UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-13-2012, 08:57 AM   #1
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,719
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Gay Marriage

Gladiators, tear one other apart.

However, I will set rules that you must obey. Give unto Dopple what is Caesar's!

First, the biggest problem with the gay marriage issue is a conflict of definitions. Is it a bond of kinship between two individuals, or the union of a man and woman? Pick your poison and give reasons for why your definition is right. No refutation of definitions based on an inability to understand an idea ("infinity is boundless by definition, therefore it cannot be conceptualized") is permitted.

Once values are argued/agreed on, we can segway into the legal ramifications, which is really where most well adjusted citizens draw the line.
__________________
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 05-13-2012, 09:21 AM   #2
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
As has been mentioned when this came up before, how you define marriage depends upon which religion you're going with. Christians would define it as being between a man and a woman, but christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage, never has, and some other legimately recognised religions do not have such gender hangups - surely freedom of religion requires these to be recognised.

And, to address a point I've seen UM bring up time and time again, fear that allowing gay marriage would lead to forcing chuches to perform them is not an argument against gay marriage any more than fear that allowing Islamic (or insert other religion here) marriages would lead to forcing churches to perform Islamic marriage ceremonies is an argument against allowing Islamic marriage. It's quite possible to be against forcing churches to perform gay marriages but still be for allowing gay marriage, in the same way it's possible to be against forcing churches to perform Islamic marriage ceremonies but still be for allowing Islamic marriage ceremonies to go ahead. Personally, I think that wanting to get married in a religious fashion when said religion is pretty clear about its hatred of said marriage is balls out retarded and I'm certainly not going to try to enforce it. On the other hand, if churches decide they want to do so (as the Church of Sweden voted to, entirely off it's own back and it is no way legally required to) then whatever, it's not really any of my business - it's up to the chuches to decide.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 12:15 PM.
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 09:33 AM   #3
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
I think that the government should not recognize any unions as "marriages" and simply turn that term over to religions, but offer full partnership benefits to any committed couple who applies for them regardless of sex of the couple in question. "Sanctity of marriage" is protected as churches can make decisions as a whole whether or not to ordain something as a "marriage", church and state are further separated and homosexual couples have equal rights in the eyes of the government.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 09:43 AM   #4
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
I like Muyos suggestion, actually - it nicely alleviates the worries of religious institutions being forced to go against their beliefs. What do our more religious members think of the idea of governments (both state and federal) simply allowing religious institutions to deal with marriage as they please? Something along the lines of (in keeping with freedom of religion) just acknowledging any marriage a religious institution is willing to peform (approriate requirements for consent assumed, of course).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Quite a lot of this post wasn't really relevant to the debate at hand.
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 12:44 PM   #5
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
My Church's definition (as I understand it) of marriage is this: The eternal union between a male and a female, whereby the family may exist as an eternal body. On Earth, the couple is entrusted to the rearing and upbringing of God's Children, their spiritual bothers and sisters, a testing ground where they may prove themselves worthy of the same power of Creation that belongs to God, once they become Eternal and Celestial Beings. Which such Power, by design, can only be used between a male and a female. The perversion of such, being an aberration of nature and an abomination.

My personal legal definition of Marriage is: the socially recognized union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.

To clarify, my definition shuts out anyone from marrying just to get legal sex and benefits, it doesn't matter if they "love each other" or not, if they're not planning on raising a family. It also does not exclude couples who find afterwards they are infertile, because generally these couples desire children, and try very hard to find a solution.

Unfortunately, neither such definition would ever fly in legal matters in our present state of time, so, ultimately it has to be simplified to "a socially and legally accepted union between a man and a woman where a family may be raised." Since, a couple alone, does not equal a family.


I believe this definition to be a proper one, because, it is the traditional definition, having existed since the beginning of history. Never in known history (as far as I'm aware) has society accepted "marriage" as anything but a union between a man and a woman. And this was out of natural necessity. A same-gender couple can not naturally produce offspring, it is a physical impossibility, so such a same-gender couple society would die out quickly because of it. If such were meant to be, nature, or God, would have made it so. But such is obviously not the case, and so obviously should not be the case.

Traditionally, Marriage as a legal matter was for the purpose of tracing lineage, and determining inheritance, and I see no reason why this should not continue to be the case. A same-gender couple can not have offspring to grant inheritance to, and as such they also have no one to trace lineage through them either. In essence they are "dead," by nature's standards, their genes obliterated, even if they can continue to move about. Such is their choice, and I see no reason to stop them from being able to make that choice, nor prevent the natural consequences of such choice. But, allowing them a legal adoption screws with the bookkeeping of future generations (since the lineage of the adopted child stops there, and there is no record of who the real "parents" are). Doing so also saves the couple from receiving the natural consequences of their actions, something I do not want to see occur to anyone regarding any situation.

Obviously there is the example of same-gender relations for purposes other then procreation. To this I say: no one is preventing people from having such private relations by refusing you marriages. What is being prevented, are legal benefits- which are not, nor ever can be considered "natural rights." and the ability to use certain terminology, which IMO is an incredibly petty argument not even worth discussing.

If a same-gender couple wants to "pretend" to be a family, they can "pretend." But it does not change the fact that they are only "pretending," and by nature's own standards, will never fully be granted such a reality. I see no reason why humankind should attempt to defy nature by allowing what nature itself would deny.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-13-2012 at 12:58 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 12:56 PM   #6
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
So you're okay with the government trampling over freedom of religion by preventing religions/religious denominations that wish to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies from doing so, or am I misinterpreting? (I feel the need, yet again, to point out that Christianity does not and never has had a monopoly on marriage).

>Never in known history (as far as I'm aware) has society accepted "marriage" as anything but a union between a man and a woman.

