girl, where they specifically hire only females for that position- for a reason.

This is a pretty ridiculous strawman and you're pretty much creating an issue where there is none.
it's Not a strawman, it is an extrapolation based on logical deduction.

A = Man + Woman, B = man + man, and C = marriage:
IF A = C, and B =C, then A must also therefore, equal B.
Thus Woman is now legally Man. No tricks here, just straight Logical Deduction.

Quote:
There is no reason for us to change gender in order to legalize gay marriage. If gays get married, we're not going to be changing anything about how people perceive sex and gender. They're still going to be the same. Places that have legalize same-sex marriage have had no change in any kind of gender definition as a direct result of this legalization.
You have an incredible lack of vision... You also seem to have a hard time understanding what I'm writing.
I'm not saying that, once gay marriage is legal, the definitions automatically change, I'm saying, it opens up the floodgates to legal credibility to rule in favor of treating men as woman and vise versus, for such an example as, a man suing Hooters because they didn't hire him as a Hooter's Girl (true story).
It is complete short-sightedness to assume that such an occurrence would not happen again, and blindness to assume this new legal basis would not give an activist judge credibility, and legal cover, to rule in favor of the crazy guy trying to do a girl's Job.

you're also refusing to look out into the next generations and what impact such legal changes will have on them, thinking "if things would change, they would have done so during my lifetime." The problem is, these sorts of societal changes take generations to play out to fruition, and you're sticking your head in the sand denying any possibility of such an occurrence.

Quote:
You also are getting dangerously close to a massive misogynistic and homophobic stereotyping game. By connecting same-sex marriage and gender identity, I read it as your thinking that there are clearly established gender roles in a marriage. It makes it sound like the institution of marriage is what defines gender which is totally and completely ridiculous. If everyone was banned from getting married, would that change your status as a man or a woman? No. It is equally ridiculous to say that legalizing all marriages would make you feel any differently because there is no connection between the law and gender identity.
No, it's the other way around, gender defines marriage. Also, look up for why legalizing it will change the gender roles, I'm Not going to repeat myself again.

Quote:
>Furthermore, if we're going to talk about legal injustice and discrimination,same-sex marriage opens up a legal pathway to Sue-FORCE churches to accept and perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs and conscience, under the guise of "preventing discrimination" or "ensuring 'equal' 'rights.'"

That's not how it works; there is overwhelming precedence (supported by the 1st Amendment!) that churches can pretty much do what they want and not suffer any legal action because of it. They are protected by the big, robust concept that is Freedom of Religion and any judge in any court in the United States would throw the case out under that pretense. As long as the church is not breaking any criminal laws (which, by the way, they wouldn't be for refusing to marry a homosexual couple since, as I have said before, the church and the state/law are two entirely separate entities) they can get by scot-free.
That's not how it works; there is overwhelming precedence that government will infringe religion, and any freedom for that matter, any time it gets the change to. Opening the floodgates gives it a legal excuse to infringe religion in effort to "prevent discrimination" and "ensure 'equal' 'rights'" for everyone. 'Equality' trumps religion every time in a liberal's mind.


Quote:
>which really are quite divergent from societal norms.

This is a pretty awful basis for creating a system of governance.

Forty years ago, racism was the social norm. We created a lot of laws based on this norm and we all agree now that it was a horrible idea that discriminated against millions of people on no meaningful basis.

Just because something is the social norm does not make it right or justifiable.
No, you're right, but, Race is different then Gender. A white man is the same as a black man, but a white man is not a white woman. The biological differences are insurmountable. Your claims are divergent from nature, because they assume that a man is the same as a woman in terms of reproduction, which is the purpose of marriage, but they are not, nor can they ever, be the same.

Quote:
>In order words, they want to pervert or adulterate what is considered "fact" to suit their needs.

I don't think you actually understand how semantics works.

Definitions of words do change. There really is no "fact" in the meaning of a word - only general consensus, which can change if a large enough group of people recognize its change. So, from a pretty basic linguistic standpoint, this is a rather flimsy argument.
A Marriage is defined by the word Marriage, yes, but, changing the word's meaning will never change what the word once described. I can call an apple an "elppant," but that doesn't change the fact that I'm referring to a "fruit with a tough thin skin and a core containing several small black seeds, which grows on what is currently known as a 'Apple Tree.'"

