|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Marriage is a civil right in the US | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
faith writes: For one thing, because women have historically needed the protection and support of men. Leaving aside the gender assumptions at work here, what difference does physical strength make to an individual pitted against the laws of the state? Laws exist to organize society around a common set of rules so that the need for violent struggle is negated.
faith writes: Where did I say that marriage is a "legal contract?" It's a cultural institution. Marriage is, as I have shown, defined as a legal contract. This remains the case over and above and religious or cultral meanings you may attach to it.
faith writes: This is a CULTURAL thing. Ah, but you are talking about your culture! Culture isn't a singular, monolithic, eternal state. There are a multitude of cultures at work in any given society. Futhermore, culture is subject to constant change. Even a long established religous culture like Christianity can very easily be shown to have ungergone massive change over the past 2000 years.
faith writes: But that's between them alone, and it does not involve the whole society. But homosexuals ARE a part of society and like it or not they play huge role in its existence. Edited by RickJB, : Typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I adnit to the same feeling. Of course, the gay folks I have spoken to about this feel the same way about heterosexual activity.
quote: Of course, they shouldn't want to "help" who they are, as being gay is not intrinsically a regrettable thing. (I know you probably agree)
quote: Here, here! Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Another interesting fact is that in the ultra-orthadox religious Jewish community, it is the women who earn the money and take care of the men, who do not work at all. The men spend all of their time studying the Talmud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
quote: I adnit to the same feeling. and that makes us heterosexual. frankly, i kind of find all sex gross at some level -- i'm just naturally drawn to the opposite gender in a way even less explainable than "i find gays icky." but, we have to understand that this is a personal preference that varies from person to person in direction and degree. and that our government and laws do not exist to enforce personal preferences. if you find the idea of being married to someone of the same gender icky, the solution is simple. don't marry someone of the same gender. but we can't look over at our neighbors and say "i think what you're doing is disgusting" and try to get it outlawed. not when no objective harm is being done to anyone, on any reasonable standard, and people are just living their own lives. added by edit:
quote: Here, here! exactly. Edited by arachnophilia, : added further agreement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4905 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Leaving aside the gender assumptions at work here, what difference does physical strength make to an individual pitted against the laws of the state? Laws exist to organize society around a common set of rules so that the need for violent struggle is negated. Im forced to disagree here. If we're talking westernish world here, the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the governed. I'm not throwing this out to sound superior, i think its the sole item behiind this argument. Btw, for the government issue, see Locke,Hobbes, and even a little Montesquieu. But the real deal. If Gov't is there only to protect the rights of the governed, then that is it's full extent. The gov't is not there to bubble-wrap things for everyone's safety (great example- prohibition in early 1900 america. The gov claimed it was for everyones god, but it did more harm then help and was revoked before it barely got settled.) Why does this matter? Well who's rights are more at stake, the conservatives who are offended by the almost unseen presence of homosexual couples, or the gays themselves who are denied their LEGAL CONTRACT. They're not asking to be married in churches.
Ah, but you are talking about your culture!
beautifully said. When they demand entrance into your church, you can have the pleasure of kicking them out of your institution. But untill then, think a little more as a society. -I believe in God, I just call it Nature -One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion. -People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men. -Religion is the opiate of the masses
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Btw, for the government issue, see Locke,Hobbes, it's a little hard to group those two together. while i suppose both argue for government to protect rights (social contract theory), hobbes seems to like monarchy, and argues that rights come out of neccessity and fear of violent death (as the alternative to society). locke seems to like (or rather inspire) democracies, and argues that rights are natural, innate, or even god-given, and that we draft governments to protect those rights and our properties, not our lives.
But the real deal. If Gov't is there only to protect the rights of the governed, then that is it's full extent. The gov't is not there to bubble-wrap things for everyone's safety (great example- prohibition in early 1900 america. The gov claimed it was for everyones god, but it did more harm then help and was revoked before it barely got settled.) yes, this is a very good point, and a bit that would easily distinguish locke from hobbes. hobbes argued that government exists to protect us from human nature. locke argued that government existed to protect property and rights. hobbes' definition might include protecting us from ourselves. (i'm not sure, i haven't read hobbes...)
Why does this matter? Well who's rights are more at stake, the conservatives who are offended by the almost unseen presence of homosexual couples, or the gays themselves who are denied their LEGAL CONTRACT. They're not asking to be married in churches. while this is most likely rhetorical, let me add to it by saying that definition of personal rights extends only as far as the next person. we have our rights to live and do as we please, but not to infringe upon the rights of others. conservatives, therefor, cannot say that they have a right to protect themselves from others doing something that does not even affect them. the argument is two-fold: a) gays getting married in no way harms anyone else, or violates anybody's rights. b) you do not have the right to restrict the rights of others. further, i find it even more ironic that the "conservatives" are proposing an amendment on the federal level to outlaw gay marriage. real conservatives are for smaller federal government, with less authority, and "states' rights." meaning that the real conservative view should be that the states should be allowed to make their own laws on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nobody is addressing me any more so I'd appreciate it if you'd change the subtitle to suit the actual content of the conversation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
And we'd apreciate some answers......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we were hoping it would attract you back to answer some of the unanswered questions raised by your points.
but yes, it is poor debate technique. (but so is bailing when the questions get hard)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The questions aren't hard, but most if it ignores that I've already answered it, and the rest is just silly, and I have no more interest in this thread. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The questions aren't hard, but most if it ignores that I've already answered it, i was asking for specifics methods that regarding HOW gay marriage would destroy society, and the actualy literal effects of it, for instance. you answered that would destroy society, but never proposed an example of a direct or even indirect effect, in specific, that could be actually linked gay marriage causally. i was also looking for what specifically "making a mockery of marriage" means, in terms what will happen to the institution, legal contracts, and family life. i'm looking for real arguments -- not catch-phrases.
and I have no more interest in this thread. Sorry. sounds like an excuse for not being able to answer a simple question.
and the rest is just silly i agree. this is pretty silly. just answer the questions. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't share any of your assumptions or judgments, I've answered the questions as well as I have any interest in doing, it would only be counterproductive to repeat myself, and good evening to you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I've answered the questions as well as I have any interest in doing you have no interest in defending -- or even explaining -- your viewpoint?
ot would only be counterproductive to repeat myself, i'm not asking you to repeat yourself. i know what you have said, honest. i'm asking you to elaborate and explain further the details of your position, especially regarding the specifics of certain claims and how you see them unfolding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Done all it seems worth it to do, Arach. If it doesn't convey anything already, it wouldn't convey any more no matter how well I elaborated it beyond that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, you've got to do a little better than "it'll destroy society as we know it." maybe you see the connection, but the rest of us don't. i'm just trying to understand your logic. HOW will it destroy society? what exactly will happen that constitutes the destruction of society? what will we do afterwards?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024