|
On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote:1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality. http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry. b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity. Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o
I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church.
Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people?
As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot.
|
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote:
I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage.
For the god dam kids!!!
I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops.
I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!!
Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Why would a child develop badly because he is adopted by gays? Why would a child's environment necesserely has to be homosexual couple? Cuz it's more "normal"? And why do you compare homosexuality and zoophilia? Are you implying it has anything in common?
I don't see the problem of a child being adopted by gay parents who love each other and love him. I don't see why it should be a bad environment.
|
On June 29 2010 00:57 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote:
moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/ The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot. Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals.
I particularly liked where moltke inferred that a relationship between a man and a more intelligent mammal could be defined as consensual, and used that as evidence of the slippery slope against homosexuality.
|
On June 29 2010 01:16 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 00:57 koreasilver wrote:On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote:
moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/ The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot. Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals. I particularly liked where moltke inferred that a relationship between a man and a more intelligent mammal could be defined as consensual, and used that as evidence of the slippery slope against homosexuality.
Why would anybody have anything against even that though? I'd bump a cute alien.
|
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Morally, philosophically, socially, homosexual marriage is an unambiguous evil. There are more or less honest liberals who believe that anything benevolent in nature, ought to be stretched and inflated to encompass the whole of society, to ensure the maximum degree of human happiness. Their error is more or less an error of perspective, eying the superficial rather than introspective qualities of the thing in question.
Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Marriage is proud and exclusive. It is unwilling to admit an equal among other persons, much less of other natures. A couple undergoing the ceremony in good faith will admit the equality of other marriages in their reason, but not in their hearts. It is this prejudice which binds a man to his wife, though he discovers a superior woman or superior circumstances. It is the same prejudice which convinces a man that his child is the most important of his life, though there be children with greater talents and fewer deficiencies than his. These are pillars on which all civilized life is built. It is the prejudice of the individual which reveals the sublime reasonableness of human nature.
Don't know what to answer except that it doesn't make any sense.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
What is the consequence of broadening the semantics of marriage? One cannot alter marriage as a word without altering marriage as an institution. I suppose, if one day people discover that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with consensual incest or bestiality (I don't see why relationships between a human being and the more intelligent mammals could not be just this,) marriage will have evolved to such a state as to encompass those preferences as well. However words are not only defined by what they do mean, but more broadly by what they do not mean. If a man is said to be laughing, whereas he is merely smiling, then laughing no longer means what it used to mean, indeed, the concept of laughter becomes as muddled as the modern concept of democracy or music, or any of a thousand words which have betrayed their origins. The more a thing means, the less it means. And this would not be so evil, were it not that the greater part of felicity, no less the intellect, no less the law is dependent on the meaning of a thing.
That's so wrong, philosophically, that it's quite funny. "The more it means the less it means": what does that even mean!? Concepts change all the time, evolve, and intellectual battles are exactly about that: what word mean.
Do you know what democracy means? Go to Plato, Republic, book V: democracy is a system which work with drawing: demos, worthless people govern. NOT people they have been elected. Is that the conception you had? No. And your talking of betraying an hypothetical origin has one name: it's call being reactionary.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
It is true, independently of the taxation to be levied on traditional marriages by the obfuscation of distinctions, there is the condition that homosexuals may exercise the exact same prejudices, and therefore claim a political right as a matter of principle, even though it is unpleasant to the majority of society. However when one views the fundamental question, one comes to very different conclusions. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a weakness of the flesh, in so far as sexuality in general is an instinct rather than a conviction. We do not condemn heterosexuals for being heterosexual, but for dissolution and lechery. However, we praise them for love, charity and community. The one as well as the other is implicit in the sexual act. What is marriage (I mean this in the introspective, rather than sociological way, since it is closer to reality) then, but a purification of the processes of nature? Than the rejection of the carnal basis of the relationship, and the elevation of the spiritual?
Now it's turning into some religious reactive christian guilt theory which I think should just be banned for ever from every rationnal debate. You talked about philosophy, now we are in XVth century style dogmatic religion. Purification? Weakness of the flesh? What the hell, seriously?
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
In this cast, marriage is highly constructive, in that it rejects what is merely natural, and transcends upward, into what is human. A heterosexual couple is not married because they are sexual, but because they are hetero: the completion of the self through union with the opposite is transcendental rather than merely natural. It is in loving the opposite that the most ardent feelings are aroused, for, just as the highest form of self-love is selfless love (for we elevate ourselves thereby), so is the most sexual sexuality not merely sexual, but unsexual.