Likewise I can refer to a Pear by the name of "Apple" but that does not change the fact that I am referring to the fruit "formerly known as a 'pear'" and not an "Elppant."

Catch my drift? It doesn't matter what "marriage" means, what matters is that the institution that a marriage "is," remains unadulterated. And what proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to do is not just redefine the word "marriage," but to turn what a marriage is, (a "Pear") into something it is not (an "Elppant").
Catch my drift?



Quote:
Note: using the term "a gay", while not directly offensive, can be perceived as belittling or diminutive. I'd recommend the use of "a gay person" to be a bit safer.
Sorry, I'm not one who thinks about my term usage as a way to insult people. I was just reducing the amount of typing required from having to type "homosexual," every time.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:55 PM   #56
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
I highly doubt any significant number of people here will agree to a definition of marriage that specifically excludes any same-sex union.
Obviously. But they have no standing for their premise;

Quote:
EDIT: Or even raising family, because that would generally mean children, or the intention of which, would be mandatory, which is daft.
Because children are precisely what marriage was designed for. It's unfortunate that society has so far been able to pervert the institution into something where children aren't even part of the equation anymore. It's given a viable platform to the proponents of same-sex marriage that should never have existed in the first place.

Quote:
For the record, I do actually want to get married and have children
Good for you, I'm glad to hear it.

Also, I have to thank you and Jerichi, your replies helped me solidify the ambiguous mass that was formulating in my mind regarding my key problem with same-sex marriage. I can now state myself much more clearly.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-16-2012 at 08:03 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:13 PM   #57
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
it's Not a strawman, it is an extrapolation based on logical deduction.

A = Man + Woman, B = man + man, and C = marriage:
IF A = C, and B =C, then A must also therefore, equal B.
Thus Woman is now legally Man. No tricks here, just straight Logical Deduction.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:23 PM   #58
Ethereal
Creepy Hand Person
 
Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,988
Send a message via AIM to Ethereal Send a message via MSN to Ethereal Send a message via Skype™ to Ethereal
>A = Man + Woman, B = man + man, and C = marriage:
IF A = C, and B =C, then A must also therefore, equal B.
Thus Woman is now legally Man. No tricks here, just straight Logical Deduction.

No. The transitive property of equality is not relevant to gender.
__________________

Last edited by Ethereal; 05-16-2012 at 08:27 PM.
Ethereal is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:36 PM   #59
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
You can tell a judge that when he rules men can apply for positions asking for "females only." using a same-sex marriage legislation as part of the court sources. I can guarantee it will happen eventually if allowed, and you can't prove that it won't.

But thanks for not paying any attention to anything else I said. Just goes to show what you really care about: Demeaning the opposition, instead of reasonable discussion.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-16-2012 at 08:41 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:42 PM   #60
Copygoo
超高校級 写真師
 
Copygoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hope's Peak Academy
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Demeaning the opposition, instead of reasonable discussion.
Because using basic algebra as some sort of proof for social debate is reasonable discussion, right?
__________________
asb

[i can't believe all of the things they say about me]
Copygoo is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:58 PM   #61
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
By your logic, dogs would be cats because they have the same rights.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:05 PM   #62
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Greeks and Romans collapsed because homo

Wrong. The Roman civilization fell c. 5th century CE, as a result of a combination of factors. Nomadic invasions, the collapse of Silk Roads trade a couple hundred years before, political fragmentation including the division of Rome into two separate entities, one of which survived for another millennium, and a succession of awful rulers (all of whom were provably straight, before you get any funny ideas) brought down the mighty Roman Empire. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it.

In addition, Japan is a counter to your argument. The codes of bushieo also include romantic gay love affairs. Japan is totally not in ruins. In addition, if doing immoral things was enough to break society, most Muslim countries in which there are merchants who routinely take young boys as sex slaves should probably go the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well, to tell the truth most of them are kind of headed that way anyway.
__________________
Shuckle is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:06 PM   #63
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
He's just going to say God smited the Greeks/Romans for supporting homosexuals, Shuckle.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:38 PM   #64
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
A. Is marriage only between a man and a woman?
B. If (A) is true, should civil unions/domestic partnerships be legalized/recognized?
C. If yes to (B), should same-sex couples be awarded the same legal benefits of married couples?
A. I would say no. The OED says otherwise. Let's roll with the OED's definition in answering your following questions.
B. Yes.
C. Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
everyone needs to agree on the same definition of marriage. I can't stress this enough. If we use the definition I proposed earlier, Rangeet has no reason to post, because the question proposed answers itself. blaze doesn't make a wild claim.

