Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Same-sex Marriage Bill passes


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 904 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:39 AM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

The way I see it though is imagine if in the future people forgot that handicapped parking spaces were only for handicapped people, and then people started to say it was "unequal", forgetting the reason for their existence...so then there was a movement to allow non-handicapped people to use them. Sounds silly at first but it shows how semantic distortion can warp perceptions over time. Granted it would be more obvious but I can't think of a better analogy. Understand though how frustrated I am when someone claims I am "anti-equality" for my views, they don't understand how I see it from my own worldview - but as I said, I concede that modern conservatives have no moral highground and in a way deserve to lose for being such banal idiots.

I think that analogy is wrong, Imo.

Comparing gay marriage and handycap parks is apples and oranges. Handycap people need them spaces so it is not far away from the areas they are trying to get to.

A man and a Woman, do not NEED to have a marriage only to them.... Its makes no difference.

Watch this space

#17    Odd Requiem

Odd Requiem

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

  • "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring."

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:31 AM

What it comes down to for me is, I don't know what gives any person the right to choose who somebody else picks to love or marry. If they aren't trying to force you into a relationship of any kind, what difference does it make to you?

And the handicapped parking analogy was awful.  

All legalizing same sex marriage is doing, is showing people that they have a choice. It's not a requirement.

But if your heart chooses someone of the same sex, the more power to you.

-I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.//

#18    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,010 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:05 AM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

In the past........

This is the key phrase. Societies move on. That's how progress is made.


#19    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 5,977 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday
    but, I stayed up all night.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:57 AM

Good on you New Zealand. :)

Edit: I'm just not sure what this has to do with philosophy or pyschology.

Edited by Likely Guy, 18 April 2013 - 06:03 AM.


#20    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,474 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:50 AM

 Gravitorbox, on 17 April 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

If you believe marriage is about love then it makes sense to marry gays too.

But it has to do with childbirth, so it makes no sense whatsoever. It was originally conceived to celebrate bringing life into the world, and the economic benefits as a privilege towards those ends.
If it was still about childbirth, infertile couples could never get married. Unfortunately some people are still living in the past.

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

The way I see it though is imagine if in the future people forgot that handicapped parking spaces were only for handicapped people, and then people started to say it was "unequal", forgetting the reason for their existence...
No, you have it backwards. The majority are not handicapped this analogy would make more sense if it was the handicapped people who wanted to be entitled to the same benefits as the non-handicapped.

Edited by Rlyeh, 18 April 2013 - 07:56 AM.


#21    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:14 AM

Hurray for New Zealand, good on them for voting this in!

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

In the past people didn't get married if they weren't going to have kids.

As has been said, the keywords in there are 'in the past'. The past is full of things that we'd not want back (ie slavery). You can't use the past to justify anything, because that ignores the realities of the now. It's also important to note 'in the past' that marital rape was legal and you couldn't divorce someone even if they were being abusive. Should we wind marriage back to a state where those things were acceptable? After all, that's what marriage was in the past and that's what matters right?

Bringing kids into it always puzzles me. Why? Well first, you don't need to get married to have kids. Marriage doesn't unlock the ability to have kids, so that arguement is (again) a moot one. An important thing to remember is that childrearing is more important than child birth. Infertile couples marry and adopt children (or opt for surrogacy/IVF) and they do it because they want children, not that they're required to do so to have ther marriage validated.

Since your view is marriage is about childbirth, what about those infertile couples that have children through those means?

The logic you use will, eventually, be consigned to the past.

Edited by shadowhive, 18 April 2013 - 10:19 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#22    Simbul

Simbul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:59 PM

 Odd Requiem, on 18 April 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

What it comes down to for me is, I don't know what gives any person the right to choose who somebody else picks to love or marry. If they aren't trying to force you into a relationship of any kind, what difference does it make to you?
This is called the "I don't have any principles mentality". It is nihilism.