A brief history of same-sex unions. Basically, yes and no. In certain areas of the world (such as pre-christian rome), what historical references we do have to it do not speak of it as if it were anything out of the ordinary (by people such as Cicero and Martial). I've pointed this stuff out to you before (we had a whole discussion which ended in you concluding that you couldn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, which I can find for you if you want).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 01:12 PM. Reason: I cannae spell monopoly.
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:15 PM   #7
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
>Never in known history (as far as I'm aware) has society accepted "marriage" as anything but a union between a man and a woman.

A brief history of same-sex unions. Basically, yes and no.
There's a reason I put " " around marriage, because an unofficial union is not a marriage.

Strangely enough, your own source is saying that what is now considered "child molestation," (sexual relations between an older male and a young boy, "some even as young as seven") was also widely accepted in Greece and Rome, should we then also allow that along with the same-sex marriages? You can't defend one without defending the other by this source.

There's a reason the Israelites and Jews called those types civilizations Pagans and Heathens and sought to distance themselves as much as possible from them. I'd not be surprised to see this as one of them.


Quote:
So you're okay with the government trampling over freedom of religion by preventing religions/religious denominations that wish to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies from doing so, or am I misinterpreting? (I feel the need, yet again, to point out that Christianity does not and never has had a monoploy on marriage).
As a Christian, I must disagree, we have always have the monopoly on Marriage, ever since Adam and Eve. Of course, the problem is, those who disagree refuse to acknowledge our sources or consider them credible, so it's pointless to discuss.

Furthermore, yes, I'm okay with government "trampling over freedom of religion," (to use your words) on this issue, just as I am ok with it "trampling over freedom of religion," regarding certain other practices such as: rape, murder, child molestation and polygamy. As I'm sure you are aware, my religion is one of those who have already been "trampled on" regarding marriage, so, I have a right to speak on such a matter more so then some others.

If not an outright ban on such, I support a non-recognition of it as legally binding under the term "marriage." Furthermore, Constitutionally I can not support a Federal ban (but would not be offended by it), but I can support individual state bans in the USA.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-13-2012 at 01:27 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:18 PM   #8
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
There's a reason I put " " around marriage, because an unofficial union is not a marriage.
Several historians (such as Cicero and Martial) speak of official unions - moreover they do not speak of them as if they were in any way out of the ordinary.

Quote:
Strangely enough, your own source is saying that what is now considered "child molestation," (sexual relations between an older male and a young boy, "some even as young as seven") was also widely accepted in Greece and Rome, should we then also allow that along with the same-sex marriages? You can't defend one without defending the other by this source.
I wasn't defending them by this source (I defend same sex marriage for other reasons), merely correcting an apparent gap in your knowledge. I also find it hilarious that a Christian thinks they can pull this one without defending stoning as a method of execution or forcing raped women to marry their rapists, but that's rather off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Furthermore, yes, I'm okay with government "trampling over freedom of religion," (to use your words) on this issue, just as I am ok with it "trampling over freedom of religion," regarding certain other practices such as: rape, murder, child molestation and polygamy. As I'm sure you are aware, my religion is one of those who have already been "trampled on" regarding marriage, so, I have a right to speak on such a matter more so then some others.
If you're seriously comparing rape, murder and child molestation (all of which harm a non-consenting party) with gay marriage (which effects no-one other than the couple consenting to it) then there's no point in us continuing to discuss this, but thanks for taking the time to reply at any rate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 01:43 PM.
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:38 PM   #9
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Several historians (such as Cicero and Martial) speak of official unions - moreover they do not speak of them as if they were in any way out of the ordinary.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, from a past discussion, there is no proof of that having been anything more then a story.


Quote:
I wasn't defending them by this source (I defend same sex marriage for other reasons), merely correcting an apparent gap in your knowledge. I also find it hilarious that a Christian thinks they can pull this one without defending stoning as a method of execution or forcing raped women to marry their rapists, but that's rather off topic.
Stoning is a form of Capital Punishment. The USA does not prohibit capitol Punishment. What the USA does prohibit is cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, I've already detailed numerous times that the strictness of the Hebrew law was tailored to the stiffneckedness of the people. If a simple Slap on the wrist isn't enough to deter crime, the punishment must be scary enough to elicit obedience to the laws. Such as Stoning. As well, the law of Moses was fulfilled, and no longer binding to those who accept the new law. If they do not accept the new law, or do not know of it, they must continue in the law they have previously known, in order to be found obedient.

A Jew who knows only the Jewish law and follows it better then a Christian follows the Christian law (Jewish stoning included), will be considered the more righteous of the two, disregarding the sins incurred by disobeying the Christian Law.


Quote:
If you're seriously comparing rape, murder and child molestation (all of which harm a non-consenting party) with gay marriage (which effects no-one other than the couple consenting to it) then there's no point in us continuing to discuss this, but thanks for taking the time to reply at any rate.
Ok, then leave those out and just take Polygamy as my comparison. Can you do anything with that?

Edit:
Quote:
Actually, the due process clause of the fourteenth (iirc) amendment extends things like freedom of religion and such to state governments too, so if it's that part of the constitution that gives you pause about a federal ban then you can't constitutionally support state bans either.
Hmm, amendment 14, I assume you are referring to section 1?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jursidiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person withing it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes? I see nothing here referring to Religion. Save that the first amendment shall not abridged by law by the states. the first amendment being:

Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The problem with your logic is, the subject of the first Amendment is Congress- being the United States Congress. There is nothing here prohibiting the states, and fact, at ratification several states even had established state religions. The change came from ratification of State Constitutions to curtail it, but there is no mandate from the Constitution on the states to provide equally free exercise of religion.