Using a definition, any mutually agreed upon definition doesn't lock out argumentation, and instead focuses the debate and makes it easier to follow. We're moving away from that. Again.
When you started the thread, I thought you asked people to provide the evidence for why their own definitions were right. In other words, you weren't requiring the debate to agree upon one single definition of marriage but instead seemed to be soliciting a debate about the very meaning of the word. Now you seem to be changing your mind, deciding that you do want all participants to agree on a definition (even if they take personal issue with what that definition is) so that debate can move from arguing over semantics to debating the legal side of things. Just to clarify, am I right in observing this? If you're trying to moderate, you need to make it clear(er) to the participants what the (new) rules of the debate are.

Definitions:
Oxford English Dictionary: marriage - supports M/F Only position
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: marriage - tries to have its cake and eat it too but inadvertently supports M/F Only position by clarifying that M/M & F/F position is separately termed "same sex marriage"
Etymology Dictionary: marriage, marry - inconclusive, support for either side
Wikipedia: marriage - supports M/F, M/M, & F/F position
Talon87 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:29 PM   #65
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Too ... many ... people ... responding to ... person ... they ... claim to have ... BLOCKED!

Guys, the point of putting someone on a block list is not to then click "View Post" for every little thing they say and to write up a 10-page rebuttal. By replying to him, you are acknowledging that you value his input. If that is not the message you wish to send him, then you are doing things very, very wrongly.

Out of respect for Doppel, you guys need to quit replying to posts you consider ri-fucking-diculous from a member no one in this community takes seriously anymore and just focus on replying to the people you can respect in a civil discourse, even if you disagree with the positions they may hold in said discourse.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:38 PM   #66
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
When you started the thread, I thought you asked people to provide the evidence for why their own definitions were right. In other words, you weren't requiring the debate to agree upon one single definition of marriage but instead seemed to be soliciting a debate about the very meaning of the word. Now you seem to be changing your mind, deciding that you do want all participants to agree on a definition (even if they take personal issue with what that definition is) so that debate can move from arguing over semantics to debating the legal side of things. Just to clarify, am I right in observing this? If you're trying to moderate, you need to make it clear(er) to the participants what the (new) rules of the debate are.
I accommodated for both. We can debate on values or policy, but we can't have a proper policy debate without an agreement on values. Otherwise, it's just a value debate.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:39 PM   #67
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
Good point Talon. I forgot we even had ignore lists here, since it takes something pretty major and I have only ever used ignore list options only once or twice before in my life. But sometimes circumstances are to the point...

I think trying to establish a definition of "marriage" is probably an end point of this debate, not a starting one, as the proponents of marriage equality will include the option in their preferred definition and those opposed will exclude it, so it'd be almost impossible for the two to combine in one definition in that there is almost no way to compromise between same-sex-inclusive marriage and strictly opposite sex marriage.

EDIT: Re: values, it's difficult to define values in a way that lends itself to everyone. There are some nigh-universal values, like murder, but for others, it seems that some won't rest until the women are forced back into the kitchen and home and the others want to give them a choice about it instead, and everything in-between, and that's just one issue. Values aren't exactly universal. I think, for this issue, that it is better to talk the pros and cons of policy, because, for or against marriage equality, our personal beliefs about gay people are unlikely to budge
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.


Last edited by Slash; 05-16-2012 at 11:46 PM.
Slash is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 01:07 AM   #68
lilboocorsola
Dragon's Tears
 
lilboocorsola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,453
Hi, guys. I've been asked by a couple people to delete off-topic posts in this thread, and will be monitoring it closely from now on. If there are any more posts that contain only insult or sarcasm without contributing to the discussion, they will be edited/deleted on the spot.

Thank you and have a nice day.
lilboocorsola is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 01:15 AM   #69
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
You can tell a judge that when he rules men can apply for positions asking for "females only." using a same-sex marriage legislation as part of the court sources. I can guarantee it will happen eventually if allowed, and you can't prove that it won't.

