EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:17 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So the right does not exist because you believe there should be a definition that precludes that in a certain religious interpretation?


What I believe is based on that which constitutes an already firmly established institution.


Which, in the US, more often ends in divorce, annulment, or murder than not.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.




Quote:
Quote:
Just as women did not have the rights due to their being the wrong sex and African Americans not having rights due to their being the wrong race?


More like not having rights because some refuse to exercise them as legally defined.


There are no legally defined rights based solely on the narrow definition of marriage as you seem to belive there are.

Quote:
Quote:
All they needed to do was become the correct race or sex, so it was their fault for not having rights.


That argument fails in that homosexuals DO have the right to marry, if it is indeed marriage they seek.


Just as you could have the right to vote for a candidate predetermined by a religious group and be called a "right to vote"?

Quote:
Partner a gay man with a lesbian woman and you're all set. :twisted:


I can see you being down with only homosexuals being allowed to marry so you would be prevented from getting the family benefits for the family you choose to have. You could have them if you married the right man would be all the choice you would need.

Quote:
Quote:
Make perfect sense if you close both eyes, tilt your head back, and slam it into the wall in front of you with as much force as you can muster. :-k #-o


If that's what it takes to knock some sense into your head. :razz:


It is not my head that is lacking in sense though. :mrgreen: =;

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Human-animal marriages? :?:

This is a silly subject, even by my own standards(Such as they are)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:43 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
What I believe is based on that which constitutes an already firmly established institution.


Which, in the US, more often ends in divorce, annulment, or murder than not.


Which, is beside the point.

Quote:
Quote:
That argument fails in that homosexuals DO have the right to marry, if it is indeed marriage they seek.


Just as you could have the right to vote for a candidate predetermined by a religious group and be called a "right to vote"?

Funny, given the choices we have for president this year at least.

Quote:
I can see you being down with only homosexuals being allowed to marry so you would be prevented from getting the family benefits for the family you choose to have. You could have them if you married the right man would be all the choice you would need.


If that were our natural tendency, culturally accepted, and legal definition of marriage, sure.

Quote:
It is not my head that is lacking in sense though. :mrgreen: =;


That makes two of us. 8)

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:50 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Iowanic wrote:
Human-animal marriages? :?:

This is a silly subject, even by my own standards(Such as they are)


Humans are animals .... aren't they? So if two people get married at least one of them should be an animal.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:57 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
What I believe is based on that which constitutes an already firmly established institution.


Which, in the US, more often ends in divorce, annulment, or murder than not.


Which, is beside the point.


Not the point of firmly established if it falls apart more than not. :mrgreen:


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That argument fails in that homosexuals DO have the right to marry, if it is indeed marriage they seek.


Just as you could have the right to vote for a candidate predetermined by a religious group and be called a "right to vote"?


Funny, given the choices we have for president this year at least.


If I actually wanted the job, I would change my name to None Ofthe Above and run on the Independent ticket and I bet I would win any election I wanted.

Quote:
Quote:
I can see you being down with only homosexuals being allowed to marry so you would be prevented from getting the family benefits for the family you choose to have. You could have them if you married the right man would be all the choice you would need.


If that were our natural tendency, culturally accepted, and legal definition of marriage, sure.


There is no such legal definition of marriage prior to the rush to prevent same sex marriages in some places. There is a question as to whether marriage is actually a natural tendancy, but homosexuality is clearly natural in many species. Which culture do we pick for acceptability of rights? The culture said women did not have rights. The culture said certain races did not have rights. The culture said certain nationalities should not have rights.

Quote:
Quote:
It is not my head that is lacking in sense though. :mrgreen: =;


That makes two of us. 8)


You wish :crazy: :lol:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:53 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If I actually wanted the job, I would change my name to None Ofthe Above and run on the Independent ticket and I bet I would win any election I wanted.
now I am tempted to change my name


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:53 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Which, is beside the point.


Not the point of firmly established if it falls apart more than not. :mrgreen:


The practice, how we do it, the inputs required to do it. You know what I’m talking about.

Quote:
Quote:
Funny, given the choices we have for president this year at least.


If I actually wanted the job, I would change my name to None Ofthe Above and run on the Independent ticket and I bet I would win any election I wanted.


You'd get my vote.

Quote:
Quote:
If that were our natural tendency, culturally accepted, and legal definition of marriage, sure.