 Odd Requiem, on 18 April 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

And the handicapped parking analogy was awful.
You're taking it way too literally. It was to try and illustrate how retarded it was in the grand scheme of things. If we never re-defined marriage to be about love, no one would think not allowing homosexuals to marry was persecution. For example, in Japan nowadays there is no gay marriage and no one cares, because they still know what it means. To be fair, due to the fact that homosexuality was never really persecuted there, there isn't even a "gay" identity or any gay pride outside of what was imported from the west - from what I heard, they find the entire concept silly. This leads me to believe it is not even an organic social construct but just a reaction to oppression in most cases.

 Odd Requiem, on 18 April 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

All legalizing same sex marriage is doing, is showing people that they have a choice. It's not a requirement.
Besides the point.

 Odd Requiem, on 18 April 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

But if your heart chooses someone of the same sex, the more power to you.
No one is saying gay people can't have partners and love them. I'm simply saying that since marriage was about childbirth, wanting a marriage without wanting children is basically a form of entitlement. But as I said, I am going to hammer this home, marriage already stopped making sense before gay people were involved, so allowing them to marry at this point won't cause any real further damage. I would be lying however if I said I didn't find the entitlement so many gay people seem to have as incredibly irritating, however. But then again most people in modern society seem to lack sentimentality and are rather selfish.

 Arbenol68, on 18 April 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

This is the key phrase. Societies move on. That's how progress is made.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

As has been said, the keywords in there are 'in the past'. The past is full of things that we'd not want back (ie slavery). You can't use the past to justify anything, because that ignores the realities of the now. It's also important to note 'in the past' that marital rape was legal and you couldn't divorce someone even if they were being abusive. Should we wind marriage back to a state where those things were acceptable? After all, that's what marriage was in the past and that's what matters right?
You are missing the point because in a way what I am saying is that, from your perspective, it makes more sense to eliminate marriage entirely than to re-define it like that. I've heard many other analogies made but they do not make sense, for example:

"If you believe in traditional marriage, you might as well not want interracial couples to marry!" - this doesn't make sense because allowing two people of a different race to marry does not violate the intended purpose of marriage in the first place. Two people of different races can have children. You can have children without marital rape as well, so the principle is still intact. The reason why something exists is just as valid as the thing itself, at least when we're discussing tradition.

Equality for the sake of equality and at the expense of everything else is something that irritates me. Marriage was a really sentimental tradition because naturally we'd find childbirth sacred because you know, according to nature that is practically the core meaning of life, or one of them: Survival; and this is more real than any religion because it is in accords with nature. Looking at it that way I don't need the Bible to justify it, and I think anyone who does is confiding themselves to losing the debate anyway, which is one of the reasons I am irritated by Christian conservatives. They shoot themselves in the foot when they bring religion into any debate.

Now I need to emphasize that I have very different philosophical and ideological views than most people here; my worldview is entirely different so I can agree to disagree. I don't think on an individualistic basis, but an organic one.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Bringing kids into it always puzzles me. Why? Well first, you don't need to get married to have kids. Marriage doesn't unlock the ability to have kids, so that arguement is (again) a moot one.
It is not moot because by this logic you don't agree with marriage anyway. You are saying that celebrating childbirth is irrelevant, ergo you are actually against marriage and you are really just advocating some unrelated civil union, but of course most of you also demand it be called marriage when it isn't for the sake of equality. In a way, no one in this thread actually believes in same-sex marriage, because the reason behind it is different.

To make another example I've had on more than one occasion someone bring up that the Native Americans had "same-sex marriage"; some ritual to bond two people for purposes unbeknownst to me. This illustrates my point because whatever reason they did it was not the same reason we did, so even if we decided to call it marriage because we lacked a closer analogy, it is not the same thing. Semantic distortion once again.

...actually, come to think of it, if you don't actually agree with traditional marriage then you might as well not have civil unions anyway, because in western society the entire concept of bonding two people like that is from marriage; it was the tradition of marriage that decided to give monetary benefits and bring two people together for the purpose of celebrating procreation in the first place, and that is where the entire narrative comes from. Leftists warped the narrative intent-wise. If we started over and for whatever reason did not develop that tradition then we would not develop the concept of the civil union for anyone.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

The logic you use will, eventually, be consigned to the past.
Because modern society isn't logical. It thinks the principle of "equality" overcomes all other things, but that's another debate.

"Everything we did was criticized. For about thirty years we lived with the world against us, accusing us of things we didn't do!"

