Gay Marriage page 96

3390 posts

Flag Post

Religion predates culture… Good one.
Religion is a product of culture. It may be a source for morals, but definitely not the source for morals. religion is the textbook example of products of culture: in a population there are certain rules for social interaction and beliefs regarding the environment. These parts become subject to cultural over-accentuation and what you end up is something like a religion. Clothes are another example. First they are only there for protection. But through cultural over-accentuation they become status symbols or decoration.

And why do you need to use the expression “natural” when really all you want to do is say “desirable without any evidence to suggests why it should be called that”?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Religion predates culture… Good one.
Religion is a product of culture. It may be a source for morals, but definitely not the source for morals. religion is the textbook example of products of culture: in a population there are certain rules for social interaction and beliefs regarding the environment. These parts become subject to cultural over-accentuation and what you end up is something like a religion. Clothes are another example. First they are only there for protection. But through cultural over-accentuation they become status symbols or decoration.

And why do you need to use the expression “natural” when really all you want to do is say “desirable without any evidence to suggests why it should be called that”?

Well then we’re going to have to define religion, culture, and all the rest. Can you at least work with me here. If religion is a belief set than how on Earth can you say modern civilization came before religion? Before humans first thought?

“1cul·ture
noun \ˈkəl-chər\
Definition of CULTURE
1
: cultivation, tillage
2
: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education”

@karmakoolkid Why are you still replying to me? I told you, you no longer amuse me. You’re like a bad joke that keeps playing over and over again and hoping for a different reaction each time.

 
Flag Post

Why are you changing the topic?
We were talking about culture, morals and social interaction and how you prefer to use your own interpretation of the word natural to make your argument.
Now you start about modern civilisation. Of course religion is a part of modern civilisation. MODERN? Not always. It’s a development.
It’s not like I didn’t say that in the previous post already….

 
Flag Post

I’m not changing the topic. The problem is the whole argument is going on a tangent of what’s natural, and if religion predated culture and what not.

 
Flag Post

Natural is what can be observed in nature.
Religion is a product of culture.

Happy now?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Natural is what can be observed in nature.
Religion is a product of culture.

Happy now?

Happy? I still believe religion predated culture. I think the confusion started by the definition of religion as a belief system as opposed to organized religion… Anyway, it’s your opinion, I have my own.

 
Flag Post

Is it me or are people just using this thread as an opening to troll? (flame shield activated)

 
Flag Post

Well, I support gays. ( I am one! :] ) People deserve the right to marry who ever they want. No Religion, President or any other thing or person should control that. Our lives are our own.

 
Flag Post

Darear,

How can you say that people from the dawn of time had established government before they had these beliefs? You’re clearly in the wrong.

I would think he is not. Power dynamics, which is really the simple heart of government, predate human religion. It predates sapiency. It predates humanity as any would consider it. Look at a pack of wolves, they have government. It is replete with all the familiar features for what is really the same reason. Hell, I’d even say they have marriage under government. They form monogamous male female pairs under the auspices of the Alpha’s dictatorship. Think they’ve found religion yet? I suppose they at least keep to what is natural.

Homosexuality is a learned method of behavior.

Really? I’m not going to suggest that there is not some degree of emulation/education involved in some peoples cases. But I certainly would not suggest it as a priori absolute fact across the board. If it’s learned why has it been manifest in virtually all cultures regardless of geography or timeline? If it is learned why does it routinely occur in animal populations? If it is learned why does it rise with population density? You have no data for such a statement and a wealth of contrasting information. You say you are not bigoted against homosexuality but you certainly seem to be pursuing an agenda rather then the truth.

I didn’t say Christianity was the creator of marriage, I was saying that Christianity as it influenced large populaces did add a religious connotation to the word marriage and influenced it’s practice.

Please cite which populaces. As I do not believe for a second Christianity predated religious marriages anywhere ever. I cede that Christianity influenced it’s practice, but let us not forget that the grand “They” also influenced Christian marriage (at large).

Marriage in contemporary times and even thousands of years ago was primarily religious.

In ceremony or purpose? I would cede that there is usually a nod of the head to the religious powers that be, but I imagine most marriages were politically based. Although we’re both discussing a large and specific enough span that it is largely conjecture.

