05-16-2012, 05:41 PM | #51 | |
Silver LO
|
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:
Last edited by Slash; 05-16-2012 at 05:44 PM. |
|
05-16-2012, 06:04 PM | #52 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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. |
05-16-2012, 07:02 PM | #53 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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. |
|||||
05-16-2012, 07:15 PM | #54 |
Silver LO
|
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 |
05-16-2012, 07:48 PM | #55 | |||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
|||||||||
05-16-2012, 07:55 PM | #56 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
05-16-2012, 08:13 PM | #57 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
__________________
|
05-16-2012, 08:23 PM | #58 |
Creepy Hand Person
|
>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. |
05-16-2012, 08:36 PM | #59 |
Banned
|
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. |
05-16-2012, 08:42 PM | #60 |
超高校級 写真師
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hope's Peak Academy
Posts: 2,723
|
Because using basic algebra as some sort of proof for social debate is reasonable discussion, right?
__________________
|
05-16-2012, 10:05 PM | #62 |
Problematic Fave
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.
__________________
|
05-16-2012, 10:38 PM | #64 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
B. Yes. C. Yes. Quote:
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
__________________
|
||
05-16-2012, 11:29 PM | #65 |
時の彼方へ
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.
__________________
|
05-16-2012, 11:38 PM | #66 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
05-16-2012, 11:39 PM | #67 | |
Silver LO
|
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:
Last edited by Slash; 05-16-2012 at 11:46 PM. |
|
05-17-2012, 01:07 AM | #68 |
Dragon's Tears
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,470
|
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.
__________________
|
05-17-2012, 01:15 AM | #69 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
05-17-2012, 10:24 AM | #70 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-17-2012, 11:03 AM | #72 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by unownmew; 05-17-2012 at 11:19 AM. |
|
05-17-2012, 03:06 PM | #73 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Thanks LBC. In an effort to right the rails, I'll step into the arena-
Quote:
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 |
|
05-17-2012, 03:33 PM | #74 |
Silver LO
|
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?
|
05-17-2012, 04:34 PM | #75 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
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 |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|