    - Ian Douglas Smith

#23    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

You are missing the point because in a way what I am saying is that, from your perspective, it makes more sense to eliminate marriage entirely than to re-define it like that. I've heard many other analogies made but they do not make sense, for example:

"If you believe in traditional marriage, you might as well not want interracial couples to marry!" - this doesn't make sense because allowing two people of a different race to marry does not violate the intended purpose of marriage in the first place. Two people of different races can have children. You can have children without marital rape as well, so the principle is still intact. The reason why something exists is just as valid as the thing itself, at least when we're discussing tradition.

Equality for the sake of equality and at the expense of everything else is something that irritates me. Marriage was a really sentimental tradition because naturally we'd find childbirth sacred because you know, according to nature that is practically the core meaning of life, or one of them: Survival; and this is more real than any religion because it is in accords with nature. Looking at it that way I don't need the Bible to justify it, and I think anyone who does is confiding themselves to losing the debate anyway, which is one of the reasons I am irritated by Christian conservatives. They shoot themselves in the foot when they bring religion into any debate.

Now I need to emphasize that I have very different philosophical and ideological views than most people here; my worldview is entirely different so I can agree to disagree. I don't think on an individualistic basis, but an organic one.

You sound like you practically worship 'traditional marriage' as you see it.

The reason why something exists in the first place is important, but the thing itself should be able to adapt with the times. Marriage today is not what it was when it was first created and you seem disappointed in that. Go back in time to that time and you'd probably be diappointed in how marriage originally was.

Nature can't really be used as justfcation, because so little of what we do falls into the realm of 'natural'.

Marriage has been 'redefined' from it's original meaning. It's not going to go back any time soon. So I suggest you try and deal with that.

Quote

It is not moot because by this logic you don't agree with marriage anyway. You are saying that celebrating childbirth is irrelevant, ergo you are actually against marriage and you are really just advocating some unrelated civil union, but of course most of you also demand it be called marriage when it isn't for the sake of equality. In a way, no one in this thread actually believes in same-sex marriage, because the reason behind it is different.

No, I'm not saying celebrating childbirth is irrelevent at all. I am saying that, since gay people do want (and can have children) denying them marriage even with your logic makes no sense. Same for infertile couples.

Like I say, it takes more to being a parent than just birthing a child.

Quote

To make another example I've had on more than one occasion someone bring up that the Native Americans had "same-sex marriage"; some ritual to bond two people for purposes unbeknownst to me. This illustrates my point because whatever reason they did it was not the same reason we did, so even if we decided to call it marriage because we lacked a closer analogy, it is not the same thing. Semantic distortion once again.

...actually, come to think of it, if you don't actually agree with traditional marriage then you might as well not have civil unions anyway, because in western society the entire concept of bonding two people like that is from marriage; it was the tradition of marriage that decided to give monetary benefits and bring two people together for the purpose of celebrating procreation in the first place, and that is where the entire narrative comes from. Leftists warped the narrative intent-wise. If we started over and for whatever reason did not develop that tradition then we would not develop the concept of the civil union for anyone.

Ah, but we're not Native Americans are we?

I'm for the 'tradtional marriage' in the ense that I am for hetrosexual couples consentually marrying regardless of if they want or are able to produce children. Being pro-same sex marriage is not being 'against' that form of marriage.

If you want marriage to be for the purposes of child raising (not just child bearing) than youur arguement falls apart. Inferile and gay people can have children and denying their families the same rights doesn't seem fair on either the cuple of the children.

It seems odd that you venerate procreation and childbirth, yet not child raising.

Quote

Because modern society isn't logical. It thinks the principle of "equality" overcomes all other things, but that's another debate.

Is any society truly logical?

I'd rather have equality than none.