There is no such legal definition of marriage prior to the rush to prevent same sex marriages in some places.


True, yet we are comfortably under natural tendency and cultural acceptance.

Quote:
There is a question as to whether marriage is actually a natural tendancy, but homosexuality is clearly natural in many species.


I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural. I’m talking natural tendency as in the formation of opposite sex couples as opposed to same sex.

Quote:
Which culture do we pick for acceptability of rights?


We can decide for ourselves. No need to pick.

Quote:
The culture said women did not have rights. The culture said certain races did not have rights. The culture said certain nationalities should not have rights.


Same culture that ultimately said they did. Again, we’re talking rights denied vs. that don’t by definition exist.

My lack of right to an abortion prevents my insurance and medical providers from giving me the attention I think I need because abortion isn’t defined accordingly.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:35 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Which, is beside the point.


Not the point of firmly established if it falls apart more than not. :mrgreen:


The practice, how we do it, the inputs required to do it. You know what I’m talking about.


All of those would remain the same, though. The participants might change but not that much.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If that were our natural tendency, culturally accepted, and legal definition of marriage, sure.


There is no such legal definition of marriage prior to the rush to prevent same sex marriages in some places.


True, yet we are comfortably under natural tendency and cultural acceptance.


The natural tendancy is still questionable and the cultural acceptance is very subjective. Which culture do we choose for acceptance?

Quote:
Quote:
There is a question as to whether marriage is actually a natural tendancy, but homosexuality is clearly natural in many species.


I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural. I’m talking natural tendency as in the formation of opposite sex couples as opposed to same sex.


The natural tendancy in the formation of same sex couples has always been there, just some have opposed it for their own reasons.

Quote:
Quote:
Which culture do we pick for acceptability of rights?


We can decide for ourselves. No need to pick.


Then the whole cultural acceptance issue is out the window? The decision was made when we applied the Constitution to all citizens equally.

Quote:
Quote:
The culture said women did not have rights. The culture said certain races did not have rights. The culture said certain nationalities should not have rights.


Same culture that ultimately said they did.


This one will do the same for homosexuals eventually too.

Quote:
Again, we’re talking rights denied vs. that don’t by definition exist.


What rights do not by definition do not exist? The right to marry? If not and it is supposed to be the right for a homosexual to marry, it would be a denial of rights.

Quote:
My lack of right to an abortion prevents my insurance and medical providers from giving me the attention I think I need because abortion isn’t defined accordingly.


You just need to have a sex change opreation and the donation of a reproductive system and then you can have the abortion. The homosexual partners in a marrige already have everything required to be married except the legal right in some states.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All of those would remain the same, though. The participants might change but not that much.


Well there you go.

Quote:
The natural tendancy is still questionable


Questionable in what context, exactly? Just making friends? Clearly, humans tend to form opposite sex partnerships with regard to courting/mating/etc. Better, or need we define tendency?

Quote:
and the cultural acceptance is very subjective. Which culture do we choose for acceptance?


Our own.

Quote:
Quote:
We can decide for ourselves. No need to pick.


Then the whole cultural acceptance issue is out the window?


The point was what we are willing to accept as a culture, not what some other culture accepts.

Quote:
The decision was made when we applied the Constitution to all citizens equally.


When was that?

Quote:
Quote:
Same culture that ultimately said they did.


This one will do the same for homosexuals eventually too.
Probably. We’ll see.

Quote:
What rights do not by definition do not exist?


The ones that don’t make any sense. If marriage is defined as X and there is a right to it with components of Y and Z required for it to be exercised, then I cannot exercise it with components other than Y and Z. 2 Y's or 2 Z's won't suffice. It's that whole process and it's required inputs thing again.

Quote:
The right to marry? If not and it is supposed to be the right for a homosexual to marry, it would be a denial of rights.


That would be a matter of how we define marriage. We can make it possible between a human and a rock if we wanted to. It's no more skin off anyone's back than that of two men marrying, right?

Quote:
Quote:
My lack of right to an abortion prevents my insurance and medical providers from giving me the attention I think I need because abortion isn’t defined accordingly.


Quote:
You just need to have a sex change opreation and the donation of a reproductive system and then you can have the abortion.

But I don’t need that if we define abortion just so.

Quote:
The homosexual partners in a marrige already have everything required to be married except the legal right in some states.


