Profile for Stillness
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Stillness |
| Member number | 7723 |
| Title | Lifecrafter |
| Postcount | 701 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 20 2007 09:04
Profile
quote:It has to do with the claim that other unions are the same as hetero-couples. Why did the government create benefits for married couples? Why not just say, "Hey, if your wife doesn't want to work, that's your problem"? Just saying it's a cultural norm leaves much to be desired in the way of an answer. Maybe you've got a point on this one, but I'm not seeing it. The case striking legal action against sodomy has no connection that I see unless you explain it more clearly. X is not illegal Therefore Y cannot be subsidized and X is not illegal Therefore X must be subsidized are non sequitors. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 20 2007 07:02
Profile
I’m not telling anyone what they should or should not lick or poke. I’m comparing sex implied by form of the organs with other kinds of sex typical of non-opposite sex couples/groups. It doesn’t matter what the public accepts or whether or not promiscuity is involved – they are different. A couple that hasn’t had sex with anyone else can still cause infection or other problems. You’re misinformed. If muscles and colon linings are over-expanded and/or torn or the female’s flora is disturbed enough you have a problem. For example, the yeast infection study above says specifically, “ VVC was not associated with multiple sexual partners or ever-experience of causal sex.” But it was connected to “oral sex.” I think it’s a difference in world view that makes this concept difficult to grasp. You want to think it’s all natural and equal and ok with consenting adults, but nature disagrees. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 20 2007 02:02
Profile
Here's what I like about these forums: You all are smart. So when I compared the argument that the US should allow homosexual marriage to allowing interspecies marriage, you all gave me logical reasons why I was wrong and made me adjust my thinking. You let me see the other sides view, and I’ve found the other side is almost never as evil and illogical as one might think. Here's where some of you are not smart: Somehow you always assume I have some agenda or motives other than what I'm saying I do. What could they possibly be!? I believe homosexuality is a sin and make no bones about it! I believe the Bible is God’s Word and live by it. Your side insisted on dragging that into the discussion, not me. What am I hiding? Do you think I'm trying to convert you all? Does it make you feel smarter or justified if you can categorize me as evil or sneaky or stupid? That’s unfortunate, because I’m just here to kick it around, toss out ideas to see if they stick, and maybe get some gaming tips once in a while. I think you don’t know how to disagree amicably. Here is where that handicaps you: When I say, “you’ve made a great point, let’s explore it,” you don’t listen to me and instead want to recycle the same arguments. Do you really think I’m ducking something - as if losing a debate on an issue that I don’t even really hold a position on matters?! When I say, “you might have another point, let’s go through an exercise,” you think I’m trying to put seven year olds to work. You can’t even get jokes because you think I’m close-minded and underhanded. I hope you all aren’t like this outside these forums. I learned from you in spite of you, as always. It’s unfortunate if you went on for page after page and gained nothing. And yes Alec, I am ignorant. So are you. Stating that does not make you look enlightened except to the dim-witted. Here are some references for those that think using stuff for a purpose outside what it’s made for equates to using it in harmony with the design: Sexually Transmitted Infection as a Cause of Anal Cancer https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/19/1350 In women, receptive anal intercourse, particularly before the age of 30 years, and venereal infections in the partner were also associated with an increased risk (odds ratios, 3.4 and 2.4, respectively). Fifteen percent of the men with anal cancer reported having had homosexual contact, as compared with none of the controls (P<0.001). Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus The challenge of the nineties http://www.springerlink.com/content/np03804015168p01/ Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. In addition, a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population. Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo- and bisexual males in Copenhagen. [URL=http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2130030&q=Sexually+transmitted+diseases+in+hetero- %2C+homo-and+bisexual+males+in+Copenhagen&uid=7918860]http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php? requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2130030&q=Sexually+ transmitted+diseases +in+hetero-%2C+homo-and+bisexual+males+in+Copenhagen&uid=7918860[/URL] 50&setcookie=yes Among males with homosexual partners, 14% had rectal infections. Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/4/591 In comparison with adjusted estimates for the US female population, lesbians/bisexual women exhibited greater prevalence rates of obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use… A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/72/4/277 Bacterial vaginosis occurred in 65 (33%) of the lesbians and 27 (13%) of the heterosexuals (p < 0.0001). Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/76/5/345?ck=nck …women who have sex with women (WSW)… Conclusion: We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviours in WSW compared with controls. Sexual behavior of women with repeated episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7q6p77833145v30/ One hundred and two women with a history of a median of six episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and 204 age-matched controls participated in a structured in-depth interview on sexual behavior… Sexual variables that remained significant or were of borderline significance after adjustment were: … regular oral sex (OR=2.4), experience of anal intercourse ever (OR=2.4), oral intercourse the last month (OR=3.1), and frequency of oral intercourse (p=0.02). Thus, the study indicates that certain sexual activities are associated with repeated episodes of VVC. Bacterial Infection Reviews in Medical Microbiology. 13(2):43-51, April 2002. Spiegel, Carol A. [URL=http://www.revmedmicrobiol.com/pt/re/revmedmicrob/abstract.00013542-200204000-00001.htm;jsessionid=HqRQhSSjxjqtC7Nkt1MLlT6jdh21lQp NWptk285JQ6DLScyrhqsv!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1]http://www.revmedmicrobiol.com/pt/re/revmedmicrob/abstract.00013542-200204000- 00001.htm;jsessionid=HqRQhSSjxjqtC7Nkt1MLlT6jdh21lQpNWptk285JQ6DLScyrhqsv!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1[/URL] BV is very common among lesbian women. Oral sex appears to be a risk factor for heterosexual and lesbian acquisition. EDIT: Formatting on links was distorting thread [ Thursday, December 20, 2007 02:11: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 19 2007 08:52
Profile