Edited by shadowhive, 18 April 2013 - 03:54 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#24    Simbul

Simbul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:59 PM

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

You sound like you practically worship 'traditional marriage' as you see it.
As part of an overall worldview? Sure, you could say that.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

The reason why something exists in the first place is important, but the thing itself should be able to adapt with the times. Marriage today is not what it was when it was first created and you seem disappointed in that. Go back in time to that time and you'd probably be diappointed in how marriage originally was.
I don't like the mentality of the current times. So me "being okay with something adapting to modern times" is a moot point.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Nature can't really be used as justfcation, because so little of what we do falls into the realm of 'natural'.
From my philosophical perspective my interpretation and definition of nature is consistent.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Marriage has been 'redefined' from it's original meaning. It's not going to go back any time soon. So I suggest you try and deal with that.
"You should accept things you do not like and not have any real principles."


 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

No, I'm not saying celebrating childbirth is irrelevent at all. I am saying that, since gay people do want (and can have children) denying them marriage even with your logic makes no sense. Same for infertile couples.
This may be the only thing close to a point anyone has actually made here, but the reason why people support gay marriage is still for the wrong reasons. I don't oppose gay marriage to oppose gays, I oppose it to be consistent with supporting marriage that at least matches the core principle definition of it.

Allowing multiracial couples to marry does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage with gender equality does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage without marital rape does not violate it, but allowing people to get married when they do not choose to have kids does. You know and I know that the entire reason people support gay marriage has little to nothing to do with applying said principles to gay adoption or artificial insemination, because as I said, people do not consider marriage to be about childbirth anymore.

In a way, it is completely understandable why gay marriage is being proposed, because if you believe marriage is about love then yes, it is discrimination to not marry gays, or at least there is no reason NOT to. But I do not accept that narrative, because I do not accept leftist trends whose sole purpose is to eliminate core values and a healthy worldview that isn't based on individualism, entitlement, and hedonism.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Ah, but we're not Native Americans are we?
No, we are not (which is another reason why people using Native Americans to justify gay marriage is nonsensical). I used the Native American analogy as an example of semantic distortion - how people say things are the same regardless of considering the reasons behind them.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

I'm for the 'tradtional marriage' in the ense that I am for hetrosexual couples consentually marrying regardless of if they want or are able to produce children. Being pro-same sex marriage is not being 'against' that form of marriage.
Yes except to be completely consistent to that ends you would not consider marriage without childbirth fair or sensible. Then you'd also consider giving people economic and tax benefits if they don't plan to have children as even unfair to people who do, since that was intended as a privilege.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Inferile and gay people can have children and denying their families the same rights doesn't seem fair on either the cuple of the children.
Perhaps I would allow marriage if they chose to adopt, or get artifically inseminated. That is actually something worth considering.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Is any society truly logical?
Nowadays? Nope. It's at least far more neurotic and entitled than it was in the past.

"Everything we did was criticized. For about thirty years we lived with the world against us, accusing us of things we didn't do!"

    - Ian Douglas Smith

#25    HerNibs

HerNibs

    Grand Duchess Anaesthesia

  • Member
  • 12,282 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Colorado

  • Endless repetition does not make something true.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:08 PM

Two separate issues here - legal state/government marriage and marriage recognized by a religious group

Legal state/government marriage gives each individual certain rights and decision making abilities.  These include medical decisions, monetary decisions, legal decisions and the ability to execute these decisions regarding their partners.  In short - its a legal contract.  Any consenting citizen of legal age should have the same rights.

Religious marriage - symbolic only to that religion and it's adherents.  No legal gains.  Not recognized unless a governmental issued contract is executed by those with the authority FROM THE GOVERNMENT is issued.

So...legal marriage by NZ is AWESOME!  

Don't really care what religions do.

Nibs

Just because it is a mystery to YOU doesn't make it unexplained.

STORM - a must watch - caution, some profanity and may cause you to experience reason.

#26    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

As part of an overall worldview? Sure, you could say that.

I don't like the mentality of the current times. So me "being okay with something adapting to modern times" is a moot point.

From my philosophical perspective my interpretation and definition of nature is consistent.

"You should accept things you do not like and not have any real principles."

It depend what you think the 'mentality' of the current time is.

I say that about nature because it's an odd attitude to use. We constantly fight against nature. Disease is 'natural' yet we work to eradicate it. We take drugs to lessen pain. Practically everything about our lives is 'unnatural' by some definition or other. But then I'm not sure which definition you're using.

There's nothing wrong with having principles but whwn you have a principle that' not sensible (ie if you thought black people were an inferior race) than that' one you should dicard.