That’s just it. The required elements aren't present. The same applies to me and abortion.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:03 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All of those would remain the same, though. The participants might change but not that much.


Well there you go..


Yet you oppose it?

Quote:
Quote:
The natural tendancy is still questionable


Questionable in what context, exactly? Just making friends? Clearly, humans tend to form opposite sex partnerships with regard to courting/mating/etc. Better, or need we define tendency?


No, there is a clear natural tendancy toward homosexuality as well, so the natural tendancy is not just heterosexual.

Quote:
Quote:
and the cultural acceptance is very subjective. Which culture do we choose for acceptance?


Our own.


Our own means different things to different people, thus the subjective nature.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We can decide for ourselves. No need to pick.


Then the whole cultural acceptance issue is out the window?


The point was what we are willing to accept as a culture, not what some other culture accepts.


But that assumes we all have the same culture, which is clearly not the case when there is such a critical disagreement on what the culture is.

Quote:
Quote:
The decision was made when we applied the Constitution to all citizens equally.


When was that?


It was a process that started with the Bill of Rights and ended with the Civil Rights Act.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Same culture that ultimately said they did.


This one will do the same for homosexuals eventually too.
Probably. We’ll see.


So what is the benefit of trying to remain a caveman? :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
What rights do not by definition do not exist?


The ones that don’t make any sense. If marriage is defined as X and there is a right to it with components of Y and Z required for it to be exercised, then I cannot exercise it with components other than Y and Z. 2 Y's or 2 Z's won't suffice. It's that whole process and it's required inputs thing again.


Marriage is not legally defined with required components though. That is a recent creation attempt.


Quote:
Quote:
The right to marry? If not and it is supposed to be the right for a homosexual to marry, it would be a denial of rights.


That would be a matter of how we define marriage. We can make it possible between a human and a rock if we wanted to. It's no more skin off anyone's back than that of two men marrying, right?


Not according to the fundamentalist who claim it will somehow damage marriage ... worse than divorce does.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My lack of right to an abortion prevents my insurance and medical providers from giving me the attention I think I need because abortion isn’t defined accordingly.


Quote:
You just need to have a sex change opreation and the donation of a reproductive system and then you can have the abortion.

But I don’t need that if we define abortion just so.


If you need to define male abortion to be happy, so be it. But it is a technical term and will still have the same technical meaning regardless of the political meaning. Marriage his not a technical term.
Quote:
Quote:
The homosexual partners in a marrige already have everything required to be married except the legal right in some states.


That’s just it. The required elements aren't present.


What is missing? An X and Y chromosome? Why? Marriage does not require sexual contact. It does not require reproduction. It does not require specific sexual organs to be present. Only those with an opposing mindset make such a claim attempt. It is an attempt. Because there are specific cases of legal marraige where there are lacking these very same "required" elements. What is missing exactly which would be required for a marriage in the "perfect" universe?

Quote:
The same applies to me and abortion


Unless and until a fetus is implanted into your body.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Well there you go..


Yet you oppose it?


Not necessarily.

Quote:
No, there is a clear natural tendancy toward homosexuality as well, so the natural tendancy is not just heterosexual.


Then my point was the difference in magnitude of the two tendencies in question.

Quote:
Quote:
Our own.


Our own means different things to different people, thus the subjective nature.


Yes, it is still subjective.

Quote:
Quote:
The point was what we are willing to accept as a culture, not what some other culture accepts.


But that assumes we all have the same culture, which is clearly not the case when there is such a critical disagreement on what the culture is.


The culture is that of the country. I realize there are different sub-cultures and resulting opinions at play.

Quote:
It was a process that started with the Bill of Rights and ended with the Civil Rights Act.


Then why did it take up until now for this issue to become the controversy that it has? That’s rhetorical. I know why.

Quote:
Quote:
Probably. We’ll see.


So what is the benefit of trying to remain a caveman? :razz:
[/quote]

1971…middle-aged…maybe, but hardly a caveman.

Quote:
Quote:
The ones that don’t make any sense. If marriage is defined as X and there is a right to it with components of Y and Z required for it to be exercised, then I cannot exercise it with components other than Y and Z. 2 Y's or 2 Z's won't suffice. It's that whole process and it's required inputs thing again.


Marriage is not legally defined with required components though. That is a recent creation attempt.