Mariage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other. Not a metaphysical a-sexual construction towards an hypothetical "transcendance". What is there to be transcendate?
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
It is only blind reason which compels in rational minds this awful theory that men should be no fundamentally different from women. Were that so, both would be degraded.
Similarly, the principle of heterosexual marriage is very simple: it is a constructive institution, not one of paltry pleasure. Its bonds (despite its purely symbolic and ceremonial nature) invents higher virtues, which allows us to go further than the liberties of disposition. Its symbolic significance is not to unite two individuals as Mr. A and Mrs. B, but to transfigure this union into one of man and woman. The union of a single couple carries the burden uniting two poles of humanity.
That sounds like some Youngian symbolic neo-budhist theory. What is that stuff with degradation? We are talking about a civil institution. You keep talking from you personnal philosophy, and it's very good that you have your personnal philosophy, but it makes no sense in a debate about the evolution of a law or about social norms.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Therefore by their own logic, the iconoclasts have nothing to complain about- for deprived of the illusion of transfiguration, marriage has no power, except to repeat what was already true about a relationship. If two homosexuals believe that they are as happy as the world could ever be, there is nothing to be added by the symbolic affirmations of the same. No institution should exist when people don't need it- marriage exists because the majority of the world believes, reasonably or unreasonably, that they do need it, that words, and moreover, words said in sacrament, makes happiness happier, makes realities more real.
Therefore where is the virtue of iconoclasm? Except as an outlet for their cynicism? Except to tyrannize people into submitting to their own nihilistic vision of human relationships? It is an evil therefore not by accident but by design, because of its willing destruction of what is good.
Power of marriage is that it unites two people in front of the law to build up a family. Period. My parents have been not married for years, and they married for fiscal reason when I was grown up. They love each other, they always did, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed between them because the mayor said few words in front of an audiance.
Your conception of marriage is religious. That's purely off-topic, as it is not what we are talking about. We are talking about marriage as a civil institution that allow two people to live together being recognize by the law.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Marriage to me is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The only objective purpose of marriage is to legally bind two genetically unrelated family branches to each other for the benefit of future children. Whatever other spiritual or religious values it may have is very subjective, hence such values should not be referred to in any marriage related argument.
In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
|
|
|
On June 29 2010 01:24 Random() wrote:
Marriage to me is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The only objective purpose of marriage is to legally bind two genetically unrelated family branches to each other for the benefit of future children. Whatever other spiritual or religious values it may have is very subjective, hence such values should not be referred to in any marriage related argument.
In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
Meaning of word change. There is no "meaning of the word" et in stone, wether it is bonjwa, mariage or democracy. The evolution of theses meaning is what we precisely call politics in the broadest sense of the word. So this is a political discussion: should the definition of mariage change, because we consider that the time when being homosexual was a crime are over and that people of the same sex loving each other have the right to make a family.
About this very basic problem of the words and their meaning, here...
http://web.archive.org/web/20071227160154/http://www.ac-nice.fr/philo/textes/Plato-Works/16-Cratylus.htm
... is a text written some times ago which explains it in the finest details. HF
|
this is probably unrelated, but why do we have marriage anyway? isn't based on religious views? it doesnt make sense to base legal bindings on a marriage. it'll probably be better just to abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone. we should stop wasting our time with this whole divine sanctity of marriage crap.
|
On June 29 2010 00:59 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote:1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality. http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry. b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity. Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church. Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people? As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot.
I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom.
Also, don't call people bigots. There are plenty of people who are in support of same-sex couples yet just believe that the freedom of religion is a sacred ground. I'm not even Christian, yet I still believe in one of our most sacred rights in the first amendment. Not everyone opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots, remember that.
|
On June 29 2010 01:29 caelym wrote:
this is probably unrelated, but why do we have marriage anyway? isn't based on religious views? it doesnt make sense to base legal bindings on a marriage. it'll probably be better just to abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone. we should stop wasting our time with this whole divine sanctity of marriage crap.
Marriage has existed primarily as a social construct above any sort of religious institution in many countries throughout the world throughout history. The ancient Greeks, for example. The Korean people have also held onto nonreligious marriage ceremonies for the majority of their history.
|
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote:
I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage.
That is completely untrue... The civil institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage are different. Legal marriage for gays and lesbians would not require any church to perform or recognize those marriages... just as they aren't require to perform or recognize the marriages of people of different faiths now.