quote:I got married in 2000, and unless the requirements in Michigan changed since then, that information doesn’t give you the whole picture. The department of Health (I think) made suggestions to us and had us watch a video. And I don’t know what you mean by trying to get the thread blocked, but I don’t think my language constitutes as pornographic or obscene. You’re being ridiculous. quote:Let’s explore this. You may have a point, but I’m not getting it yet. Why can’t the other three people get a job? Children can do productive labor at a fairly young age. Women can do work that doesn’t require heavy lifting like a man can. So why make this allowance? I think a person can claim dependants until they reach age 25. Why? And you’re misapplying my comments about the majority. I’m talking about special grants and the like, not withholding civil rights. Recognition of marriage infringes on no ones civil rights. Reread, because you’re missing the point. ----- quote:It doesn’t even have to be substantially different. If you’re one step outside the development zone the government is fair in not giving you the grant. You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing. ----- Alo, It’s not just the promiscuity more common with homosexuals, but the nature of their activity. “Genetic material” (I’m trying to be nice for the babies or babyish reading) can penetrate the colon wall adversely affecting immunological response; look up the connection between saliva and yeast infection in women; look up rare bowel disease (aka gay bowel disease); look up over expanding and tearing of rectal muscles and colon lining and infectious disease that can result. They have an incidence of infectious disease about ten times higher than the normal population. Why? If the answer is partially promiscuity, then the question is still why? I really think that this is a little outside of the scope of this discussion, but you all are being fooled or fooling yourselves if you think homosexual sex = heterosexual sex. For non-promiscuous heterosexual couples with good hygiene the transmission of disease is next to nil. This reason is because they use their equipment according to the design (take “design” however you please). Reproduction only happens with male-female pairing. And don’t talk about old people past reproductive age, or couples with infertility problems, or heterosexual couples that have similar intimate practices to those considered the norm in the homosexual community. None of those change the facts. All of us are here because a man and woman got together, not a group of people, or a homosexual pair. And the promiscuity mention above strongly indicates an adverse psychological component as well. So, they do not equate…not by a long shot. On the other hand, I truly believe that a homosexual individual, couple, and/or a group could provide a better home for a child than the state or even a dysfunctional nuclear woman-man family. But it is certainly not the ideal. Equating the two types of unions does not make for a logical case. What does seem to be a good case is arguing that homosexual marriage would make for less of the promiscuity more typical among that community. The argument for homosexuals adopting also makes sense. ----- Starman1985, please stay on the thread. I know you don’t care, but your comments bring a certain balance to Synergy’s rants. I appreciate them, even if I think you’re wrong. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 18 2007 12:48
Profile
Drew, I don’t hate homosexuals, or you, or anybody that doesn’t recognize my God. And I’m not buying the cultural norms protection argument. All your argument did was express [/]how[/I] the government encouraged marriage, not why. A lot of families in our culture get together during the Christmas-New Year holidays, but I don’t see the government subsidizing airline tickets or fuel for road trips. There are a lot of cultural norms, why subsidize marriage unless it’s viewed as beneficial? And by the way, you keep talking about what people can do and still take advantage of the benefits. Governments can’t afford to micromanage, though. They have to be big-picture oriented. You’re always going to have some people who don’t do exactly as you hope. Let’s say that a stabilizing, civilizing, and sustaining influence is the basis for recognition of marriage. Of course you’ll have people marry that will never contribute to this effect, but if the majority do, it’s worth it. And then, maybe some of those that do not now, will. Maybe your wife keep getting sick and hurt and insist that you all do it the normal way and some of your little soldiers will get through the tube tying (it happens) and you all get pregnant. Blacks have “special” civil rights? ----- Kel, I meant child-rearing including the reproduction. If you argue that homosexual marriage doesn’t differ in the benefits to society, again, I don’t have an argument with you (I know for a fact you’re absolutely wrong, but that a subject for another day). But we’ll have to agree to disagree that a marriage with a man and a woman is the same as other unions since sex, reproduction, and child-rearing are viewed, by the government, as connected marriage and these are substantially different with heterosexual pairs. Neither of us seems to be budging. We’ll probably have to let it go. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 18 2007 11:00
Profile
Slarty, On your race-gender comparison, gender is not an arbitrary distinction as race is. That’s the difference. Contrary to the opinion of some, marriage is strongly related to child rearing and sex. Some of the proofs of this have already been discussed. When I got married (in Michigan) I had to watch a video on health and STD’s first and they suggested we get check ups, though these were optional. I do believe that in some states it is still required that the man and woman are tested for genetically and sexually transmitted disease first, though. If you don’t think that sex and children are related to the government view of marriage, please tell me why marriage to close relatives is forbidden. And I’m sorry if I missed the sexism point, but I really don’t remember seeing it until Thuryl brought it up…and I was waiting for it. I saw comparisons to sexual discrimination, but not the claim that it is sexual discrimination because Thuryl can’t marry a man. But, never mind that. I see it now, and I’ll respond once I get my question is answered. ----- quote:I looked at both of your links and read them thoroughly because I thought that they might have information saying that homosexuality was good or as beneficial as heterosexuality and that piqued my interest, but they don’t. Even if they did I’m not objecting to gay marriage or proposing legal restrictions. Please don’t think I missed you if you make this argument again and I don’t respond. ----- quote:But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions? I don’t think anyone is answering this question. That’s why I gave the example of development zones, which some folks seem to be missing. Anybody can build a house or start a business. But if you do so in a certain way in a certain area, you can get grants, credits, etc. Is this wrong? Is this discrimination? That’s the way I always imagined the governmental view of marriage is, like an empowerment zone. They see stable and more permanent relationships between a man and a woman as good and want to encourage this. Why do you all think governments give special consideration to marriage? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 18 2007 08:13
Profile