Quote

This may be the only thing close to a point anyone has actually made here, but the reason why people support gay marriage is still for the wrong reasons. I don't oppose gay marriage to oppose gays, I oppose it to be consistent with supporting marriage that at least matches the core principle definition of it.

Allowing multiracial couples to marry does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage with gender equality does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage without marital rape does not violate it, but allowing people to get married when they do not choose to have kids does. You know and I know that the entire reason people support gay marriage has little to nothing to do with applying said principles to gay adoption or artificial insemination, because as I said, people do not consider marriage to be about childbirth anymore.

In a way, it is completely understandable why gay marriage is being proposed, because if you believe marriage is about love then yes, it is discrimination to not marry gays, or at least there is no reason NOT to. But I do not accept that narrative, because I do not accept leftist trends whose sole purpose is to eliminate core values and a healthy worldview that isn't based on individualism, entitlement, and hedonism.

'I don't oppose gay marriage to oppose gays' is always followed by some clever excuse to oppose it while not trying to appear discriminatory. I see the same here. You sound incredibly alarmist.

Quote

No, we are not (which is another reason why people using Native Americans to justify gay marriage is nonsensical). I used the Native American analogy as an example of semantic distortion - how people say things are the same regardless of considering the reasons behind them.

Yes except to be completely consistent to that ends you would not consider marriage without childbirth fair or sensible. Then you'd also consider giving people economic and tax benefits if they don't plan to have children as even unfair to people who do, since that was intended as a privilege.

No. An important thing in my original comment there was if they wanted children so my statement is consistant.

While marriage has many benefit related to child rearing it also has benefits related to the couple involved. Is it fair to deny couples inheritence rights etc on the basis of they can/can't have children?

That's the reason gay people want marriage, for the benefits that apply to the couples.

Quote

Perhaps I would allow marriage if they chose to adopt, or get artifically inseminated. That is actually something worth considering.

The thing is that you seem to worship the act of childbirth and while childbirth is important, it's not the whole story. Like I said, there' more to being a parent than birthing the child. So much more. By keeping marriage as focussing olely on childbirth ignore the reality that many children are part of families who didn't have that option.

You should seriously consider that. Because right now your arguement comes acro as the pro-life ones. (Ie they care about the fetus while it's in the womb, but they don't care about the child that results all that much).

Quote

Nowadays? Nope. It's at least far more neurotic and entitled than it was in the past.

I'd say some other socities were worse. I can imagine much worse thing in society in the past (and today) than allowing people to marry.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#27    Simbul

Simbul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:27 PM

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

I say that about nature because it's an odd attitude to use. We constantly fight against nature. Disease is 'natural' yet we work to eradicate it. We take drugs to lessen pain. Practically everything about our lives is 'unnatural' by some definition or other. But then I'm not sure which definition you're using.
My definition is based on survival, not the typical...leftist "hippie" narrative which is actually really childish, fetishized, and very detached from reality.

Eliminating disease is natural because it helps with survival. That is obeying nature according to my definition of it. It is more natural to eliminate an entire species that poses a grave threat to us than to let it live, you see. That's my definition of "natural".

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with having principles but whwn you have a principle that' not sensible (ie if you thought black people were an inferior race) than that' one you should dicard.
My principle is consistent and science doesn't contradict it. I could comment further but I don't want to derail this topic.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

'I don't oppose gay marriage to oppose gays' is always followed by some clever excuse to oppose it while not trying to appear discriminatory. I see the same here.
You're probably right for a lot of cases, but to be fair a lot of the people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds also oppose homosexuality on those grounds as well - it is internally consistent, even if I do not agree with their reasons, for I am not a Christian. Personally I don't care about homosexuality and it in itself does not bother me, just the "culture" and narratives around it.