I know, and I have no problem with the attempt.

Quote:
Quote:
That would be a matter of how we define marriage. We can make it possible between a human and a rock if we wanted to. It's no more skin off anyone's back than that of two men marrying, right?


Not according to the fundamentalist who claim it will somehow damage marriage ... worse than divorce does.


You’ve mistaken me for one who cares what fundamentalists say. It will certainly change marriage as we know it. I don’t think it will damage it so much as effectively render it no more meaningful than a civil contract two may acquire without marrying.

Quote:
If you need to define male abortion to be happy, so be it. But it is a technical term and will still have the same technical meaning regardless of the political meaning. Marriage his not a technical term.


Doesn’t matter so long as it’s defined legally. You have no problem with legal definitions that are nonsensical?

Quote:
What is missing? An X and Y chromosome?


A member of the opposite sex.

Quote:
Why?


Because we’re dealing with homosexual couples.

Quote:
Marriage does not require sexual contact. It does not require reproduction.


Technically, marriage doesn’t require anything but two people of the opposite sex to commit that way.

Quote:
It does not require specific sexual organs to be present. Only those with an opposing mindset make such a claim attempt. It is an attempt.


Perhaps you’d like to think so because it makes your case easier or comforts you somehow. I have my beliefs on what marriage is. I don’t have to necessarily oppose anything simply because I don’t care to alter them. I know it makes no difference to you or homosexuals wishing to be married, but that’s not my problem.

Quote:
Because there are specific cases of legal marraige where there are lacking these very same "required" elements.


Yes, there are. I’m but one man with one set of beliefs.

Quote:
What is missing exactly which would be required for a marriage in the "perfect" universe?


Perfect universe? What? Anyway, I believe you already know the answer to that. No need to go off on that hair-splitting tangent.

Quote:
Quote:
The same applies to me and abortion


Unless and until a fetus is implanted into your body.


…or we define it such that a fetus isn’t necessary…like we’re attempting to define marriage not requiring a member of the opposite sex.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:20 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Well there you go..


Yet you oppose it?


Not necessarily.


Right. :lol:

Quote:
Quote:
No, there is a clear natural tendancy toward homosexuality as well, so the natural tendancy is not just heterosexual.


Then my point was the difference in magnitude of the two tendencies in question.


Magnitude makes it no less natural.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The point was what we are willing to accept as a culture, not what some other culture accepts.


But that assumes we all have the same culture, which is clearly not the case when there is such a critical disagreement on what the culture is.


The culture is that of the country. I realize there are different sub-cultures and resulting opinions at play.


There is no single culture within our country though.

Quote:
Quote:
It was a process that started with the Bill of Rights and ended with the Civil Rights Act.


Then why did it take up until now for this issue to become the controversy that it has? That’s rhetorical. I know why.


The same reason it took so long for women to be given the basic rights or even longer for the largeest minority race. Prejudice which had to be overcome.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Probably. We’ll see.


So what is the benefit of trying to remain a caveman? :razz:


1971…middle-aged…maybe, but hardly a caveman.[/quote]

Talk to your daugher about the phone, computer, video games, etc. you had and see if she does not agree with the caveman description. 8)

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The ones that don’t make any sense. If marriage is defined as X and there is a right to it with components of Y and Z required for it to be exercised, then I cannot exercise it with components other than Y and Z. 2 Y's or 2 Z's won't suffice. It's that whole process and it's required inputs thing again.


Marriage is not legally defined with required components though. That is a recent creation attempt.


I know, and I have no problem with the attempt.


Even though it is just an attempt to prevent certain people from having the rights others enjoy. Sad.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That would be a matter of how we define marriage. We can make it possible between a human and a rock if we wanted to. It's no more skin off anyone's back than that of two men marrying, right?


Not according to the fundamentalist who claim it will somehow damage marriage ... worse than divorce does.


You’ve mistaken me for one who cares what fundamentalists say.


But you said "anyone's back" which would include those folks who claim they would be damaged in some fashion.

Quote:
It will certainly change marriage as we know it. I don’t think it will damage it so much as effectively render it no more meaningful than a civil contract two may acquire without marrying.


But you cannot acheive the same situation with a civil contract. The civil marriage IS nothing more than a specifc civil contract that grants rights and benefits due to its application. A religious ceremony not following the the requirements of the government does nothing other than give the spectators something to do. Thus, it is the legal marraige which is being denied to part of the population.