You guys are funny. Not only is practicing homosexuality wrong by standards of absolute morality, but also it’s physically harmful and bad for society in the ways it is practiced. I could argue the latter without flipping a page in the Bible, but I’m am not interested in having this discussion or one on Biblical morality, which is why I avoided it. And I am a minister and a teacher of the Bible, so to think I’m afraid of discussing it is ridiculous. Every time I crack it open my atheistic/agnostic students challenge me to prove it’s real or that it’s morality is superior. Google diseases common to sodomy and vaginal-oral sex if you think these things are good. There are doctors that specialize in treating homosexuals for this reason. We already discussed the health benefits of heterosexual sex. Compare away. I didn’t compare the two, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE AND I DON”T WANT TO DISCUSS IT HERE. Having a discussion about secular views is of interest to me in this forum. It’s too bad that some of you lack the focus and reading comprehension to have it with me. And I wasn’t aware of a pattern in leaving discussions, but I doubt it has as much to do with ad hominems, as it does with sidetracking, distortion of the argument, and lack of reason. If a person misses the whole point of the discussion and adds nothing worthwhile (Locmaar) I feel no further need to address them. If my opponent calls me a jackass and brings my family into the discussion (Thuryl), but makes the best argument in defense of the position opposite mine I can usually ignore the fluff. quote:How did it take you all so long to hit on this? Every single post I was waiting for it. I have an answer, but let me ask you this first: You accuse me of arbitrary legalism for going with the sex on the birth certificate, so how would you know if the government is discriminating without looking at the sex on birth certificate? Or try this one: If sex were not on the birth certificate, would there be another way of telling the difference between a male and a female? Black people do generally have a darker skin tone, but not always. I don’t think your question qualifies as discrimination, but what would be better (not that either would be good policy) is if the government set a more objective skin tone standard instead of basing it on your more arbitrary one. (Notice that I say “more arbitrary, ” because the idea the most black people are darker that white people is an objective fact, even though white and black are arbitrary divisions). And way to miss the point on my other questions. I know a man can’t get away with raping his wife anymore and I don’t know what you mean when you say you feel sorry for my wife but sexual attraction is mutual and was part of the basis for our marriage, like just about every marriage in which the partners choose their mate. The point that you miss, however, is that marriage was and still is considered to be sexual in nature. ----- quote:No it is not. This is discrimination against individuals, more along the lines of what Thuryl is arguing above, only with genders. While the government is making a distinction on the nature of the marriage based on the sexes of its partners, it’s not prejudging to say a male is a male, a female is a female, or that a union of these two is different from any other. I’m going to stop here, though and just stick to Thuryl’s new argument, as it has not been addressed a zillion times and is stronger IMO. I suggest that you all do some research on race though. I have in the past and I don’t think you understand the scientific view of it. There are more differences within the “races” that there are between them. I’ve personally experienced how arbitrary the categorization is. I’m of Native American, African, and European descent (that I know of). I’ve been asked if I’m Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Ethiopian…off the top of my head. A fellow “African-American” (which is a ridiculous classification if you ask me) recently asked me if I was “pure.” I told her I would answer her question if she could tell me what “pure” is. She could not. That’s because it’s an almost meaningless question. There are some traits that may be typical to different “races,” but to divide along these lines is arbitrary. It certainly lacks the meaning in differentiating between male and female because the very existence of humanity is tied to the uniting of the two sexes. And it’s becoming less and less meaningful as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place and more and more “interracial” babies are born. ----- quote:I have a great-grandmother and a grandmother that are “black” that could pass for white. You can’t tell the difference in a lot of cases, at least not with ease. This is why I mentioned the “African-American” that found out that he was really of East Asian descent at the top of the discussion. One could do genetic studies. But you could do this with height, hairiness, or foot size too, if you knew the code well enough. What makes it arbitrary is the way the division is made, not the fact that people have differences. Parents can even have children that appear to be different races, but no one would say that they are. quote:Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor. quote:This is a logical argument if you can make it. I won’t argue here. I have never heard this argument publicly espoused, except on these boards. ----- quote: quote:I told you I’m not being repetitive by myself. ----- quote:My religion shapes everything about me. I’ve never been dishonest about that. The problem is that you want to make this discussion about what you want it to be about. It’s not. Find someone else that wants to debate your topic or add something worthwhile to this one. ----- By the way, I’m completely open to the possibility that my views on homosexuality affect my view of the logic inherent to the arguments for legalization of homosexual marriage. That’s the very reason I challenged you all. I’m a skeptic and I try to be intellectually honest and logical. I’m really trying to see your perspective and I am in some ways. But, are you open to the possibility that your views on what is moral and what is not color your perception of logic? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 04:10
Profile
Synergy, Are you even trying to understand what I’m saying? Your responses indicate that you’re not. I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted because it’s a moral issue, because I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted! And what is your basis for saying sexuality and marriage is not a moral issue? Did your deity reveal it to you? It sounds like another one of your opinions that you tend to confuse with fact. If it’s your opinion, then it’s relative and is no better than any one else’s. I don’t think marriage is a moral issue just because the Bible says it is. The power of sex to reproduce life, to spread disease, to create connection and emotion – these things make it moral. So if you look all over the world you will find morality and sexuality and marriage connected. Take China’s (a society far more secular than our own) treatment of sex as a moral issue, for example. If your morality is relative, then anything you want can be moral or not. I can make up a code that says it’s “immoral” to take ten steps without skipping, but that whether or not you tell the truth is optional. So lying is not a moral issue, but walking is. You say lying is immoral?! Why are you sticking to the rigid and restrictive bounds of ancient societies and religions that try to control what you say! Modern civilization is built on freedom of speech and is evolving so as to shake itself from the backwards mores of pre-information age people steeped in ignorance. The new age will be built on joy and freedom from duplicity bias and will emerge from the dead cocoon of intolerance with a skip in its step. ----- How little or how much an opposite-sex marriage differs from any other union is irrelevant. They differ. And not in an arbitrary way like race. That’s the point. Whether a person is severely disabled or more like an able-bodied