There was no "separation of Church and State" intended either. Such a reference being an obscure remark made by Thomas Jefferson in confidence to another, long after the Constitution was ratified, and never intended to be an interpretative device of the same.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-13-2012 at 01:58 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:42 PM   #10
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Ok, then leave those out and just take Polygamy as my comparison. Can you do anything with that?
Nope, polygamy doesn't really bug me. Obviously it only works if all the people involved are okay with it - and I personally wouldn't enter into such a relationship, because I'd get jealous, (but then I wouldn't enter into a gay relationship either as I'm straight) - but I see no real reason for governments to have the power to regulate private relationships between consenting, mentally capable adults. I suppose you could argue against it on the basis that it could potentially be abused for tax breaks and the like, but I don't approve of tax breaks and the like for married couples anyway so (something like that for people with dependent children, sure, but not just for marriage). Even if you can demonstrate it's harmful for the people involved, as you're so fond of pointing out it's not the governments job to protect us from the consequences of our own actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
If not an outright ban on such, I support a non-recognition of it as legally binding under the term "marriage." Furthermore, Constitutionally I can not support a Federal ban (but would not be offended by it), but I can support individual state bans in the USA.
Actually, the due process clause of the fourteenth (iirc) amendment extends things like freedom of religion and such to state governments too, so if it's that part of the constitution that gives you pause about a federal ban then you can't constitutionally support state bans either.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 01:52 PM.
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 02:05 PM   #11
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Nope, polygamy doesn't really bug me. Obviously it only works if all the people involved are okay with it - and I personally wouldn't enter into such a relationship, because I'd get jealous, (but then I wouldn't enter into a gay relationship either as I'm straight) - but I see no real reason for governments to have the power to regulate private relationships between consenting, mentally capable adults. I suppose you could argue against it on the basis that it could potentially be abused for tax breaks and the like, but I don't approve of tax breaks and the like for married couples anyway so (something like that for people with dependent children, sure, but not just for marriage). Even if you can demonstrate it's harmful for the people involved, as you're so fond of pointing out it's not the governments job to protect us from the consequences of our own actions.
See, you're not opposed to it, but yet it is law anyway. Polygamous and same-gender marriages the same. If one can be legislated against I see no reason why the other can not either. And coming from someone who's religion was infringed by such a policy, that's saying something.



Quote:
Actually, the due process clause of the fourteenth (iirc) amendment extends things like freedom of religion and such to state governments too, so if it's that part of the constitution that gives you pause about a federal ban then you can't constitutionally support state bans either.
Addressed above in an edit. Whether the supreme court has ruled that way or not, textually and interpretively, there is nothing to suggest it. Except a Court trying to actively legislate from the bench.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 02:13 PM   #12
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
See, you're not opposed to it, but yet it is law anyway. Polygamous and same-gender marriages the same. If one can be legislated against I see no reason why the other can not either. And coming from someone who's religion was infringed by such a policy, that's saying something.
Oh, I assumed that it was obvious that that I was disapproving of the legislation against polygamy. The bit where I said "I see no real reasons for governments to have the power to have the power to regulate private relationships between consenting, mentally capable adults."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 02:21 PM   #13
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
And I was saying I approve of the legislation regarding polygamy, and also of enacting such for same-gender marriage as well.


Also, your comments on the 14th amendment?
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 02:25 PM   #14
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,999
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Okay, can I ask why you approve of such legislation? It's an infringement of your religion, as you said, and the only people it could really potentially harm (although I don't think it would in any way beyond that relationships are a bit of an emotional minefield anyway) are the people who're consenting to it - and as you say often, it's not for the government to save us from the consequences of our own actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Also, your comments on the 14th amendment?
I have to say I'm rather inclined to trust the expertise of the Supreme Court insofar as legal matters in the US law. US law (with, iirc, the exception of the state law of Louisiana which runs on the Napoleonic system of letter-trumps-spirit) holds the spirit of the law above the letter - and clearly in this case, the Supreme Court has held that the spirit of these amendments to be giving the people freedom of press/speech/religion rather than dictating which US officials can supress freedom of the press/speech/religion and which cannot.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 05-13-2012 at 03:21 PM. Reason: Really can't spell today. Also being a bit pompous & self-indulgent :p
Concept is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 05:32 PM   #15
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Amras.MG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muyotwo View Post
I think that the government should not recognize any unions as "marriages" and simply turn that term over to religions, but offer full partnership benefits to any committed couple who applies for them regardless of sex of the couple in question. "Sanctity of marriage" is protected as churches can make decisions as a whole whether or not to ordain something as a "marriage", church and state are further separated and homosexual couples have equal rights in the eyes of the government.
Holy shit I was thinking about a way to say this when I saw the thread, and voila, Muyo has already said it perfectly for me already.
__________________
Definitely a figment of your imagination
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 07:44 PM   #16
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Okay, can I ask why you approve of such legislation? It's an infringement of your religion, as you said, and the only people it could really potentially harm (although I don't think it would in any way beyond that relationships are a bit of an emotional minefield anyway) are the people who're consenting to it - and as you say often, it's not for the government to save us from the consequences of our own actions.
For one, my religion also teaches that we are to be subject to kings, rulers and magistrates (etc.), in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.
For two, it is an inactive part of the religion, we believe in it, and believe it will be practiced, but for the time being we are forbidden it.
For three, it's not about who individually is or is not harmed by the practice, it is about the moral compass of the country, which effects the citizens in much more subtle ways, for far worse outcomes in the long run.

