TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Homosexual Matrimony
Pages (16): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Best question: is?

Best-est question: ?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well that's fairly obvious - a traditional sense of decency can only be propagated by a decent sense of tradition? Is marriage a decent act?

It was. It's been bastardized. But that still doesn't take away from what it's supposed to be mean: that is, a union between a man and a woman that is tied by love, trust, and willingness to compromise with one another. The operative words (in this case), of course, being "man" and "woman".

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So you think they are inhumane and below heterosexuals? Hell, we might as well just kill them all, since they're so unnatural and going to degrade the moral fabric of our world.

Why should we kill them all?

I believe we ought to tolerate homosexual partnerships.

Why? Because they're unnatural. They're not decent. They're degrading society's moral standards. Why should we merely tolerate something that is wrong? We have to get rid of them. They're not right.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Why? Because they're unnatural. They're not decent. They're degrading society's moral standards. Why should we merely tolerate something that is wrong? We have to get rid of them. They're not right.

Yeah, well, you're on your own there.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox PKC, Domesticated, Halcyon or SystemJ coming hither with their vehement censure.

We should form some sort of justice league.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. It was. It's been bastardized. But that still doesn't take away from what it's supposed to be mean: that is, a union between a man and a woman that is tied by love, trust, and willingness to compromise with one another. The operative words (in this case), of course, being "man" and "woman".

Call this vehement censure, but surely the operative words are "love", "trust" and "willingness to compromise"? They sound like the parts of that statement that go towards a decent society.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Call this vehement censure, but surely the operative words are "love", "trust" and "willingness to compromise"? They sound like the parts of that statement that go towards a decent society.

Which is why I qualified the statement for the nonce.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Which is why I qualified the statement for the nonce.

I don't understand.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Yeah, well, you're on your own there.

Not really. I'm actually a firm supporter of gay marriage. You're the one who thinks they're unnatural and wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Not really. I'm actually a firm supporter of gay marriage. You're the one who thinks they're unnatural and wrong.

To be fair to the guy, there's a difference between thinking something is unnatural and wanting to destroy it. There's no need to paint him as genocidal.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't understand.

quote:

The operative words (in this case), of course, being "man" and "woman"

What I meant is that, since we're arguing about what two entities that make up (or should make up) a marriage, I focused on those two entities in my statement as opposed to what a marriage, excluding the two entities, means.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J To be fair to the guy, there's a difference between thinking something is unnatural and wanting to destroy it. There's no need to paint him as genocidal.

I know there's a big difference. But when you start painting someone as unnatural, you make them less than human. And when you do that, you make it less of a problem to persecute and hurt them.

Humans always work to make the "enemy" less than them so that it doesn't hurt the attacker so much to see what they're doing to their fellow man.

It just makes me sad that people think we need to "tolerate" same sex marriage and homosexuals and that they are unnatural or less than human.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. What I meant is that, since we're arguing about what two entities that make up (or should make up) a marriage, I focused on those two entities in my statement as opposed to what a marriage, excluding the two entities, means.

I still don't understand. You've given no reason why marriage should involve those particular "entities" and no reason why all those values of love and trust that would make society decent are suddenly invalidated if different "entities" are in play.

It's not as though heterosexual couples don't abuse the concept of marriage, is it? Surely the importance of marriage as a beneficial social tool is the maintenance of its benevolent values, not the people those values are shared between.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I know there's a big difference. But when you start painting someone as unnatural, you make them less than human. And when you do that, you make it less of a problem to persecute and hurt them. Humans always work to make the "enemy" less than them so that it doesn't hurt the attacker so much to see what they're doing to their fellow man. It just makes me sad that people think we need to "tolerate" same sex marriage and homosexuals and that they are unnatural or less than human.

You can think what you want, but I simply "painted" homosexuals as "humans" committing a certain aberration.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I know there's a big difference. But when you start painting someone as unnatural, you make them less than human. And when you do that, you make it less of a problem to persecute and hurt them.

Not really. Think of that old question: "What makes us human?" It usually means what seperates us from the order of nature and makes us unique from other animals. "Natural" and "human" are not synonyms.

Do you respect your father, R.j.?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I still don't understand. You've given no reason why marriage should involve those particular "entities" and no reason why all those values of love and trust that would make society decent are suddenly invalidated if different "entities" are in play.

Don't understand what? What more do you want explained when somebody says "A marriage should be between a man and a woman"?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Don't understand what? What more do you want explained when somebody says "A marriage should be between a man and a woman"?

Why.

And I'm not saying that, if a man and man married, love, trust, etc. goes out the window. I'm 100% sure homosexual spouses are capable of keeping a relationship. But when you term their relationship a marriage, the idea of "marriage" then becomes corrupted.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Why.

Because tradition dictates that marriage is a man + a woman. Simple concept.

edit: Like I said, I'm not about to approve a break of that tradition. Were it to be that gay marriage at some point became the norm, then I would certainly tolerate it. But I wouldn't be happy about it.

Don't theists, more specifically those who believe in what the Bible teaches, believe homosexuality is unnatural?

That would be one reason why people object to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo Don't theists, more specifically those who believe in what the Bible teaches, believe homosexuality is unnatural? That would be one reason why people object to it.

I've read half of the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure that's more than most people.

Unfortunately, I don't/didn't believe any of it.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Because tradition dictates that marriage is a man + a woman. Simple concept.

I think you're misguided to believe that blindly following the arbitrary or outdated whims of tradition will make society better. There's definitely an argument that the values of marriage are beneficial, but the "man + woman" part seems irrelevant when it comes to improving society.

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone

Excellent.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.