person, they can park in the handicapped spot. No one can say, “Some disabled people walk almost as well as I do,” and consider this justification for parking in handicapped spots. I know many couples don’t have children, but I think just about all marriages are or have been sexual in nature. Whatever the case, the government recognizes them because they think it’s good overall. Let’s go back to the empowerment zone. The government gives you special treatment to set up there and when you get there you open up a whore house/drug house/chop shop and are a menace to the community. But you’re just one of 10,000 people that got the benefits. Most are using them productively. Overall it’s working. And maybe you’ll come around and go legit one day. I don’t think the government can micromanage, but has to have a “big picture” outlook. ----- Thuryl, it was a joke. All opposite-sex pairings are made of two people of the opposite sex and no same-sex pairings are. ----- Distinguishing between races can be very difficult. Race is not the same kind of distinction as sex. I see your legal claim as weak because no individuals are being discriminated against based on sex. In fact, there’s an equity in treatment. You’re still equating individuals and unions, and that just doesn’t work. Alo, If you run a business and call your new secretary up at night and tell her you expect sex everyday and she records it and sues you for sexual harrasment, do you think she’ll win? Let’s say your secretary is your wife and while lying in bed you tell her you expect sex every night and she records it. Will she win? Why? Get the point? Marriage is considered sexual in nature. I remember reading or hearing of cases in which men allegedly raped their wives and were acquitted on this basis. It really seems you all have a logic that is out of touch with reality and social norms. Not that I claim to have my finger on the pulse of society, but come on… quote:You say marriage isn’t about anything even though the law discusses it in relation to sex and children. I don’t get your logic. You saying that you think the laws are antiquated illustrate that this is a matter of opinion and feelings, not logic and fact. quote:I strongly disagree since sex is by definition descriptive of individuals not groups. What sex is Ford Motor Company? It doesn’t make sense to ask that question, does it? How then does it make sense to compare discrimination against individuals to differentiation between the nature of groups? The latter is what is done in regard to marriage, not the former. ----- quote:Sorry, but no. That’s not my position. Salmon mentioned my argument being repetitive. This is the reason why. You all don’t even understand the words I’m writing, let alone seeing my perspective. For the zillionth time: Those that feel that unions that are not opposite-sex pairs should be recognized by the government as legal marriage have no basis in law or logic that those who feel that they should not be recognized don’t have. Because of this, the former group often resorts to false resoning, as you all are demonstrating. I AM IN NEITHER OF THESE GROUPS. So, the things you feel I’m not addressing are not being addressed because they are invalid. I don’t have an opinion on what the government should or should not recognize. quote:Not only is this question relevant, but I had to think to answer. Here’s why: It has a subtle logical flaw and it stirs up emotion because I’m American and nothing gets to us like race. My sense of justice processes the answer to this question immediately, but it does so while I'm reasoning that it should give a different answer and creates a false conflict. This is great equivocation (but I fully believe you did it unintentionally). I’m going to show you… Statement 1 & 2 are cool. But, if school districts don’t have races, then what do you mean when you say in 3, “ school districts that are predominantly white”? It sounds as if you’re saying the school districts can have a race so that one could discriminate on that basis. So a “predominantly white” district is a misnomer in this context even though we get the implied meaning which is ”school districts that are comprised of more white individuals than non-white.” So what they are really doing is favoring individuals on the basis of race. Non-white individuals would be discriminated against just because they’re not white. It's just individual discrimination that your wording makes appear differently. Restricting recognition of marriage to opposite sex pairs is not like this. Since everyone has a sex, they are free to pair with anyone of the opposite sex. The government doesn’t treat a homosexual that does or does not want this any differently than it treats a heterosexual that doesn’t. It's saying, "Anybody, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation that pairs this way will be recognized." ----- quote:Salmon, if my arguments are repetitive and I’m addressing all of the points raised, what does that say to the argument from the other side? It’s non-repetitive? I think not. Are we talking about gay discrimination, as in beating gays or refusing them housing? Or are we talking gay marriage? The former has a much stronger parallel. It’s not a sameness, but there is more to that position. The latter has almost no relation. The problem is not that the weak parallel is missed by me, but that the differences are missed by you. Similarities 1. A minority group is involved. 2. The minority group desires different treatment than they are currently getting. Differences 1. Homosexuals are not treated unequally (in relation to who they can marry). 2. They want something different from equality. 3. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Jim Crow laws actually made certain actions illegal. 4. There is an objective difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. This is not an arbitrary distinction as in the case of Jim Crow discrimination. ----- quote:I wonder how “bisexual” is defined. ----- I probably won't respond again on this issue unless someone raises a good point. Assume you're getting the last word if you respond. Thank you all for your time, thoughts, and the overall graciousness in your posts, even though I believe differently than you. I found this exercise worthwhile. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, December 14 2007 20:58
Profile
quote:Fernication, Do you think I’m arguing for or against recognition of same-sex marriage? I’m not. My argument is that any marriage that’s not an opposite-sex pairing is different from an opposite sex pairing, which is legal, recognized, and perceived (by some) to be a good thing for society. Since any other kind of “marriage” is not the same, 'Heterosexual marriage is recognized, therefore any other kind of marriage should be too' is not a logical argument. For this argument to fly you need sameness. If you feel that a woman should be able to marry a pride of lions, you’ll find no argument here. If you equate this or anything else that’s not heterosexual pairing to heterosexual marriage, I’ll call you illogical. ----- quote:From World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia 2003 Edition “Most couples decide to marry because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A man and woman who marry usually hope to share a special sexual relationship and a permanent romantic attraction. But each hopes the other will always be a close friend as well. Each also expects the other to help with many problems and to share certain responsibilities. These responsibilities include earning a living, budgeting money, paying bills, preparing meals, and taking care of a home. Most couples