But thanks for not paying any attention to anything else I said. Just goes to show what you really care about: Demeaning the opposition, instead of reasonable discussion.
Burden of proof is on you. Please provide some proof. Just because a=b does not mean A IS B.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:24 AM   #70
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Burden of proof is on you. Please provide some proof. Just because a=b does not mean A IS B.
Why is the burden of proof ONLY on me? You guys are the ones claiming that it won't happen, but you stubbornly refuse to prove your claims on the matter.

I presented a case. You said it would never happen. I contended that your claim has not been proven as an unexceptionable case. Because my initial argument has had no counter evidence levied against it, it continues to stand. You continue to deny it while refusing to offer any sort of reason why it should be dismissed.

In science, and math, nothing is considered fact until it has been proven to be without exception. And that is how I look at all things.
So, tell me again, why the burden of proof is on ME?

(If you give me a good reason, I'll pull out as many crazy-dumb court cases I can find, to prove my point that, there will be ridiculous sue cases, and given a legal standing, court will rule in favor of the ridiculous. And granted that environment, it's only a matter of Time, before such a case as the one I described arises.)



Also, your math is wrong, if a=b, a IS b, because that is what "equals" specifically means.
3 = 3, and 3 can not = 4, under any circumstance. 1+2=3, and 4-1=3, 1+2 is not the same equation as 4-1, but the result is the exact same, and there can be no other result without changing the entire equation.

By contrast, we do not say a 3-3-3 triangle is equal to another 3-3-3 triangle, we say they are congruent, because the two triangles are not necessarily the same one triangle, they only have the same dimensions. And 3 can not be congruent to itself, because there is no other value that IS 3.

man + woman = child. man + man does not equal child. Thus man + man does not equal man + woman. By making the legal definition of man + man = man + woman, you alter the equation, and return a different result. (Apologies for my original equation being insufficient to illustrate this)

Also, for those who can't tell, this is an analogy, I'm not "using a math proof to prove social issues." -.-

Last edited by unownmew; 05-17-2012 at 10:34 AM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:30 AM   #71
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Fine. In this analogy, I say that same-sex marriage only makes man and woman congruent. Suddenly your argument is invalid and you have no way to prove that this makes them equal and not congruent.

>.<
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:03 AM   #72
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Fine. In this analogy, I say that same-sex marriage only makes man and woman congruent. Suddenly your argument is invalid and you have no way to prove that this makes them equal and not congruent.

>.<
Except, it matters not in law whether they are "equal" or "congruent", they are equally similar and thus to be treated for all intents and purposes as "the same".
You're grasping at straws and suddenly, now you have nothing left.

But please, answer my other question? "Why is the burden of proof on me?" Or are you ceding that point?

At Shuckle:
[edit: realized this is probably off topic so, spoilered]
Spoiler: show
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Greeks and Romans collapsed because homo
No, I never said that was the direct cause for their collapse, I simply made the correlation that, they had it, and they collapsed. Sodom and Gomorrah had it, and they collapsed. The Tribe of Benjamin had it, and they were almost wiped out entirely. Israel had it and they collapsed. The Jews were oppressed every time they had it, but overall they did not condone it and are still around. It's just interesting, how the oppression/collapse of a society coincides so nicely with their moral values.

Quote:
Wrong. The Roman civilization fell c. 5th century CE, as a result of a combination of factors. Nomadic invasions, the collapse of Silk Roads trade a couple hundred years before, political fragmentation including the division of Rome into two separate entities, one of which survived for another millennium, and a succession of awful rulers (all of whom were provably straight, before you get any funny ideas) brought down the mighty Roman Empire. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it.
Again, I never said it was the direct cause of their collapse. "Come on guys, this civilization has homosexuality, let's wipe them out!!!" As if that would ever be the case. Exception: The Tribe of Benjamin.

Quote:
In addition, Japan is a counter to your argument. The codes of bushieo also include romantic gay love affairs. Japan is totally not in ruins.
Oh contrare. I read an article just recently that said basically, Japan is currenty headed down the road to extinction, because they're not having enough Babies. But that's due to current moral problems, not the codes of the Bushido. Though, I have to ask, where are the Bushido and their civilization? If their gay affairs didn't wipe them out, where are they then?