For example, I'm not sure you've heard of the FLDS church (Fundamentalist LDS, an offshoot of my religion), but, it is a church which broke off when Polygamy was forbidden by the Prophet, in order to continue the practice. They live secluded, generally left alone, however, due to the continuation of polygamy, they have ended up perverting the practice so much, that they are marrying off girls around the age of 12 years to abusive husbands having a multitude of wives already (arranged underaged as well). There is no doubt in my mind that such moral perversion would proliferate not only my church but the country as well, should polygamy be legal, and there is no doubt in my mind that such a similar perversion of societal morals will also occur over time, during the next few generations, if same-gender marriage were to be made legal.

Societal Morals must be constantly maintained, or they will inevitably be perverted, eroded, and changed over time, creating a society with no Moral compass to guide them, ultimately ending with the same horrendous practices for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

No, it's not government's job to save us from the consequences of our actions, but it is their responsibility to encourage proper and moral behavior in conjunction with religion. If it were not to do so, there would be no enforcement capable of keeping people obedient to it's laws, save the iron fist of a Dictator, for which the people will have become perfectly suited for, no longer deserving of the freedom they abandoned.

"Our part is to pursue with steadiness what is right, turning neither to right nor left for the intrigues or popular delusions of the day, assured that the public approbation will in the end be with us." --Thomas Jefferson to Gen. Breckenridge, 1822.

Quote:
I have to say I'm rather inclined to trust the expertise of the Supreme Court insofar as legal matters in the US law. US law (with, iirc, the exception of the state law of Louisiana which runs on the Napoleonic system of letter-trumps-spirit) holds the spirit of the law above the letter - and clearly in this case, the Supreme Court has held that the spirit of these amendments to be giving the people freedom of press/speech/religion rather than dictating which US officials can supress freedom of the press/speech/religion and which cannot.
See, that's where the problem lies. The expertise should always reside with the people. And the Public Servants are to carry our the will of the people, not enact their own views. There are FAR too many occurrences of legislative action occurring on the Court's bench, where it has no authority to do so, for me to trust them. The Courts are not an End-All-Be-All body, and were never meant to be. If they were, we would never have progressed past the Dread Scott Decision, and Jim Crow Laws.

Congress has the power to impeach judges who judge differently then they desire, or perform some other act of Dishonestly to the people. And the People have the power to vote out Senators and House Members that do not do as the people desire. And the People vote the president who can choose new judges. Ultimately this is designed to place all the power of lawmaking in the hands of the people. Do not look to the officials for the answer, because the power to answer the question resides solely in the people.


BTW, Amras, I love that Metal Gardevoir avatar you have.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-13-2012 at 08:02 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 10:02 PM   #17
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,356
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
If it were not to do so, there would be no enforcement capable of keeping people obedient to it's laws, save the iron fist of a Dictator, for which the people will have become perfectly suited for, no longer deserving of the freedom they abandoned.
It's funny because God is this "Dictator." In fact, I can't help but think you subconsciously know this, because you capitalised "Dictator".

Quote:
Societal Morals must be constantly maintained, or they will inevitably be perverted, eroded, and changed over time, creating a society with no Moral compass to guide them, ultimately ending with the same horrendous practices for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
I agree, just look at how race mixing is prevalent nowadays!
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 11:33 PM   #18
Itzatrap
Volcano Badge
 
Itzatrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post

To clarify, my definition shuts out anyone from marrying just to get legal sex and benefits, it doesn't matter if they "love each other" or not, if they're not planning on raising a family. It also does not exclude couples who find afterwards they are infertile, because generally these couples desire children, and try very hard to find a solution.

Unfortunately, neither such definition would ever fly in legal matters in our present state of time, so, ultimately it has to be simplified to "a socially and legally accepted union between a man and a woman where a family may be raised." Since, a couple alone, does not equal a family.


I believe this definition to be a proper one, because, it is the traditional definition, having existed since the beginning of history. Never in known history (as far as I'm aware) has society accepted "marriage" as anything but a union between a man and a woman. And this was out of natural necessity. A same-gender couple can not naturally produce offspring, it is a physical impossibility, so such a same-gender couple society would die out quickly because of it. If such were meant to be, nature, or God, would have made it so. But such is obviously not the case, and so obviously should not be the case.
Who knows, maybe this is nature's way of controlling overpopulation if more gay people were to exist in the future seeing we can't biologically have a child together although it can still happen in many other ways so...


Quote:
Traditionally, Marriage as a legal matter was for the purpose of tracing lineage, and determining inheritance, and I see no reason why this should not continue to be the case. A same-gender couple can not have offspring to grant inheritance to, and as such they also have no one to trace lineage through them either. In essence they are "dead," by nature's standards, their genes obliterated, even if they can continue to move about. Such is their choice, and I see no reason to stop them from being able to make that choice, nor prevent the natural consequences of such choice. But, allowing them a legal adoption screws with the bookkeeping of future generations (since the lineage of the adopted child stops there, and there is no record of who the real "parents" are). Doing so also saves the couple from receiving the natural consequences of their actions, something I do not want to see occur to anyone regarding any situation.
Actually the real parents are the people who raise you, not who biologically concieves you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
For example, I'm not sure you've heard of the FLDS church (Fundamentalist LDS, an offshoot of my religion), but, it is a church which broke off when Polygamy was forbidden by the Prophet, in order to continue the practice. They live secluded, generally left alone, however, due to the continuation of polygamy, they have ended up perverting the practice so much, that they are marrying off girls around the age of 12 years to abusive husbands having a multitude of wives already (arranged underaged as well). There is no doubt in my mind that such moral perversion would proliferate not only my church but the country as well, should polygamy be legal, and there is no doubt in my mind that such a similar perversion of societal morals will also occur over time, during the next few generations, if same-gender marriage were to be made legal.