who marry plan to have children and to raise them together. A husband and wife are required by law to protect and care for their children. Marriage thus serves as the basis of family life (see FAMILY).” [emphasis mine] Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children. But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons. If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one. If you say they love each other just like heterosexuals and that’s good enough, then let that be your argument. And no person is identical to any other person, even if they're twins. “Black” and “white” are arbitrary ways of distinguishing, just like “short” and “tall.” ----- quote:Yes you may. Very interesting. ----- Drew, You and Alec made claims on the first amendment. I replied: The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right? If I’m wrong, enlighten me, but it doesn’t seem that the government recognizes anything that they don’t see as beneficial to society. and I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes? ----- quote:In humans? Can you refer me to this information, in particular the genetic. Last I heard, they were looking for the “gay-genes” in humans and coming up empty or inconclusive. Alo, Why do you keep saying that sex and marriage is not about sex or children? Those are the very reasons people get married. Throw in some love and you have the trifecta. I doubt very many people would get married to someone they didn’t love, want to have sex with, or have children with for some tax breaks. What do you think marriage is about? quote:Individuals have genders. Marriages do not, so you can’t discriminate between marriages based on the gender of the marriage. I’m glad you asked this question, because it illustrates what I was saying about equating things that are not equal. quote:I don’t have an opinion on what should be decided by the states. And unlike Thuryl, I’m not playing Devil’s advocate (by the way Thuryl, what are you trying to imply?) because I’m not familiar with all of the arguments that evangelicals use. I don’t think this is going to satisfy you. I think you need a conservative evangelical to really sink your teeth into. Sorry I can’t be that for you. :( You could attack my religious belief that anything besides an opposite sex marriage is not a real marriage! :) Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, December 14 2007 07:37
Profile
Kel, the point is that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. They are not equal. We assume that "all men are created equal" so we ignore inequalities in people based on that principle. We do not have a comparable universal principle regarding corporate entities that I know of. We treat them very differently based on what they are. From that reasoning we could justify eating our young. That sounds more like opinion and non sequitor logic. I thought he was referring to some genetic studies that I was unaware of. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, December 14 2007 06:51
Profile
I think that where a lot of the confusion comes up is that you want to argue with someone that is anti legal recognition of gay marriage and you don’t understand that this is not my position. In short, my position is this: Your stance on gay marriage is not a more logical one than the fundamentalist-evangelical, nor more Constitutional. (In the latter portion I’m much more humble because of my great lack, but I’ve asked questions and raised scenarios that the legal minds don’t seem to be addressing, which gives me a feeling that it’s not completely baseless). This issue is a matter of opinion and morality, on both sides. I didn’t argue that a male-female union was more natural to say it was better (which I think is a conclusion you could come to; which is probably why you assumed it without me taking you there), but to say it was unequal by nature to other unions. That is not something that could be said for a “black-white” opposite sex pairing when compared to one of the same “race.” So an argument equating other unions to heterosexual pairs falls short, as these are naturally unequal and unique. If you feel that unequal things should be treated equally, it seems that you need very good justification. By the way, notice I called unions a “thing.” That’s because they are things, not people, like corporations are. An automotive company doesn’t say that the US should pay for it not making cars like it pays a farm for not growing corn and make Jim Crow comparisons to substantiate. Why? Because people are different from corporate entities – like marriages (loose definition of “corporate”). Interestingly in China, a particularly secular nation, gay marriage/same-sex unions are unrecognized. Is the Christian right behind that as well? ----- Ephesos, I’m sorry you think I evaded. I had written a longer response and then shortened it when Drew referred to varying State laws. But honestly, I don’t have an opinion on what should “be done” with them. If we’re talking about legalities, then we have to go with their legal sex. Regarding your claims about me defending paying thousands of dollars for marriage: I’m doing no such thing. If you want to you can. My uncle married my wife and me in his basement with a few close friends and relatives on hand. Weeks later my father-in-law had a very large bar-b-que in his backyard with all of our family and friends. The only money that was spent was on food (his dollar) and a marriage license. My faith has no clergy class, so we don’t wear funny clothes. Neither do we pay for ceremonies. Even when our places of worship are used, there is no charge. ----- Kel, only opposite sex pairings can produce children naturally and only they make use of the genitalia implied by their form. This makes them naturally different. ----- quote:This is an odd statement. Are you saying that something doesn’t happen except for when it happens? quote:Alo, I’ve addressed your points, but I’m curious about your statement on saying homosexuality is not unnatural scientifically. What science are you referring to? ----- Synergy, your points about the Bible are always so hopelessly wrong that I never know where to begin. God does not discriminate. From the Genesis on, Jehovah states his position as the God of all humanity and that he wants to help them all. His fairness and justice are constantly highlighted in everything he says and does. (Genesis 12:3; Leviticus 18:24-28; 19:33-36; Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Job 34:10, 11; Ps 37:28; Micah 4:2-4; Matthew 24:14; Acts 10:34, 35; Galatians 2:6; 3:28; Revelation 5:9, 10; 22:2) But really, your whole argument is misapplied because I’m not arguing Biblical morals. ----- Locmarr, If I’m twisting words or misusing quotes, then give me an example of when I did it so I can at least explain myself. Otherwise, your posts merit no response from me. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 13 2007 11:20
Profile
Ephesos, I wouldn’t do anything with them. From a personal perspective, I don’t see how chopping into your stuff changes your sex. Drew, In light of Ephesos’ question, would it be possible for someone that is not a transsexual to have their birth certificate changed and then marry someone of the same sex? Is Alec=Najosz Thjsza Kjras? If so I already responded on the issue you raise. I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes? quote:They do differ in very basic, natural ways. quote:Agreed. quote:I haven’t argued that once. quote:While there could be questions of causality, this is a much better argument that the discrimination or separation of church and state arguments. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 13 2007 09:44