Quote:
Quote:
If you need to define male abortion to be happy, so be it. But it is a technical term and will still have the same technical meaning regardless of the political meaning. Marriage his not a technical term.


Doesn’t matter so long as it’s defined legally. You have no problem with legal definitions that are nonsensical?


The definition is not nonsensical since it has never had a single definition since its inception.

Quote:
Quote:
What is missing? An X and Y chromosome?


A member of the opposite sex.


That is not a requirement. A transgender can be married legally and that is only a approximation of the opposite sex.

Quote:
Quote:
Why?


Because we’re dealing with homosexual couples.


Not a valid answer. Why are homosexual couples treated differently?

Quote:
Quote:
Marriage does not require sexual contact. It does not require reproduction.


Technically, marriage doesn’t require anything but two people of the opposite sex to commit that way.


No, there is no such requirement for an opposite sex, that is the new definition attempt just to prevent some from being married.

Quote:
Quote:
It does not require specific sexual organs to be present. Only those with an opposing mindset make such a claim attempt. It is an attempt.


Perhaps you’d like to think so because it makes your case easier or comforts you somehow. I have my beliefs on what marriage is. I don’t have to necessarily oppose anything simply because I don’t care to alter them.


You can hold whatever belief you wish, it is not a problem. It matters what the law says and that the people are treated equally. I do not expect you will ever consider a marraige to another man so you would not have to alter your beliefs in any way. The key is that others would not have to alter their beliefs either and could be married.

Quote:
I know it makes no difference to you or homosexuals wishing to be married, but that’s not my problem.


As long as you do not wish to impose your beliefs on others you can hold whatever belief you wish. It is when the beliefs are held above the rights of others under the law that the problem begins.

Quote:
Quote:
Because there are specific cases of legal marraige where there are lacking these very same "required" elements.


Yes, there are. I’m but one man with one set of beliefs.


Cool you can follow your beliefs and others can follow theirs and eventually the beliefs may growe closer together.

Quote:
Quote:
What is missing exactly which would be required for a marriage in the "perfect" universe?


Perfect universe? What? Anyway, I believe you already know the answer to that. No need to go off on that hair-splitting tangent.


Well, this is an imperfect universe as it has tons of people who disagree with me. :mrgreen:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The same applies to me and abortion


Unless and until a fetus is implanted into your body.


…or we define it such that a fetus isn’t necessary…like we’re attempting to define marriage not requiring a member of the opposite sex.


More like we are opposing the addition of the need for a member of the opposite sex ... a significant difference.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Quote:
Quote:
Then my point was the difference in magnitude of the two tendencies in question.


Magnitude makes it no less natural.


The nature of its existence wasn't ever in question.

Quote:
Quote:
The culture is that of the country. I realize there are different sub-cultures and resulting opinions at play.


There is no single culture within our country though.


That's what I meant.

Quote:
Prejudice which had to be overcome.


For women and blacks, sure.

Quote:
Talk to your daugher about the phone, computer, video games, etc. you had and see if she does not agree with the caveman description. 8)


She listens to 80's music and plays Atari. :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
I know, and I have no problem with the attempt.


Even though it is just an attempt to prevent certain people from having the rights others enjoy. Sad.


We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was. How it was, in fact, was so obvious that it didn't have to be legally defined nor was it substantially questioned. Now, out of the blue, some are attempting to weasel their way into practicing it under the guise of civil rights. Sad indeed.

Quote:
Quote:
You’ve mistaken me for one who cares what fundamentalists say.


But you said "anyone's back" which would include those folks who claim they would be damaged in some fashion.


In your opinion, it's no skin off anyone's back. The question was rhetorical. The point was that we can make marriage legally mean whatever we want.

Quote:
Quote:
It will certainly change marriage as we know it. I don’t think it will damage it so much as effectively render it no more meaningful than a civil contract two may acquire without marrying.


But you cannot acheive the same situation with a civil contract. The civil marriage IS nothing more than a specifc civil contract that grants rights and benefits due to its application.


You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.

Quote:
A religious ceremony not following the the requirements of the government does nothing other than give the spectators something to do. Thus, it is the legal marriage which is being denied to part of the population.


I can't help but wonder why. :think:

Quote:
The definition is not nonsensical since it has never had a single definition since its inception.