Societal Morals must be constantly maintained, or they will inevitably be perverted, eroded, and changed over time, creating a society with no Moral compass to guide them, ultimately ending with the same horrendous practices for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

No, it's not government's job to save us from the consequences of our actions, but it is their responsibility to encourage proper and moral behavior in conjunction with religion. If it were not to do so, there would be no enforcement capable of keeping people obedient to it's laws, save the iron fist of a Dictator, for which the people will have become perfectly suited for, no longer deserving of the freedom they abandoned.
Well not sure what you mean by the societal morals that must be maintained seeing as the use of marriage alone has changed like you said from exchanging of property to a love based union in the past century for many places around the world.

And it should not be the job of the government to encourage proper and moral behavior in conjunction with religion. You're certainly allowed to practice whatever religion you want but you do not force religion or beliefs on someone. It is the job of the government to keep order and all those things, while it may take all of its foundation from certain religions it should not be used to uphold religion.


@Rangeetsuper: Exactly, all same sex marriage does is promote the union of two people, not sure what sociatal decay is suppose to happen.
Itzatrap is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 12:19 AM   #19
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,719
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
As has been mentioned when this came up before, how you define marriage depends upon which religion you're going with. Christians would define it as being between a man and a woman, but christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage, never has, and some other legimately recognised religions do not have such gender hangups - surely freedom of religion requires these to be recognised.
I would argue that the marriage understood by Western civilization is traditionally viewed as male-female. In fact, the blanket term "gay marriage", while proporting the idea that marriage isn't between just a man and a woman, inherently concedes that the status quo is same sex marriage.

Therefore, on the basis of common understanding and historical tradition, we can infer that almost everyone accepts the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and same sex-marriage is a progressive effort to transform that definition, while bans on same-sex marriage are reinforcement of the status quo.

Christianity may have not had a monopoly over marriage but I don't think there was any comparable civilization (even in the Ancient World) with the political/cultural influence that included homosexual unions. Even Greece, which embraced homosexuality (on the basis of misogyny, that only a man could understand another man fully) still recognized male-female marriages.

Just so we're clear, this is my definition of marriage. The same-sex marriage movement is trying to re-define an already commonly understood idea of marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muyotwo View Post
"Sanctity of marriage" is protected as churches can make decisions as a whole whether or not to ordain something as a "marriage", church and state are further separated and homosexual couples have equal rights in the eyes of the government.
My impression is homosexual couples want to usher in a regime/attitude change toward homosexuality, a step beyond "tolerance" toward "embracing". Marriage therefore becomes a means to and end - forcing heterosexuals to accept homosexual marriage would be a step toward homosexuals not being seen as errant or deviant. It's similar to how there was heated racial prejudice underlying segregation, but with the downfall of segregation blacks were fully assimilated as regular United States citizens. Like during Reconstruction, albeit with less intensity, people raised during that era had different levels of tolerances toward blacks, but by the 21st century black people are widely treated no differently from non-blacks. It's not true everywhere, but is very significant compared to the 1960's.

My problem with this campaign is I can't see heterosexuals ever fully embracing homosexuality, because we're biologically programmed unless otherwise stated by our genes to be heterosexual. There's no programming in there for humans to hate black people, that prejudice was the result of cultural grooming. But instead, we're trying to use culture to overpower biology, which sometimes works, but more often than not doesn't. So, getting rid of marriage from government issued union licenses is dodging the main issue, that of imposed will by the gay community.

We'd have to ask a "gay activist" (not just a regular homosexual) what they think of your idea Muyo. I could be totally wrong calling this and they just want the financial benefits of a civil union, rather than seeing relief from emotional stigma at homosexual relationships being seen as perverted. But I can't see the issue from the fed's POV unless it's framed like this, because deigning the sanctity of marriage to churches seems like a good thing in a country founded on state's rights and personal freedoms.
__________________
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 05-14-2012, 12:54 AM   #20
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,764
Hi, I'm a homosexual. I would, someday, like to be legally bound to a consenting, adult person that I love with whom I wish to spend the rest of my life in a committed relationship. I would like to be afforded the same rights and privileges of my heterosexual contemporaries and peers. I do not demand that you change how you live or that you change how you perceive me. All I ask is that I am treated, in the eyes of the law, the same as anyone else and my sexual orientation should not influence that.

I am a law-abiding citizen who is working to receive my education so that I can become a contributing and loyal member of society. I have done nothing overtly wrong or sinful and believe myself to be a moral and just person. Yet, I am still being treated as a second-class citizen because I am a minority.

Personally, I fail to see how religion comes into play with this at all. Yes, marriages are recognized and celebrated in churches and other religious centers. There is a religious side to marriage. But, there is also a distinctly and entirely separate legal side to it as well. Signing a marriage license does not require the consent or input of any religious party. And, as such, churches should not have a say in what the law dictates. After all, this country is founded on the idea of separation of church and state. Even if the fundamental philosophy may have been influenced by Christian values, to say Christian values should dictate American law is no better than making America into a theocracy.

If you feel offended by some perceived violation of your cultural or religious traditions, that's fine. No one will force your churches to officiate these rituals. However, this should not mean that the separate legal aspect of marriage should be banned due to the objection of a vocal few concerning a matter that does not directly affect the tradition they wish to preserve.

As for all the precedents, historical references, etc., let me just say this: why does this matter? We are not Greeks, nor Romans, nor Byzantines, nor any other ancient civilization. It seems a bit ridiculous for us to transmute a very small and isolated portion of culture to ours without any clear context. Honestly, these are pretty horrible arguments for either side; all they prove is that there was a time and a place in which same-sex unions were treated as legal or legitimate. It doesn't prove them to be natural or unnatural; it doesn't prove them to be cultured or barbaric; it doesn't prove them to be right or wrong. Please, for the love of the Anthropological God, please stop taking cultural practices out of context.