Profile
quote:…Not just homosexuals, but any combination of people other than man-woman pairs. Is someone trying to pretend that this is not the motivation? If they are, it's a poor cover...like "We destroyed the tapes because they posed a security risk." I don’t think it’s just about a holy institution being profaned. I don’t think that’s even the main issue. I think the primary concern is the effect on society. And I disagree that this is prejudicial, especially not in the Jim Crow sense. You all just feel strongly about this issue just like the other side does. You think your values are best as they do theirs. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 13 2007 06:15
Profile
The question about sexual classification is one I’ve thought a lot about since I do agree with the anti-gay marriage camp that practicing homosexuality is bad. I guess since we’re talking about what’s legal though, we could go with the legal sex – like what the birth certificate says. I reckon that everyone has one or the other. Thuryl, what exactly is your argument of direction of causality and severe mental and physical health issues? I doubt you’re saying that everyone unmarried fits into one of these categories, but that’s what it seems like. quote:We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree, since I don’t know how to make my position any clearer and I’ve read you all make your case and don’t see it. ----- quote:That sounds like an argument from ignorance. quote:Really it’s not my practice to ignore posts directed to me. If I think your point is unrefutable, I’ll concede or say, “good point” or something along those lines. In this case, I admit I didn’t give it much thought after seeing the first part of your post, just like I’m doing with Locmaar’s nonsense from now on. My assumption is not: If society says something is appropriate it’s not discrimination. My assumption is: A decision has to be prejudicial to be discriminatory. Calling all handicapped people disabled and making a determination on that basis is not prejudice. You can use the same word – “discrimination” - to describe it if you please or if you think the dictionary allows it, but it is not the same thing and it is not a matter of degree. One involves prejudice. The other does not. That’s what makes it equivocation to equate them. ----- Salmon, I agree that perception doesn’t make a thing true. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 12 2007 21:39
Profile
quote:The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right? If I’m wrong, enlighten me, but it doesn’t seem that the government recognizes anything that they don’t see as beneficial to society. quote:So, because people use the law for something outside its intent, the laws should be expanded? Is that your argument? ----- quote:This is not what I did, but if I’m doing something you’re tired of then don’t address me. I’ll reciprocate. ----- Alo, I was agreeing with you and Thuryl that the figures could indicate that the divorced women were in abusive relaltionships. Since marriage has good benefits, I was just saying that this could be an argument for education and assistance in building and maintaining healthy marriages. Marriage doesn’t have to be about reproduction, but that certainly can be an important part of it. And even when they aren’t they are still normally sexual in nature. The stuff about asthma was this: I gave the example of a city that had zone they wanted developed and so offered very nice benefits to anyone that would build their house there. You decide to build there and I would like to also, but the zone is particularly smoggy and I have asthma (which I inherited) so I don’t want to. The city is not discriminating on who moves there, but because of my genetic situation it would be uncomfortable for me. I could appeal that the benefits be applied to me because I’m building in an area that needs development, but I can’t say it’s unjust discrimination if I don’t get the benefits that I would get if I went to the area that the city views as special. ----- quote:So they “prejudge” all blacks before meeting them, right? That is the definition of prejudice. Saying that all blacks are of African descent would not be prejudice because they are by definition (I think). All opposite-sex marriage is male-female. That is the pairing that is perceived to be ideal. Let’s say that in 10 years the development zone will turn out to be a complete flop and with send the city into bankruptcy. At present there is a perceived benefit though. Maybe they did historical, geographic, and economic research, but are still wrong. That is all that is needed to justify special treatment for those moving in the zone. This is not discrimination even though the people moving into the zone are not any more special or inherently meritorious. Where they’re building merits special consideration. ----- quote:Synergy, it has no meaning to you but that does not apply to everyone. And your opinions on the figures are just that. I don’t know why everyone keeps focusing on the children. The most compelling stats to me were for the adults. They specifically compared the married to the unmarried. I do agree that children would probably fare better with any kind of decent parents if you compare it to nothing or some state-run facility, though. You could put them with a mass-murdering, drug-dealing, rapist that loved them and treated them well and they could turn out ok. ----- Alo, I think your understanding of “merit” is problematic in distinguishing between what is discrimination and what is not. And even if traditional marriage is “discrimination” in the same sense that handicapped spots or development zones are, it certainly isn’t in the way that racism and sexism – illegal discrimination – are. The latter have sweeping generalizations that are either not true or only sometimes true. ----- Kel, if you think “All white people are superior” has the same quality as “All handicapped people have a disability” I don’t think there’s much more to say. ----- Excalibur, it is better not to marry if you have “the gift.” (Matthew 19:11; 1 Corinthians 7:7) Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 12 2007 14:32
Profile
I'm in a rush, but I want to say two things: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice " Handicapped parking spots is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All handicapped people have a disability. This is true for every single case. Having a disability merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are. If I say I am going to hire a random handicapped person because the disabled have mental strength, that is discrimination – the dumb kind in the definition above. It’s not a reasonable consideration of the actual person’s merit, but a sweeping, illogical, pre-judgment of people based a group. There are mentally unstable disabled people, so it may be true in some cases, but certainly not all. If you all can’t see the difference between these two, we might as well quit now. ----- I'm not anti legalization of gay marriage, so please don't ask me why I am. My initial comments and my comments now are regarding the illogical arguments of the secular. So yes, I can see both perspectives, and actually sympathize a bit more with yours after this discussion. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 12 2007 09:55
Profile