I’d define natural as the norm of what is perceived to be proper behavior.

So mob rule then? Keen.

 
Flag Post

remove marriage. put in a more efficient system.
One focused on raising children.(for lower taxes, cause they will need it)
Main parent + off parent + keep adding guardians to line up in case first “caretaker” dies, then next will come in line, and so on.

 
Flag Post

Religion is innately natural to humans and has been for millenia.

So is homosexuality.

Marriage is the one institution that bonds one man and one woman and has been that way for thousands of years following religion and tradition.

Blacks have been slaves for centuries. Tradition is a shitty argument.

As much as the “argument” there are certain types of parents that “hurt” the children’s success.

 
Flag Post

Bugger it all.
There is not any good argument to say that one part of society should be excluded because of their sexuality….especially when their sexuality HARMS no one.
I’m sick and tired of the bullshit excuses.
Homosexuals are humans.
They commit no crime.

 
Flag Post

I also don,t support it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TravianReports:

I also don,t support it.

W H Y ?
This is a discussion forum,,,
NOT a voting booth.
 
Flag Post

Could a pro-homosexual marriage supporter please illustrate the difference between tolerating homosexuality, and supporting homosexuality? Please give your viewpoint if it is acceptable to simply tolerate homosexuality, or if one must support it to be right.

 
Flag Post

AKA “My prejudice is moderate.”

 
Flag Post

As long as they are discriminated against without a reason to do so I consider it my obligation to help in removing that discrimination. That way tolerating and supporting are actually the same thing. Because, if you tolerate that they are discriminated against without a reason to do so you are not actually tolerating them in this society.
Personally maybe (although I doubt that with you, MyTie), but definitely not within the society you live in. That simply would not be true tolerance. It would be closing your eyes towards intolerance.

 
Flag Post

I really, deeply like what EPR says below.
I’m gonna tweak it a bit by giving my spin on it.

Originally posted by EPR89:

As long as they are discriminated against without a reason to do so I consider it my obligation to help in removing that discrimination.

No "tweaking needed here. Such is what any rational, caring, societally productive person should do…esp. if they want the same extended to them. Does that sound familiar? Hint: Golden Ru…..

That way tolerating and supporting are actually the same thing.

All of this is pretty much obvious to the person I describe above. The only thing I would add is that one should see (the part in bold) as being steeped in DEGREES. And, I would (at times?) say this: overt toleration is TACITLY the same as (maybe PASSIVELY?) supporting a position.

This is somewhat is meant by: All it takes for Evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Because, if you tolerate that they are discriminated against without a reason to do so, you are not actually tolerating them in this society.<br

I might “twist” that a bit to say: If one tolerates that a group is discriminated against w/o a reason for doing so, he is only rising to a very poor level of tolerance likely because of “cultivated ignorance”.

Personally maybe (although I doubt that with you, MyTie), but definitely not within the society you live in.

Sorry…I’m unable to “understand” this. BUT, as it applies to the below…it likely make sense. And, it appears to be the very same thing I just said.

That simply would not be true tolerance. It would be closing your eyes towards intolerance.

Originally posted by MyTie:

Could a pro-homosexual marriage supporter please illustrate the difference between tolerating homosexuality, and supporting homosexuality? Please give your viewpoint if it is acceptable to simply tolerate homosexuality, or if one must support it to be right.

MyTie,
First: “…to be right.” , as ya know, is highly subjective.
Second: DEGREES….DEGREES of involvement. THAT is why there is a “…difference between tolerating homosexuality, and supporting homosexuality?” The same is true for the converse.
AND, I believe the “bell-shaped-curve-of-distribution” applies to these degrees.

I wanna add: a society that knows what tolerance is and actualizes it is one that has a much greater opportunity for greater “success”. Currently in America, we seem to NOT understand that “we are all in this together” and probably should be acting like it.

I’m NOT saying we have to agree on much of anything other than: to be tolerant, to be accepting of others’ rights (one of which is TO BE DIFFERENT), to be able to come together and emphasize the commonalities and downplay the petty “differences” in order to achieve the maximum harmonious societal advancements possible, to be able to disagree w/o being disagreeable….especially to such acrimonious levels as we see today.