I think however using the argument "it is discrimination and it is unequal" as the sole reason in a vacuum to demonize or condemn something is lazy and childish and it depresses me that modern society seems to consider that a valid argument. It is like when the term "racism" is used to criticize certain views and policies without considering the thought process a person may have used to get to those views - there is no reason it has to be out of blind hatred. Once again, the reason why is important. And, understand, accusing someone of ulterior motives without absolute proof is always conjecture.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

You sound incredibly alarmist.
Define alarmist.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

While marriage has many benefit related to child rearing it also has benefits related to the couple involved. Is it fair to deny couples inheritence rights etc on the basis of they can/can't have children?
That is interesting actually. In that sense I would advocate civil unions with those benefits, which is always something I advocated for hospital visitation.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

That's the reason gay people want marriage, for the benefits that apply to the couples.
Right, but any benefits that are principally based on raising a child should only apply where it is relevant. I can see, for instance, civil unions for everyone that allows inheritance rights as well as hospital visitation. I would hypothetically allow that.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

The thing is that you seem to worship the act of childbirth and while childbirth is important, it's not the whole story.
Yes, I know this.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Like I said, there' more to being a parent than birthing the child. So much more. By keeping marriage as focussing olely on childbirth ignore the reality that many children are part of families who didn't have that option.
As I said an argument can be made for allowing marriage in the case of adoption of artificial insemination. If I decided that is reasonable then perhaps I'd be for "gay marriage" under those circumstances...but then again, that is debatable and I don't want to derail this topic further.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

You should seriously consider that. Because right now your arguement comes acro as the pro-life ones. (Ie they care about the fetus while it's in the womb, but they don't care about the child that results all that much).
I dislike both sides of the abortion debate. That's for another discussion though, but I will say that assuming someone who is anti-abortion doesn't care about the child outside the womb is a strawman. I understand where you are coming from (most of the people who are anti-abortion are also capitalists, at least in this country), but it is not inherent.

Edited by Gravitorbox, 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM.

"Everything we did was criticized. For about thirty years we lived with the world against us, accusing us of things we didn't do!"

    - Ian Douglas Smith

#28    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

My definition is based on survival, not the typical...leftist "hippie" narrative which is actually really childish, fetishized, and very detached from reality.

Eliminating disease is natural because it helps with survival. That is obeying nature according to my definition of it. It is more natural to eliminate an entire species that poses a grave threat to us than to let it live, you see. That's my definition of "natural".

Survival is a strange thing. Last I checked there was about 7 billion people on this planet. Also, last I checked, is that we don't have any natural predators (the closest we have is ourselves).

The human race won't die out if a few people don't decide to have children.

Quote

My principle is consistent and science doesn't contradict it. I could comment further but I don't want to derail this topic.

I never said your principle was inconsistant.

Quote

You're probably right for a lot of cases, but to be fair a lot of the people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds also oppose homosexuality on those grounds as well - it is internally consistent, even if I do not agree with their reasons, for I am not a Christian. Personally I don't care about homosexuality and they don't inherently bother me.

I think however using the argument "it is discrimination and it is unequal" as the sole reason in a vacuum to demonize or condemn something is lazy and childish and it depresses me that modern society seems to consider that a valid argument. It is like when the term "racism" is used to criticize certain views and policies without considering the thought process a person may have used to get to those views - there is no reason it has to be out of blind hatred. Once again, the reason why is important. And, understand, accusing someone of ulterior motives without absolute proof is always conjecture.

Religion has no place in this arguement. Why? Because the people that oppose it on religius grounds are just trying to impose their religious belief on everyone, christian and non-alike. They're opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general.

The reason isn't as important as you think. Discrimination is discrimination. By making the reason behind it more important is adding a get out of jail free to it.

Let's say a christian buisness owner denies service to a person because they are gay. Is that discrimination? Yes. Does the reason behind it change that it was descrimination.  No. Does the reason make it acceptable? No.

Quote

Define alarmist.

The whole 'eliminating core values' thing and the general attitude that changing marriage to being about love is the end of the world.

Quote

That is interesting actually. In that sense I would advocate civil unions with those benefits, which is always something I advocated for hospital visitation.

Why create a seperate institution? Seperate but equal has been proven not to work.

Quote

Right, but any benefits that are principally based on raising a child should only apply where it is relevant. I can see, for instance, civil unions for everyone that allows inheritance rights as well as hospital visitation. I would hypothetically allow that.

So you'd add benefits based on raising a child to anyone raising a child then?

Quote

Yes, I know this.