As for any number of comparisons you can make to any other theoretical union, don't. There is no comparing me marrying a man with me marrying a dog or child or corpse or toaster since none of those things are consenting adults capable of their own decision-making processes. It is a waste of your time and mine to make those kinds of analogies.

As for calling it something else. Well. I suppose that is a step in the right direction. What I really desire is equality under the law. If it makes you more comfortable to call it something else, I can live with it, I suppose. However, it still seems to put me in the light of a second-class citizen, undeservedly so. But, if it is the compromise we are presented, I can live with it.

All I ask for is to be treated equally under the eyes of the law. If you cannot accept my sexual orientation because of your religious convictions, personal beliefs, political ideals or simple ignorance, so be it, but do not deny me my unalienable rights as a citizen of the United States. All men, white or black, man or woman, gay or straight, cis or trans, are created equal, but not all of us are treated as such.

tl;dr: My views summarized by Hank Green.

BORKED

I really don't have much time for rebuttals so feel free to argue against me but don't expect a reply. Sorry!

EDIT: Okay I told myself that I would stay out of this as much as I can but I just can't resist this one.

>If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, from a past discussion, there is no proof of that having been anything more then a story.

You do realize by saying this that you entirely undermine not only the whole institution of History, but also any arguments you've made yourself concerning the Bible or any other religious document or tradition that has ever existed, right?

Quote:
Traditionally, Marriage as a legal matter was for the purpose of tracing lineage, and determining inheritance, and I see no reason why this should not continue to be the case. A same-gender couple can not have offspring to grant inheritance to, and as such they also have no one to trace lineage through them either. In essence they are "dead," by nature's standards, their genes obliterated, even if they can continue to move about. Such is their choice, and I see no reason to stop them from being able to make that choice, nor prevent the natural consequences of such choice. But, allowing them a legal adoption screws with the bookkeeping of future generations (since the lineage of the adopted child stops there, and there is no record of who the real "parents" are). Doing so also saves the couple from receiving the natural consequences of their actions, something I do not want to see occur to anyone regarding any situation.
oh

oh wow

So let me get this straight.

You're saying that no one, regardless of sex or marriage status or whatever, should be able to adopt children because we are unable to trace their linage properly and that makes us unable to give people money and property after their ancestors die.

I don't know what kind of amazing capitalist paradise you live in but I'd sure as hell like to move there.

Last edited by Jerichi; 05-14-2012 at 01:16 AM.
Jerichi is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 04:59 AM   #21
Slash
Poison Jam
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,023
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
I love you so much right now, Jeri.

Now, unownmew, I would like to point out to you one thing: polygamy in itself promotes same-sex unions, whether what most people know of as polygamy or polyandry. From basic LDS, Jewish, and Islamic standards, it is not just the bonding of one man to a woman, and then another (ad infinitum until he stops). People who have no gender excluded, any union of more than two people is by definition at least partially same-sex, because the women are not only bound to their husband by marriage, but each other as well? Does it inherently mean it is a sexual relationship? Gods, no. But, to be fair, just because two people marry, it doesn't mean they have sex either, straight or gay. The fact still stands that two women who are married to the same man in a polygamist relationship are as well married to each other. Which means that even tradition Mormon doctrine should actually present itself as a wonderful source to its believers in favor of modern same-sex marriage, instead of in opposition.

Also, by your logic on the command to obey the rules of the country, being beholden to the policy of the king and whatnot, particularly the part on honouring, obeying, and sustaining the law, if a bill was passed, or a Supreme Court ruling went through, to sanction gay marriage nationwide, you would neither try to get it repealed, nor have any qualms about your church doing such a ceremony, because that is what the law states is now permissible. Normally, one on the side of gay marriage would have to bring up the "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" argument, but you set it up for me perfectly, and I thank you for that.

However, you say "Pagans" and "Heathens" as though it is some sort of disease or otherwise completely unfavourable and disrespectful thing. I'd just like to say that just because you do not agree with a person's religious system, does not mean that none of their history or legacy counts as part of an argument. And if we have to include the abrahamic (and legacy, meaning Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim) teachings, the divine origin of which is questionable at best, there is no reason to exclude or discount these other histories, or the legitimacy of the unions represented thereof. Unless, of course, you want to debate exclusively free of doctrine, not bringing religious or tradition into it, nor things like supposed "laws" of divine morality. However, I a) doubt you would win such an argument, and b) doubt you'd even try for very long, if at all.

Also, Huff Post.

Reminder, it's late and I'm dyslexic. Errors in spelling and sentence structure are to be mildly expected.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealthy View Post
As may be expected though, our clear winner here was Kairne, ASB's champion of prioritizing the pokemon you like over those that are objectively better. I mean, one of his mains is a Watchog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.
Leader of the "Stop Screwing Over Smeargle" Brigade

ASB
Spoiler: show
Art by Kairne
ASB
[URL="http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=4387"]
Daisy Art:

Spoiler: show


Battlecuts courtesy of DaisyInari

Random stuffs:
Spoiler: show


Spoiler: show
Slash is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:19 AM   #22
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itzatrap View Post
Who knows, maybe this is nature's way of controlling overpopulation if more gay people were to exist in the future seeing we can't biologically have a child together although it can still happen in many other ways so...

Humanity was made to populate, like rabbits. If nature was to try and curb our Population, it would do so through the use of predators and natural disasters, just like it uses with every other species of animal on this planet, not by naturally birthing gays. No matter how hard we try to defeat nature's predators, we will ever be at the mercy of natural disasters.



Quote:
Actually the real parents are the people who raise you, not who biologically concieves you.
A parent is: one who begets offspring, or, a mother and a father who nurture a child.