Prejudice implies coming to a conclusion before determining merit (i.e. pre-judging). Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society. Not recognizing other groupings in the same way is not like refusing to hire homosexuals. The later is a non-merit based pre-judging, whereas we know that the male-female union has merit. It is a logical flaw to equate them. Besides that, all of the privileges of marriage are available to homosexuals if they marry, just like the person that has asthma can get special treatment if he is willing to move into the smoggy development zone. ----- Fernication, read this comment: quote:Deciding that a black person is unclean because he is black is an “irrational, prejudicial decision.” ----- quote:I didn’t. I agreed a little. If I’m dealing with a white man that means to do me harm and I think he does because I think all white people are evil, my wary attitude may benefit me in my dealings with him. Overall, it’s a bigoted, small-minded view that will probably cause harm, though. I agreed that the other kind of discrimination is neutral…like a hammer. ----- quote:First the Thuryl Act act to preserve marriage; now the Alorel Act (man that has a nice ring!) to build healthy marriages. You two would make the evangelicals proud. Same-sex unions cannot naturally produce children nor do they make natural use of the sex organs implied by their form. I would argue that these two differences strongly imply that male-female pairing is complementary in ways beyond these two obvious ways (e.g. masculine-feminine personality traits; the differences in male and female thinking), but those two differences suffice to establish fundamental inequality. I thought you agreed when you said: quote:That doesn’t necessarily mean that any other pairings or groupings should be treated differently, it just means they are different. quote:You’d have to ask someone that opposes it. I’m not 100% clear on all of their rationalizations. I think they’re along the lines of immoral, society-eroding, unhealthy, unnatural, etc. quote:You’re equivocating again. Straight people don’t get special consideration over homosexuals any more than people without asthma get special consideration over people with asthma by the city with the smoggy development zone. quote:How is any of this illogical, non-merit based discrimination? (Admittedly affirmative action is a gray area because it discriminates based on things like race and sex. But it’s not the same kind of discrimination that says, “All women are dumb.” It logically says, “People from this group merit special treatment because injustice from this government has caused and perpetuated a state of inequality.” Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, it’s quite different.) ---- Kel, what benefit there is to marriage so that the government should protect and encourage it and questions of its usefulness it is an issue that has been raised repeatedly in this discussion. How is showing statistics for its usefulness and benefit equivocation? And handicapped parking spots are about merit because our society has determined that disabilities merit special consideration. quote:For the hundredth time, I agree. If you can’t understand the two different types of discrimination defined and being discussed on this thread then you should really check a dictionary, because there are at least two distinct meanings. Handicapped parking spots and marriage would fall under one and racism and sexism under the other. ----- quote:You’re only an illusion in one of my dreams. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 12 2007 05:48
Profile
quote:Let me refresh your memory. quote: quote: quote:For further clarification please see a dictionary. ;) Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, December 12 2007 05:10
Profile
quote:The idea is just to establish the merit of 1 man-1 woman marriage. quote:Indeed. It would seem that a broken marriage may in some ways be worse than none at all. All the more reason for you to write your representative and demand that he pass legislation to preserve marriage. Great point. Thanks! I think “Thuryl Act” has a nice ring to it. quote:I agree that some of the figures would indicate the possibility that any two parents can duplicate certain effects, but the ones that mention marriage and certainly every one of the benefits for the mates are only known for traditional marriage. It does not necessarily follow that same-sex partners would experience the same benefits. After all, we have determined that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are fundamentally different. quote:Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping. White only fountains would be the latter; traditional marriage the former. What you did is equivocation. Some of the others just did it for the zillionth time, too. quote:It’s semantic, but meaningful. I’m trying to shake you all from equivocating. When most people see a handicapped spot, they don’t think it’s ‘discriminating against’ them, they think, “This spot is only for handicapped people because they merit special consideration.” Marriage, as it stands in the US, is the same kind of ‘discrimination-for.’ quote:Yeah, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Gay marriage and traditional marriage are unequal in fundamental, natural ways. quote:I’m drawing a blank on any situation in which discrimination (of the illogical, nonmerit based sort) can be good. I'm thinking affirmative action. Is that discrimination? Maybe. I think there is some very good justification behind this. ------ Are we disagreeing that comparing encouragement and protection for traditional marriage or handicapped parking to racism and sexism qualifies as equivocation? It sure does seem like we are because many have been doing the same thing since the beginning of this discussion regardless of the fact that keep pointing it out. It’s a logical fallacy. Alo has presented some logical, if unsubstantiated, premises. 1. Same-sex marriages may be better than non-marriage for homosexuals. 2. Same-sex marriage provides benefits. ------------- quote:Not so much your parking spaces, but I do find your high standards for things relating to the health of your citizens interesting. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 11 2007 11:43
Profile
quote:I agree that 2 is wrong. 1 is neutral. Handicapped parking spaces, although they show favor to a group and are not available to everyone, is not 2, because we have determined that the condition of the handicapped merits special treatment. It does discriminate (1) against everyone without a disability, but that does not make it wrong. Let’s say you have a baby and you feel that people with small children should be able to use handicapped spots. Saying handicapped spots are like racism or sexism; or because the Bible says the handicapped should be treated specially, making it a church-state issue is misleading. It makes your case look weak because you have to equivocate and appeal to emotion. If you have a real case, it would look like this: People with disabilities are given special parking because of X. Because people with small children also X they should have the same special parking. Or simply People with small children have X. This merits special parking. I guess if you don’t have a real case and just want to use handicapped spots you could be like Thuryl said and stir up emotion, twist meanings, and do whatever else you have to do to get your way. Sometimes that’s quicker and more effective even if you do have a case. It’s still dirty pool though. quote:LOL. No, my argument is that it’s not like racism or sexism and to say it is, is equivocation and appeal to emotion. If you’re pro same sex marriage make a case for what it adds to society so that it merits special priviledge. Many people think opposite sex pairings benefit society in a way that nothing else does (whether you think it does or not is irrelevant). Showing that homosexual unions do the same thing, something equivalently good, or even just very good is the way to make a real case. quote:I disagree with premise 1. I don’t think handicapped spots are necessary for the survival of the disabled, but I don’t think they’re unjust. If the government sees society as better of with more marriages it’s not unjust to encourage and protect it even though it may not be absolutely necessary. quote:Does less tax revenue count as harm? And I’m no economist, but wouldn’t insurance costs increase? I’m not the most conservative businessman, but if somebody tells me to make a decision because it won’t hurt me that’s not very encouraging. To make a change, which always involves cost and risk no matter how much you’re assured it doesn’t, there needs to be benefit. So when the government made the decision to recognize marriage there was perceived advantage in doing so. I don’t know what that was for sure, but if homosexual marriage has it and there are no serious drawbacks, it would seem the best secular decision to recognize it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 11 2007 07:38