It is relative to how it has been practiced. But that's beside the point. If you're okay with abortion being redefined such that it can be practiced on a male, then you're obviously into nonsensical definitions.

Quote:
That is not a requirement. A transgender can be married legally and that is only a approximation of the opposite sex.


Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.

Quote:
Not a valid answer. Why are homosexual couples treated differently?


Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.

Quote:
No, there is no such requirement for an opposite sex, that is the new definition attempt just to prevent some from being married.


If only it hadn't been that way and so well understood, you'd have a point. As it stands, all we have is whine about someone being disenfranchised.

Quote:
You can hold whatever belief you wish, it is not a problem. It matters what the law says and that the people are treated equally. I do not expect you will ever consider a marraige to another man so you would not have to alter your beliefs in any way. The key is that others would not have to alter their beliefs either and could be married.


I always look on the bright side. If legalized, it widens my options.

Quote:
Quote:
I know it makes no difference to you or homosexuals wishing to be married, but that’s not my problem.


As long as you do not wish to impose your beliefs on others you can hold whatever belief you wish. It is when the beliefs are held above the rights of others under the law that the problem begins.


No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.

Quote:
More like we are opposing the addition of the need for a member of the opposite sex ... a significant difference.
[/quote]

They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:46 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then my point was the difference in magnitude of the two tendencies in question.


Magnitude makes it no less natural.


The nature of its existence wasn't ever in question.


Then why mention the "natural tendancy" as if there were not two such tendencies?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The culture is that of the country. I realize there are different sub-cultures and resulting opinions at play.


There is no single culture within our country though.


That's what I meant.


But the law has to be equal across the country under the Constitution, so there has to be a single right for all.

Quote:
Quote:
Prejudice which had to be overcome.


For women and blacks, sure.


And not homosexuals? Have you really been living in a cave? :shock:


Quote:
Quote:
Talk to your daugher about the phone, computer, video games, etc. you had and see if she does not agree with the caveman description. 8)


She listens to 80's music and plays Atari. :razz:


Just wait .... :shh:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I know, and I have no problem with the attempt.


Even though it is just an attempt to prevent certain people from having the rights others enjoy. Sad.


We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was.


What custome was that? Not marriage because there have been plural marriages for as long as there has been the practice and that is not the definition currently being presented as THE new definition.

Quote:
How it was, in fact, was so obvious that it didn't have to be legally defined nor was it substantially questioned. Now, out of the blue, some are attempting to weasel their way into practicing it under the guise of civil rights. Sad indeed.


Obvious to whom? The Mormons? The Christian books that clearly illustrated the multiple wives ansd the "purcahse" of the wife from her father.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You’ve mistaken me for one who cares what fundamentalists say.


But you said "anyone's back" which would include those folks who claim they would be damaged in some fashion.


In your opinion, it's no skin off anyone's back. The question was rhetorical. The point was that we can make marriage legally mean whatever we want.


Giving my opinions in your statements?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It will certainly change marriage as we know it. I don’t think it will damage it so much as effectively render it no more meaningful than a civil contract two may acquire without marrying.


But you cannot acheive the same situation with a civil contract. The civil marriage IS nothing more than a specifc civil contract that grants rights and benefits due to its application.


You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.


Those are being practiced even now. Some are not caught and are considered legal while others are not even attempted to be made legal. It is legal in this state to marry your first cousin if you want.

Quote:
Quote:
The definition is not nonsensical since it has never had a single definition since its inception.


It is relative to how it has been practiced. But that's beside the point.


THAT is the point, it has not been practiced the same since its inception.

Quote:
If you're okay with abortion being redefined such that it can be practiced on a male, then you're obviously into nonsensical definitions.


No, just trying to get past the semantical gymnastics you have been presenting.

Quote:
Quote:
That is not a requirement. A transgender can be married legally and that is only a approximation of the opposite sex.


Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.


Now we can just define one person in the gay marraige as a man and the other as a woman and you would be happy?

Quote:
Quote:
Not a valid answer. Why are homosexual couples treated differently?


Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.


Why not just say because of bigotry and be done with it.

Quote:
Quote:
No, there is no such requirement for an opposite sex, that is the new definition attempt just to prevent some from being married.


If only it hadn't been that way and so well understood, you'd have a point. As it stands, all we have is whine about someone being disenfranchised.