Quote:
In addition, if doing immoral things was enough to break society, most Muslim countries in which there are merchants who routinely take young boys as sex slaves should probably go the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well, to tell the truth most of them are kind of headed that way anyway.
Oh don't worry, they'll burn eventually. Their civilization is currently needed to fulfill ancient prophecies, afterwards the wicked among them will be destroyed just like the other civilizations.

But let's also consider the living conditions of the Muslim countries living in. Clearly second or third rate. Vs the living conditions of America before homosexuality was "acceptable"?
Oh speaking of America, with the rainbow parades garnering more attention then ever before, where are we today?
Steep Depression, 5 Trillion in debt (on top of the previous 4 trillion debt), and taxes for everyone set to rise by a very uncomfortable amount in the very near future. Coincidence? Not in my mind.

(Note: In no way was I intending to slight the Muslim Religion or it's people. There are many good and moral people who practice Islam. My comments were only directed to the immoral practitioners, though it is unfortunate that the wickedness of the few, affect the lives and living conditions of the many righteous.)

Last edited by unownmew; 05-17-2012 at 11:19 AM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 03:06 PM   #73
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Thanks LBC. In an effort to right the rails, I'll step into the arena-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
A. Is marriage only between a man and a woman?
B. If (A) is true, should civil unions/domestic partnerships be legalized/recognized?
C. If yes to (B), should same-sex couples be awarded the same legal benefits of married couples?
A. Yes.
B. Yes.
C. Yes.

My preferred definition of marriage would be "a contract of kinship between a man and a woman". Such a definition seems to invite abuse (polygamy/incest) but other stipulations outside of the legal definition can limit or expand on that simple definition.

I frame the definition this way because marriage is a loaded word, and while it means different things to different people, the relationship of a man and woman is the only constant association in the English speaking world. I'd oppose other definitions not because I don't think homosexuals or transgenders have no rights to marriage, but because the term has too much historical association.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind calling a homosexual couple married informally if the legal language was different. Efforts have been made over the years to change the definitions of words, for whatever reason ("nigga" transforming from a racial epithet to "my friends") but deep rooted connotations never, ever die. We still call people we see as savage or boorish as Philistines, and those who damage/destroy as "vandals". Or traitors a 'Judas'. It's already been a thousand years and usage hasn't diminished at all.

I don't want to say "separate but equal", but a good analogy would be military officers respecting the ranks of other officers outside of their military (or in sister branches) for joint operations. Fundamentally, someone in the armed forces is only obligated to follow their own chain of command, but in the absence of orders they can work within other chains toward some purpose. This can only happen if they recognize other non-branch officers as military officers. Likewise, even though I'm a Catholic, I still recognize marriages from other religions and churches even though the RCC might consider those religions heretical.

Make "marriage" the Navy. Make "civil unions" the Air Force. Both are recognized as armed forces under the United States, with different functions but the same purpose.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 03:33 PM   #74
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
What about two Wiccans/Pagans married? Generally speaking, the pagan community as a whole has no qualms about marriage equality themselves, so if a same-sex couple had a marriage recognised by the OBOD (Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids), or by a Dianan Wiccan High Priestess, or a Dhrow priest, would that not be satisfactory in your mind to be noted as marriage, rather then just a union?
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 04:34 PM   #75
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
When a male-female couple tell me they're married, my first thought is usually speculating the length of the marriage. I don't even passively question the religious circumstances leading to the marriage unless I'm given additional information. If I'm not told their Pagans, I have no reason to think poorly of them as Pagans.

If a male-male or female-female couple tell me they're married, my first thought would be "huh?" and the second thought would be the conclusion, "oh, they're homosexual".

In another situation, if the male-female couple told me they were "domestic partners" I'd probably think "what? why aren't you married?", but wouldn't feel anything toward a male-male or female-female couple saying that.

Finally, if any of these couples were to refer to their partner as "spouse" I wouldn't question the relationship at all, even in the "domestic partnership" case where there's no formal union.

My inference from these feelings is sexuality dominates the word "marriage" far more strongly than religion does. But it goes both ways. The relationship role is a lot more rigid with respect to marriage, so the "domestic partnership" situation feels errant in the male-female case even though it's gender neutral term. I wouldn't even say "domestic partnership" is pro-homosexual, just that it's anti-marriage.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.