In the United States, you can get married just by going to the county clerk and obtaining a marriage license, you need not have your marriage recognized by any religious institution to do so, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are already different. Different religions have different rules regarding interfaith marriages, re-marriages, as well as marriages between people of the same-sex (yes, there are churches that support that). The civil institution of marriage pays no regard to the rules of various religions though. If you're an Orthodox Jew and prohibited from getting a divorce, the state doesn't care, they'll give you a divorce regardless -- but your synagogue will still recognize you as married.
Gays and lesbians are allowed to get married in 5 states in the US, and no church has been required to perform or recognize those marriages.
|
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 00:59 vesicular wrote:On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote:1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality. http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry. b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity. Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church. Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people? As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot. I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom. Also, don't call people bigots. There are plenty of people who are in support of same-sex couples yet just believe that the freedom of religion is a sacred ground. I'm not even Christian, yet I still believe in one of our most sacred rights in the first amendment. Not everyone opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots, remember that.
Edit: Post above answered my question. Although separation from church and state has obviously been crossed a few times. "In God we trust" on US currency is unconstitutional =P
Wait so what you're saying is that by making gay marriage legal, you force all churches to marry same-sex couples against their will? Does it really work like that? I don't think so - but feel free to correct me.
I'm an atheist but if a priest doesn't want to marry same-sex couples, he shouldn't be forced to... The law should stick it nose out of religion and vice versa. I'm all about equal rights by the government but at the same time, institutions can discriminate...
|
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote:There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom.
Nobody is saying that, you're quite wrong.
|
On June 29 2010 01:44 boshhead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote:
I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage.
That is completely untrue... The civil institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage are different. Legal marriage for gays and lesbians would not require any church to perform or recognize those marriages... just as they aren't require to perform or recognize the marriages of people of different faiths now. In the United States, you can get married just by going to the county clerk and obtaining a marriage license, you need not have your marriage recognized by any religious institution to do so, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Civil marriage and religious marriage are already different. Different religions have different rules regarding interfaith marriages, re-marriages, as well as marriages between people of the same-sex (yes, their are churches that support that). The civil institution of marriage pays no regard to the rules of various religions though. If you're an Orthodox Jew and prohibited from getting a divorce, the state doesn't care, they'll give you a divorce regardless -- but your synagogue will still recognize you as married. Gays and lesbians are allowed to get married in 5 states in the US, and no church has been required to perform or recognize those marriages.
Hmmm...  I've been known to epic fail. I always thought that most proponets for same sex marriage laws gave the ability to obtain a liscene from a religious authority but of course I've been known to epic fail . *sigh* This is what I get from trying to enter a high level discussion. Oh well, thank you for correcting me. lolz....
|
On June 28 2010 19:46 FortuneSyn wrote:
Gay people can live together no problem. get up the required laws etc to make this happen
If the religion they are marrying under accepts it or not, is another story and is their right to deny.
And no, they should not be able to adopt.
Care to explain why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
Other people in this thread have already shared stories of people they know personally who were raised by same sex couples and turned out totally normal and fine..
|
On June 29 2010 01:24 Random() wrote:
In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
It's not because you can't have a child with your partner that you can't have a child, with adoption or a surrogate mother. Sterile heterosexual couple can't marry either because they can't have a child ?It's possible to have a civil marriage (and not civil partnership) only in a lot of countries, even on heterosexual relationships.
And for the meaning of the word "marriage", he has changed so many times, with the divorce, with the civil marriage, with the possibility to marry many times in a lifetime, why not for gays ? :p
|
On June 29 2010 00:06 TunaFishyMe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 22:47 Pandain wrote:On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote:
I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage.
For the god dam kids!!!
I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops.
I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!!
Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you. Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate? What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
Your child won't get influenced. If he sees a male and a female kissing is he more likely to turn straight? If so, that would probably leave a lot less gay people in the world. Why do you not want to imagine a child being gay? It seems like your trying to say being gay is fine, but not when it'll directly affect your life.
And for the whole adoption debate - There's been studies that argue there are no problems with children being raised by same sex parents. I remember reading a pretty long article on it, I wonder if I can find it...
|
On June 29 2010 01:55 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 00:06 TunaFishyMe wrote:On June 28 2010 22:47 Pandain wrote:On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote:
I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage.
For the god dam kids!!!
I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops.
I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!!
Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you. Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate? What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on. Your child won't get influenced. If he sees a male and a female kissing is he more likely to turn straight? If so, that would probably leave a lot less gay people in the world. Why do you not want to imagine a child being gay? It seems like your trying to say being gay is fine, but not when it'll directly affect your life. And for the whole adoption debate - There's been studies that argue there are no problems with children being raised by same sex parents. I remember reading a pretty long article on it, I wonder if I can find it...
Yup!
The reason why someone become homosexual are a bit more deep and complicated than a pavlovian imitation of their parents (actually you're right there wouldn't be any gay).
Anyway, becoming gay means nothing at all since Freud has proven a century ago that human is naturally bisexual and then repress none, one or both of his orientation. Which explain why in a society without taboo on homosexuality, like in the ancient Greece, almost everybody was basically bisexual, which was the absolute norm.
|
Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.
If I were of a similar bent, I could have said that Aristotle was inclined to think homosexuality aberrant, and left it at that. A minor correction though; you didn't start with Foucault, but ended with him. Just as Aristotle was the Philosopher of late-medieval scholastics, Foucault seems to be the Philosopher whose thought is gospel. A closer inspection of my argumentation though, reveals no inclination against which Foucault struggled. I did not claim that homosexuality was unnatural, on the contrary, I claimed that nature was an insufficient source for people. I flattered Foucault by giving social constructs more credit than it is seriously due. I did not exclude Greek sodomy from a consideration of sexual nature, but I did claim to think that we have superseded it. I did not claim that Christian marriage is the only form of marriage, but I do think that it is under the circumstances the best form of marriage. These are the essentials of what I wrote. Therefore I don't think what I said can be reduced to a position, to be refuted by another position whose essentials in no way refute what I said.
That's so wrong, philosophically, that it's quite funny. "The more it means the less it means": what does that even mean!? Concepts change all the time, evolve, and intellectual battles are exactly about that: what word mean.
It means simply, that more is less, whether in money or in carnal opportunities, or words or tragedies. That is the meaning of Aesop's Boy who cried wolf, whose wolf meant everything and therefore nothing. The same principle applies to marriage.
Do you know what democracy means? Go to Plato, Republic, book V: democracy is a system which work with drawing: demos, worthless people govern. NOT people they have been elected. Is that the conception you had? No.
Actually, that was more or less the conception I had when referring to original meaning in connection with that word. You have to give others credit, that they are at least equally capable of thinking counter-intuitively as yourself.
And your talking of betraying an hypothetical origin has one name: it's call being reactionary.
I understand what you mean by calling me reactionary, but I don't understand what you imply by it. After all, adoption of jargon is to be forever to be bound to the mental cliches of jargon. A man with imagination who bursts the bonds of prescriptive vocabulary, ought to mean something different by "reactionary" than the stale associations of Leninist demagogy. But, despite all my resolution in being progressive in thought, I am limited by this essential problem: I do not understand what you are saying.
Now it's turning into some religious reactive christian guilt theory which I think should just be banned for ever from every rationnal debate. You talked about philosophy, now we are in XVth century style dogmatic religion. Purification? Weakness of the flesh? What the hell, seriously?
Not at all, guilt, like fear is the most rational as well as the most natural of impulses. It is not a matter of social brainwashing, but the most essential consequence of the intellect which can recognize the connection between past and future, between deeds and consequences.
Mariage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other. Not a metaphysical a-sexual construction towards an hypothetical "transcendance". What is there to be transcendate?
If marriage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other, what is its purpose? As I intimated, marriage is not primarily about the law, but in its primary nature, about love. Thus, very sensibly, the ceremony of marriage is an event under the doctrine of Catholic theology different from the consummation of marriage, and it is possible under the same to be married even in absence of the prescribed ceremony.
That sounds like some Youngian symbolic neo-budhist theory. What is that stuff with degradation? We are talking about a civil institution. You keep talking from you personnal philosophy, and it's very good that you have your personnal philosophy, but it makes no sense in a debate about the evolution of a law or about social norms.
I conceded the point at the beginning, it makes no difference to the Icelandic law what I say about homosexuality or marriage. However, you must be consistent about this: either a person's argument is merely subjective, and therefore personal and individual, or his argument is social and participant, in which he makes a claim to the understanding of others. Therefore it is not only "very good" that I have a personal philosophy, but it is also good that it is not merely a personal one.
Degradation is very simply underperforming relative to the potential of your nature. A person who behaves like a pig degrades himself. This is clear enough.
Power of marriage is that it unites two people in front of the law to build up a family. Period.
How powerless is this power, and how ignorant in human nature. I suppose by this account, the impulses of humanity are driven to this deduction: Human beings build up families. To this end, I must marry.
Is it possible than an understanding with so little humanity is to prescribe wise laws for humanity? By treating men as though they were simple like machines, as if inner life were merely the superstructure of inhuman reality, we arrive at the most unrealistic vision of all. It is the Lucifer-complex of the philosopher, who is the only man in the world unable to liberate himself of the enslaving Zeitgeist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
