TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Health Inspectors shut down 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa At one time, the definition of a person only included white men. Women and people of colour were not to be considered persons, but more like belongings. That was the tradition... and the label "meant something". However, it was realized that excluding people from taking on the label was discrimination, and it was changed. To me, marriage is very similar. Similar to not allowing someone to be called or considered a 'person', you are advocating that people not be allowed to be called or considered 'married'. person - belonging married - civil union Obviously they aren't exactly the same, but the premise is. Saying it's tradition is hobunky because A LOT of stuff has been tradition and we have abolished/changed these things because they were not right.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I suppose you're right about that. But you asked me whether or not I thought homosexuality was as unnatural as conveying my thoughts through an internet forum.

Precisely, and what we're doing here is way less natural than something that involves two blokes making out with one another. We're not "natural" creatures, so to speak, we live in an environment so pregnant with meaning and social norms that naturalness is pretty irrelevant anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Aside from that, I don't think it's a question of whether or not we "can" or "are able" to change our traditions, but whether or not we "should", and that's where we disagree.

Why? It's not like they're out to hurt anyone

I don't know why you're bothering with someone who clearly hasn't/doesn't know how to critically think about their values or why their belief system is what it is. You might as well just be repeatedly punching yourself in the balls.

Solid point about the whole issue by Dr. Krauthammer:

quote:

Look, Prop 8 passed by 52-percent of the vote. The same referendum eight years earlier in the same state passed with 62-percent. It's obvious where the trend is headed and over time states are legalizing gay marriage -- it's happened the right way by legislative action in D.C., in Vermont and New Hampshire. That's how it ought to be done, otherwise we're going to have an embittered country and there's going to be no recourse, in the legislative assemblies because of a ruling of a fiat of judges. That will be divisive and that will postpone a stable settlement of the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I don't know why you're bothering with someone who clearly hasn't/doesn't know how to critically think about their values or why their belief system is what it is. You might as well just be repeatedly punching yourself in the balls.

I'm an optimist

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Why? It's not like they're out to hurt anyone

I never said they were. Besides, I've already explained as to why a few posts up.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I don't know why you're bothering with someone who clearly hasn't/doesn't know how to critically think about their values or why their belief system is what it is.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I haven't "critically thought about... blah blah blah". Why do "you" even bother?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm an optimist

I'm an optimist too, but it's kind of hard to argue with someone who has no problem with being a bigot.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I'm an optimist too, but it's kind of hard to argue with someone who has no problem with being a bigot.

Again, twisting my words. Good job.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Again, twisting my words. Good job.

Okay, explain how you're not a bigot.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I haven't "critically thought about... blah blah blah". Why do "you" even bother?

No sorry, you definitely don't do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Okay, explain how you're not a bigot.

Because I don't have anything against gay people?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie No sorry, you definitely don't do that.

How do you know that?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I never said they were. Besides, I've already explained as to why a few posts up.

But all you said was that you don't feel it is a good idea because it may "taint" the institution of marriage... or did I miss a post?

I don't understand why you think marriage can be tainted by homosexual unions while the possibility of divorce has been around for decades?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But all you said was that you don't feel it is a good idea because it may "taint" the institution of marriage... or did I miss a post? I don't understand why you think marriage can be tainted by homosexual unions while the possibility of divorce has been around for decades?

Because I'm speaking on a fundamental level.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Because I don't have anything against gay people?

Except that you think they are unnatural and will taint marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Because I'm speaking on a fundamental level.

I'm not sure I'm following you. What fundamental level? And how would this be any worse than divorce in general?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Except that you think they are unnatural and will taint marriage.

Yeah, well, like I said, I must draw the line somewhere. It doesn't change my personal view of them.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. How do you know that?

Because:

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Because I'm speaking on a fundamental level.

You think "fundamental" is absolute. Hah! Busted. Stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm not sure I'm following you. What fundamental level? And how would this be any worse than divorce in general?

The way I see it: marriage = man + woman. You could sprinkle all the details you want, and pepper me with all sorts of facts and whatnot, but that core ideal doesn't change.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Because: You think "fundamental" is absolute. Hah! Busted. Stupid.

What the hell are you talking about?

I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Do you know what you're talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. The way I see it: marriage = man + woman. You could sprinkle all the details you want, and pepper me with all sorts of facts and whatnot, but that core ideal doesn't change.

This is what I can't understand. Why can't this core ideal change despite the facts mentioned thus far? Is there any reason why this needs to be inevitably so?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Do you know what you're talking about?

Yes. Did you read the post right after yours?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Yeah, well, like I said, I must draw the line somewhere. It doesn't change my personal view of them.

Yeah, well, like I said, you're a bigot.

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