Profile
quote:It’s been explained that discrimination is bad? That’s ridiculous. Handicapped parking spots are bad? Empowerment zones are bad? Me liking sweet potato pie more than pumpkin pie is bad? You can find discrimination in just about everything. Society is not homogeneous. 1. No. That’s like asking if hammers are bad. Not discriminating is bad sometimes. 2. Sure. All of the different possibilities of uniting people are unequal by nature, though. I don’t expect that unequal things will be treated equally. In some cases justice would require they should, but not all. A policeman directing traffic should allow more time for a severely disabled person crossing the street than for an able-bodied person. A judge should treat them the same when they appear as opponents before him. The policeman discriminates in the name of justice. The judge does not. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 11 2007 06:32
Profile
quote:Bald assertion. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, December 11 2007 05:54
Profile
It sounds like some of the folks here are saying that discrimination is bad except for when it’s not. While I agree, I don’t know that this tells us anything about whether or not discriminating in favor of man-woman pairing is a rights or religious issue. If you won same-sex marriage you’d still be discriminating against multiple-person groupings or people that choose to stay single. Would that be a religious or rights issue? Saying that there is no harm to recognizing other kinds of marriage tells us nothing. There is no harm in doing a lot of stuff that the government doesn’t subsidize. What needs to be determined is whether or not all of the perceived advantages to society of man-woman pairing exist in other unions. If and when same-sex marriage is recognized it will not be for any of these reasons you all are arguing for. It’ll simply be because one belief system won out over another. All the talk about separation of church and state, discrimination, rights violations, and comparisons to women’s and minority rights is the overlay for the underplay. The actual discrimination against homosexual individuals that was mentioned early on in the discussion (e.g. housing, military, etc) is a different issue altogether. -------- Archmagus Micael, From a Christian perspective, marriage is the union of man and woman as husband and wife according to the standard set by God. It is instituted, authorized, and established by him. The basic purpose is for the expansion of the human race through procreation. It was to be a permanent bond in which the man and woman would be mutually helpful to one another and live together in love. That initial intent got somewhat sidetracked, but marriage still can serve for providing a secure environment for procreation. It also allows for full and confident expression of romantic and sexual feelings for the fulfillment and happiness of husband and wife. The primary reason why those in my faith register marriages with secular authorities is because our God, Jehovah, requires that we be subject to them. As to why people spend boatloads of dough I can’t exactly say. My wife and I didn’t. Here’s a thought. The Bible describes the first wedding being performed by God in Genesis 1-3. It occurs in the garden planted by God himself that is described as having beautiful and lush vegetation and food. Surrounding the man and woman are the animals that are the subjects of their dominion. And when God brings Eve to Adam he is so moved that he breaks out into poetry. It’s been said that the ceremony, colors, poetic vows, etc are an attempt to mimic the beauty of that event. Make what you will of it. quote:*gasp* You bigot! How dare you think sexual preference is connected to mental health! Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 21:01
Profile
quote:I suppose this means you’re not answering my question about the city government that discriminates. I don’t see how you conclude I think this act is bad. quote:Can you prove that? I think the recognition of marriage is practical. For example, I don’t think it’s debatable that a child that grows up in a secure, loving home with a mother and father generally fairs well. Of course other arrangements can work, but I think that this is the most natural and therefore the ideal. If you think that homosexuals, the polyamorous, and whoever else should have their unions recognized in the same way, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You are entitled to try to legislate it if you please, just like I’m entitled to try to make the neighborhood I want to build in an empowerment zone. But to say that a certain law is bad solely on the basis that it discriminates is not accurate. Claiming that one person is hurt because another person gets favor is also off. If the government gives tuition assistance to a soldier, does that hurt the person with a handicap who can’t join the armed forces? Should everybody get tuition assistance since this discriminates? And trying to make this a religion or rights violation issue is deceptive. No one is forcing anybody to come to church and no one is saying you can’t have relations with whoever you please. It’s simply one opinion vs. another. I still think your side will win out over those trying to maintain the status quo, though. Give it time. They already losing. quote:What point are you trying to make with this link? When I say we’re not political, I mean we don’t take sides on political issues that don’t involve worship. So, you won’t find us trying to vote for or against same-sex marriage. We register with governments, though. We have legal corporations. This doesn’t make us political. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Omaha Mall Shooting in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 14:19
Profile
quote:Overpopulation. Yes. Giving benefits based on location is discriminatory, but doesn’t stop a person from building a house. In the same way, a person can have a homosexual relationship without marriage benefits. Why should the government give privilege if they don’t see any benefits to society? Let’s say there was a genetic component, maybe the empowerment zone is smoggy and the person inherited asthma. quote:A ban on any marriage other than 1 male-1 female discriminates against every other form of marriage, not sexual preference, in the same way, the city above discriminates against building your house anywhere besides a special zone. What’s wrong with that? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |