|
Health Inspectors shut down 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Maybe we should just give everyone parachutes, so that way, if someone tries to accuse someone else of not being a person, he can just jump in the air and parachute away to a place where he can get married. Why hasn't anybody thought of this yet? |
|
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| 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. |
That's one of the best points I've ever seen you make, Theresa.
 |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That if there's anything unnatural about homosexuality, it can't be less natural than what we're doing right now. |
Apples and oranges, don't you think? :conf: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Apples and oranges, don't you think? :conf: |
Not really. Both marriage and on-line communication are social phenomena, and the fact that you're bringing naturalness to the table has no relevance whatsoever - that's my point. We came up with this stuff, and we're allowed to change them as we see fit. |
|
|
| couch-potato |
trance is natural
unicorns are natural  |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Banora
What have you people done to my thread!? :( |
"When life gives you lemons, make a gay marriage thread." |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not really. Both marriage and on-line communication are social phenomena, and the fact that you're bringing naturalness to the table has no relevance whatsoever - that's my point. We came up with this stuff, and we're allowed to change them as we see fit. |
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. 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. |
|
|
| Lews |
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :conf: |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| 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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
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. |
|
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :p |
|
|
|
|