And yet you repeatedly make the biggest deal about childbirth, not raising.

Quote

As I said an argument can be made for allowing marriage in the case of adoption of artificial insemination. If I decided that is reasonable then perhaps I'd be for "gay marriage" under those circumstances...but then again, that is debatable and I don't want to derail this topic further.

I'd say that's part of what the topic's about.

Why make it debateable? If you allow marriage in those case you'd have to do so for anyone that did it.

Quote

I dislike both sides of the abortion debate. That's for another discussion though, but I will say that assuming someone who is anti-abortion doesn't care about the child outside the womb is a strawman. I understand where you are coming from (most of the people who are anti-abortion are also capitalists, at least in this country), but it is not inherent.

I wasn't doing it to bring abortion into it, but making the comparison. Enough people that are anti-abortion don't seem to care about humans outside the womb for it to be a noteworthy point to use as comparison.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#29    Simbul

Simbul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:22 PM

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Also, last I checked, is that we don't have any natural predators (the closest we have is ourselves).
It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate how my worldview works.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The human race won't die out if a few people don't decide to have children.
Not the point. I advocate nationalist celebrations and such so advocating the tradition of marriage is also consistent with that - like I said, part of a worldview, not in a vacuum. I just consider those things organically healthy, and debating that outlook itself is another subject.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Religion has no place in this arguement. Why? Because the people that oppose it on religius grounds are just trying to impose their religious belief on everyone, christian and non-alike. They're opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general.
Well, I am not religious so this isn't my argument!

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The reason isn't as important as you think. Discrimination is discrimination. By making the reason behind it more important is adding a get out of jail free to it.
I guess I am saying I do advocate discrimination, but discrimination based on differing criteria that actually exists, which we all do anyway. You are technically "discriminating" when you have affirmative action - it is a form of race-based discrimination. Many leftists support it and have their own internally consistent reasons too, but it is still racial discrimination. So yes - the reasons behind it need consideration unless you are a libertarian who believes in nothing but "negative" rights.


 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The whole 'eliminating core values' thing and the general attitude that changing marriage to being about love is the end of the world.
Consistent with my worldview.

 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why create a seperate institution? Seperate but equal has been proven not to work.
I never advocated it as equal. I advocated civil unions regardless of reason with some of the benefits (inheritance etc.), but full marriage would not be the same thing.

Also in most cases "separate but equal" was such in name only.


 shadowhive, on 18 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

So you'd add benefits based on raising a child to anyone raising a child then?
Yes, that would be reasonable.

"Everything we did was criticized. For about thirty years we lived with the world against us, accusing us of things we didn't do!"

    - Ian Douglas Smith

#30    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

 Gravitorbox, on 18 April 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate how my worldview works.

Not the point. I advocate nationalist celebrations and such so advocating the tradition of marriage is also consistent with that - like I said, part of a worldview, not in a vacuum. I just consider those things organically healthy, and debating that outlook itself is another subject.

Well it cmes off as a rather odd worldview.


Quote

Well, I am not religious so this isn't my argument!

Not saying it was, just saying why religious arguements should be thrown out.

Quote

I guess I am saying I do advocate discrimination, but discrimination based on differing criteria that actually exists, which we all do anyway. You are technically "discriminating" when you have affirmative action - it is a form of race-based discrimination. Many leftists support it and have their own internally consistent reasons too, but it is still racial discrimination. So yes - the reasons behind it need consideration unless you are a libertarian who believes in nothing but "negative" rights.

So you advocate negative descrimination but it's for the 'right' reasons so thats a good thing? Why?

Quote

Consistent with my worldview.

I amend my comment above that your worldview is odd to scary.

Quote

I never advocated it as equal. I advocated civil unions regardless of reason with some of the benefits (inheritance etc.), but full marriage would not be the same thing.

Also in most cases "separate but equal" was such in name only.

Ah yes, so you expect gay people to be happy with having a lesser state of civil unions? And that would work would it?

Also if you're advocating civil unions for everyone married that didn't have or want children good luck with that, because no hetrosexual couple would want their marriage downgraded to a civil union.

Quote

Yes, that would be reasonable.

Hmm. Semi-procress.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users