Just like it was always one man and one woman? Except when it was not. The "custom" is variable and yet held as being absolute.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I know it makes no difference to you or homosexuals wishing to be married, but that’s not my problem.


As long as you do not wish to impose your beliefs on others you can hold whatever belief you wish. It is when the beliefs are held above the rights of others under the law that the problem begins.


No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.


Homosexuals just decided to make themselves outcasts and deny themselves rights because they wanted to?

Quote:
Quote:
More like we are opposing the addition of the need for a member of the opposite sex ... a significant difference.


They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.


I agree, the addition of the need for a partner of the opposite sex is not necessary.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:10 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Then why mention the "natural tendancy" as if there were not two such tendencies?


What I meant by “natural tendency” was that we are far more prone than otherwise to form opposite sex partnerships.

At least, that’s what living in a cave taught me. You know we bonk our women on the head with a club and drag them back home by their hair when…well…whenever we feel inclined. You gotta be careful though. If you hit too hard or too often, they start to get stupid and you have to go find another one…assuming you don’t have multiple already…or you’re homosexual cave man.

Quote:
But the law has to be equal across the country under the Constitution, so there has to be a single right for all.


Once again, there is.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Prejudice which had to be overcome.


For women and blacks, sure.


And not homosexuals? Have you really been living in a cave? :shock:


What part of “they already have the right” is unclear to you? If one has the right to vote then that’s what they have the right to do as it is legally defined. A required input to the voting process is an election. If there is no election, they aren’t disenfranchised. They are able to do so when the circumstances are appropriate.

Quote:
Quote:
We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was.


What custome was that? Not marriage because there have been plural marriages for as long as there has been the practice and that is not the definition currently being presented as THE new definition.


An animal rights proponent sees some cow on video being abused every, say, 6 months or so, probably less frequently. Never mind the tens of thousands of others that were handled just fine, they call for the abrupt end to factory farming. It is defined by what they see.

Now, I think you know better than that, but perhaps I am mistaken. I know you didn’t grow up in Utah, so that can’t be it. You’re better off simply making the case that there was never a legal definition. Suggesting that we as a society didn’t understand our own custom because a relative few took exception to it, isn’t the way to go.


Quote:
Giving my opinions in your statements?


Unless you think someone’s rights are compromised by legalizing gay marriage. Please let me know, I don’t want to speak for you if it is incorrect.

Quote:
Quote:
You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.


Those are being practiced even now. Some are not caught and are considered legal while others are not even attempted to be made legal. It is legal in this state to marry your first cousin if you want.


Yes, thank you, I know. You’ll have to excuse me. I’m too confused over factory farm abuse to see the forest for the trees.

Quote:
THAT is the point, it has not been practiced the same since its inception.


Doesn’t have to be. Just has to be enough doing it the say way for a while such that it is effectively defined. If it was so variable and unpredictable, there would be no controversy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion because gay marriage would have blended into the existing noise.

Quote:
No, just trying to get past the semantical gymnastics you have been presenting.


So you’re telling me that my opinion becomes prejudice soon as someone else attempts to practice something a different way? Sure, okay, but I don’t recall a controversy of this magnitude over polygamous marriage, and that’s actually been around a while. That’s my indicator that you’re not in this for the rights aspect. You’re doing it because you want there to be preferential treatment. Maybe you want it and don’t realize it.

Quote:
Quote:
Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.


Now we can just define one person in the gay marraige as a man and the other as a woman and you would be happy?


We could, but that would be nonsensical, and I don’t support stuff like that.

Quote:
Quote:
Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.


Why not just say because of bigotry and be done with it.


Because it isn’t.

Quote:
Quote:
Just like it was always one man and one woman? Except when it was not. The "custom" is variable and yet held as being absolute.


Yes, yet you as well as I know that variability doesn’t necessarily render one’s perception so out of focus that they can’t make distinctions.

Quote:
Quote:
No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.


Homosexuals just decided to make themselves outcasts and deny themselves rights because they wanted to?


I never said that there wasn’t discrimination. I’m saying that for the purpose of marriage, there isn’t now.

Quote:
Quote:
They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.


I agree, the addition of the need for a partner of the opposite sex is not necessary.


Not what I meant, you know that, but still true nonetheless. That’s the funny thing about all this. It’s purely subjective.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: animal-friendly, Wayne Stollings and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group