Quote:
Well not sure what you mean by the societal morals that must be maintained seeing as the use of marriage alone has changed like you said from exchanging of property to a love based union in the past century for many places around the world.
That's exactly what I mean, what was once, is no longer, and was is, will cease to be, unless a constant effort is made to preserve it.

Quote:
And it should not be the job of the government to encourage proper and moral behavior in conjunction with religion. You're certainly allowed to practice whatever religion you want but you do not force religion or beliefs on someone. It is the job of the government to keep order and all those things, while it may take all of its foundation from certain religions it should not be used to uphold religion.
What is The Law but a set of codes that defines what is and is not (morally) acceptable and enforces it? I'm not saying it's the role of government to tell you how to live, or to make you agree, but, "Do not kill" is both a law and a moral. The law simply determines the consequence (if any) for breaking that moral.

Quote:
@Rangeetsuper: Exactly, all same sex marriage does is promote the union of two people, not sure what sociatal decay is suppose to happen.
The societal decay, is, the decay of the morals of society. It's already occurring visibly if you pay attention, what dress is considered commonplace now, would have been an outrage 50 years ago. The general lack of respect young people give to people now, would have been a horrendous failure of the parents 100 years ago. The subject matter of some everyday conversations now, would have been something completely shameful to discuss 150 years ago.

Is this Progress? Or Decay disguised as progress? Is it a good thing to be open-minded? I say, truth still exists, just as it did in the past. And turning from it to be "openminded" will only invite further decay, until people demand openmindedness and acceptance for even pedophilia, and worse. Such is the route of "Openmindedness," and is why I say that Society is on the road to decay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
I love you so much right now, Jeri.

Now, unownmew, I would like to point out to you one thing: polygamy in itself promotes same-sex unions, whether what most people know of as polygamy or polyandry. From basic LDS, Jewish, and Islamic standards, it is not just the bonding of one man to a woman, and then another (ad infinitum until he stops). People who have no gender excluded, any union of more than two people is by definition at least partially same-sex, because the women are not only bound to their husband by marriage, but each other as well? Does it inherently mean it is a sexual relationship? Gods, no. But, to be fair, just because two people marry, it doesn't mean they have sex either, straight or gay. The fact still stands that two women who are married to the same man in a polygamist relationship are as well married to each other. Which means that even tradition Mormon doctrine should actually present itself as a wonderful source to its believers in favor of modern same-sex marriage, instead of in opposition.
It may be true in a roundabout manner that two women married to the same man are bonded together as well, and that may be another reason why my church was commanded to cease all polygamous marriages, because it would inevitably end up supporting gay marriage in the future if it didn't. However I also feel that there is a big difference between the two: Polygamous marriage has at least one each of the different genders, while gay marriage is exclusively a pair incapable of procreation.

Quote:
Also, by your logic on the command to obey the rules of the country, being beholden to the policy of the king and whatnot, particularly the part on honouring, obeying, and sustaining the law, if a bill was passed, or a Supreme Court ruling went through, to sanction gay marriage nationwide, you would neither try to get it repealed, nor have any qualms about your church doing such a ceremony, because that is what the law states is now permissible. Normally, one on the side of gay marriage would have to bring up the "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" argument, but you set it up for me perfectly, and I thank you for that.
Wrong. If there is a moral issue on the line, and we in the church have the power to do something about it, we have not only the ability, but also the responsibility to do so, but, if, after all we can do to try and change it through the legal structure, it remains unchanged, then we either accept it, or await further revelation from God on what we should do in this new situation.

Quote:
However, you say "Pagans" and "Heathens" as though it is some sort of disease or otherwise completely unfavourable and disrespectful thing. I'd just like to say that just because you do not agree with a person's religious system, does not mean that none of their history or legacy counts as part of an argument. And if we have to include the abrahamic (and legacy, meaning Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim) teachings, the divine origin of which is questionable at best, there is no reason to exclude or discount these other histories, or the legitimacy of the unions represented thereof. Unless, of course, you want to debate exclusively free of doctrine, not bringing religious or tradition into it, nor things like supposed "laws" of divine morality. However, I a) doubt you would win such an argument, and b) doubt you'd even try for very long, if at all.
I just remembered from when I read the Apocrypha, that the pagan Greeks and other nations trying to conquer the Hebrews were exceptionally evil, oppressively trying to make them accept their culture, which undoubtedly included gay sex and gay unions. And realized, they were probably called pagan and heathen because of such practices.

Of course I would not try to argue morality without the use of the Abrahamic religions, what purpose would there be in debating a falsehood with another falsehood? There could be no winner in such a fight, only with truth on my side would I win. And there is little question in my mind that The Bible, translated correctly, is truth. Not because I was told so and trained to think that way, but because there is no other logical explanation for what I know, which you have not seen.



Jerichi, I shall try to respond to you in a respectful manner. If it comes across differently, I apologize, but I do not apologize for my views.

You asked in your post, to be treated as an equal person, afforded all the right and privileges a heterosexual man is, and treated equally under the law.
As for myself, I would be happy to treat you as a fellow human and as a fellow male.
As for the law, you already have everything you asked for.
You are treated as a human, and given all the same rights and privileges a heterosexual is. A Heterosexual is not given the "right or privilege" to marry another of the same gender, and you are not excluded. You are already being treated as an equal person under the law, afforded the exact same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual is afforded.

And because of this, I can only assume that what you are asking for is not "equality" but a "sense of fairness," to be an exception to the law, instead of being treated equally by it. There has been a concerted long-term effort to redefine certain words, like equality, to mean something they never meant before. Fairness was never a right attributed to the natural state of man, and for something to be fair, is to have another determine subjectively what "fair" means. And to define equality as fairness, was by design, because it opens up a vast amount of power to government to determine what "fair" means, which power the government was never intended to have. In the mind of someone who wants fairness, is to have increased benefits in order to rectify past wrongs. But these increased benefits, by definition, throw equality out of balance.