This is the same thing I counsel a married couple that is having difficulties in their relationship. If ya think about it, it really ain’t all that hard to figure out.

It’s not what ya differences ya have (many can be very positive) and how//why ya disagree on them, it’s how ya handle them. A saying I luv (because I’m a "solutionator) is: It’s not what happens to you….it what ya do about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:as ya know

Thanks for attempting to answer my question. I stopped reading here. Please don’t presume your beliefs are something that I know to be true.

Originally posted by EPR89:

As long as they are discriminated against without a reason to do so I consider it my obligation to help in removing that discrimination. That way tolerating and supporting are actually the same thing. Because, if you tolerate that they are discriminated against without a reason to do so you are not actually tolerating them in this society.
Personally maybe (although I doubt that with you, MyTie), but definitely not within the society you live in. That simply would not be true tolerance. It would be closing your eyes towards intolerance.

Can one not fight discrimination without accepting homosexuality? This is that line that is completely ignored, by both sides, that infuriates me against both of them. One side demands that you cannot fight discrimination because that is accepting of homosexuality, and the other side demands that you accept homosexuality because that is the only way to fight discrimination. Both of those positions are malarkey.

 
Flag Post

The inability to accept that homosexuals deserve equal rights is the discrimination we’re fighting.

You cannot claim to fight discrimination, but be okay with a section of the populace having less civil rights than you enjoy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:as ya know

Thanks for attempting to answer my question. I stopped reading here. Please don’t presume your beliefs are something that I know to be true.

Originally posted by EPR89:

As long as they are discriminated against without a reason to do so I consider it my obligation to help in removing that discrimination. That way tolerating and supporting are actually the same thing. Because, if you tolerate that they are discriminated against without a reason to do so you are not actually tolerating them in this society.
Personally maybe (although I doubt that with you, MyTie), but definitely not within the society you live in. That simply would not be true tolerance. It would be closing your eyes towards intolerance.


Can one not fight discrimination without accepting homosexuality? This is that line that is completely ignored, by both sides, that infuriates me against both of them. One side demands that you cannot fight discrimination because that is accepting of homosexuality, and the other side demands that you accept homosexuality because that is the only way to fight discrimination. Both of those positions are malarkey.

Please tell me how your cognitive dissonance is a valid position? “I don’t believe woman are equal to men, but I don’t support sexism.” “I believe in Equality, but man black people need to stop living in the ghetto.” “I don’t believe that homosexuality is valid or moral, but I am not prejudice against these people.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:Please tell me how your cognitive dissonance is a valid position?

I’m of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. I’m also of the opinion that people have the right to be wrong without fear of discrimination.

You understand this as cognitive dissonance because you cannot understand how believing someone to be wrong is not discrimination. For you, it appears that there is only FOR and AGAINST, not live and let live.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:You cannot claim to fight discrimination, but be okay with a section of the populace having less civil rights than you enjoy.

This is why I don’t like entering the homosexual marriage debate. I get THIS over and over and over and over… for pages and pages and pages and pages. No matter how many times I explain my position, imbiciles repeat the strawman.

For the benefit of the record, I’ll say this again:

I do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against by government. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without government benefit, or penalty. I do not endorse anyone else’s marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s for them, and their deity, not me.

I wonder how long this thread will go before someone calls me out for saying that homos shouldn’t get the same benefits. Hint: not long.

 
Flag Post

I think what the WBC does is wrong, but I defend their right to do it. I’d still be a giant dick to the WBC because I believe they deserve it. Believing something is wrong but not wanting the law to attack it doesn’t absolve you from having to defend your opinion about homosexuality [being based only on your religion and absolutely nothing else.]

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I think what the WBC does is wrong, but I defend their right to do it. I’d still be a giant dick to the WBC because I believe they deserve it. Believing something is wrong but not wanting the law to attack it doesn’t absolve you from having to defend your opinion about homosexuality [being based only on your religion and absolutely nothing else.]

I make no defense of my belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t feel compelled to. I don’t demand people to defend their belief that homosexuality is right. I just don’t care what they believe. It’s the interaction we have with government that is the true contention, because it is that that affects us all.