Are you honestly seeking equality under the law, like blacks desired during the time of segregation, or are what you seeking actually a sense of fairness, because you perceive heterosexuals receive more legal benefits then you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I would argue that the marriage understood by Western civilization is traditionally viewed as male-female. In fact, the blanket term "gay marriage", while proporting the idea that marriage isn't between just a man and a woman, inherently concedes that the status quo is same sex marriage.

Therefore, on the basis of common understanding and historical tradition, we can infer that almost everyone accepts the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and same sex-marriage is a progressive effort to transform that definition, while bans on same-sex marriage are reinforcement of the status quo.

Just so we're clear, this is my definition of marriage. The same-sex marriage movement is trying to re-define an already commonly understood idea of marriage.
This is what I've been trying to say, only much more eloquently. Same-sex marriage is an attack on the status quo, and an attempt to redefine a word that has a long history of meaning something else.


Quote:
My impression is homosexual couples want to usher in a regime/attitude change toward homosexuality, a step beyond "tolerance" toward "embracing". Marriage therefore becomes a means to and end - forcing heterosexuals to accept homosexual marriage would be a step toward homosexuals not being seen as errant or deviant. It's similar to how there was heated racial prejudice underlying segregation, but with the downfall of segregation blacks were fully assimilated as regular United States citizens. Like during Reconstruction, albeit with less intensity, people raised during that era had different levels of tolerances toward blacks, but by the 21st century black people are widely treated no differently from non-blacks. It's not true everywhere, but is very significant compared to the 1960's.
This is also something I've been trying to say, (though obviously failing), particularly regarding morals. From what I see of their actions and statements, homosexuals, particularly the activists, are not satisfied with simply being tolerated and granted a legal union (if they were, they already have it without altering the definition of marriage), they want to be accepted, Celebrated even, as never a heterosexual relationship was. And from this desire to fundamentally alter society, I can see numerous moral dilemmas that will pop up, and, if gay marriage was followed to full fruition of the homosexual ideal- not just being another marriage but being a widely Celebrated and ritualized practice, there would end up such a decay in moral values that the future society would not even be recognizable to us today.



If we look to history regarding widely accepted gay union, we have a couple sources, but, the looks of them are not so appealing. Greece and Rome, widely homosexual, but, also widely supported what we would consider today to be "child molestation," relations between a man and a much younger boy (even as young as seven). What proof can be given that will show that acceptance of same-sex marriage would not also end up with practices like this sometime in the future? I've often heard the claim, it's fine as long as the parties are consenting adults, and no one gets hurt. What makes one so confident that the future generations will share that moral? When history is already showing us that as the generations continue, morals are pushed further and further away, and made more and more lax?
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:25 AM   #23
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,356
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
until people demand openmindedness and acceptance for even pedophilia
Aw man, I missed when children were ruled as being consenting adults and being able to sign contracts, didn't I?
__________________
Spoiler: show

Last edited by Rangeet; 05-14-2012 at 09:42 AM.
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:36 AM   #24
Talon87
Nebby. Back into the bag.
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,487
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I would argue that the marriage understood by Western civilization is traditionally viewed as male-female. In fact, the blanket term "gay marriage", while proporting the idea that marriage isn't between just a man and a woman, inherently concedes that the status quo is same sex marriage.

Therefore, on the basis of common understanding and historical tradition, we can infer that almost everyone accepts the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and same sex-marriage is a progressive effort to transform that definition, while bans on same-sex marriage are reinforcement of the status quo.
In this country, if a man works a job that was historically considered exclusive to women, you'll often find people subconsciously feeling the need to clarify this fact by appending some masculine word onto it. For example, "a guy nurse" for nursing or "a male secretary" for secretarial work. That this belies the status quo people perceive in their minds does not, in my opinion, mean that it belies how they define those occupations. No one is saying, "In my opinion, part of the definition of being a secretary is that you have a vagina and, therefore, if you don't have one then I'm going to have to draw attention to that by calling you a male secretary." What people are in fact saying, as I think you were correct in pointing out, is, "In my opinion, the status quo is for women to be secretaries to the exclusion of men. So since this secretary is a dude, I feel the need to clarify this for you lest you assume he is a woman." Putting the shoe on the other foot, Americans (to a lesser extent) and Japanese (to a greater extent) will append a feminizing term or prefix to most professions stereotypically associated with men in previous generations. So for example, "a lady teacher," "a lady doctor," "a lady lawyer," "a female special investigator," etc. Again, it doesn't mean that in either Americans' or Japanese's minds the very definition of what it means to be a doctor or a lawyer involves having a penis and sexually identifying oneself as a man: it just belies the populace's awareness of the status quo and their subconscious need to clarify for their audience what they believe would otherwise be misleading information.

That's the distinction I would make: status quo perceptions vs. definitions. You seem to be saying, "Perception of the status quo; ergo, definition." I follow you on the first leg of that adventure but not on the second. Certainly we say "gay marriage" because, just as you've correctly pointed out, the status quo in this society has been male-female marriage to the exclusion of all others for centuries. But I don't think you can then make the philosophical leap from "we perceive a marital status quo" to "we define the institution of marriage in terms of this status quo."
Talon87 is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:26 AM   #25
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
A parent is: one who begets offspring, or, a mother and a father who nurture a child.
You forgot the second half.

Definition of PARENT

1
a : one that begets or brings forth offspring
b : a person who brings up and cares for another

(From Merriam-Webster's dictionary)
__________________
Tyranidos 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 08:52 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.