Gay marriage

[reminisco]

Homophobia is a term that liberals have come up with in order to try and make people who are against gay marriage sound like bigots. By that standard you could say that other people are Pedophiliaphobic or Beastialaphobic.

you're way off here, and i'm not even going to bother...

[bradleybadly]

Homophobia is a term that liberals have come up with in order to try and make people who are against gay marriage sound like bigots. By that standard you could say that other people are Pedophiliaphobic or Beastialaphobic.

you're way off here, and i'm not even going to bother...

you just did

[reminisco]

Homophobia is a term that liberals have come up with in order to try and make people who are against gay marriage sound like bigots. By that standard you could say that other people are Pedophiliaphobic or Beastialaphobic.

you're way off here, and i'm not even going to bother...

you just did

i bothered to tell you you're way off, but i didn't bother to explain why. guess i should have said that in the last post. so i'll say it now:

you're way off here, and i'm not even going to bother explaining why.

[Snorri1234]

Homophobia is a term that liberals have come up with in order to try and make people who are against gay marriage sound like bigots. By that standard you could say that other people are Pedophiliaphobic or Beastialaphobic.

And yet again bradley shows his wonderfull ability to make threads dumber.

[got tonkaed]

Homophobia is a term that liberals have come up with in order to try and make people who are against gay marriage sound like bigots. By that standard you could say that other people are Pedophiliaphobic or Beastialaphobic.

well i think theres a bit of a distinction that could be made (though i wonder if its a futile exercise)

beastiality works with a rather simple taboo that sexual relations work better between two humans. We tend not to think of people who do this as very decent folk, because seemingly there is plenty of human options available for most folk, so clearly what you are doing deviates from the norm.

Pedophila is also a rather simple taboo because sexuality is supposedly something that you acquire with age (though im not sure anyones really explained how). To engage in sexual acts with young indivdiuals essentially robs them of this practice of getting older and achieving the whole sexuality thing on time.

Homosexuality is a little different in the taboo, because you are often talking about two consenting adults. While certainly they arent choosing the partners some people would want them to pick, they arent egregiously violating some of the basic sexual norms.

Since the first two are grosser violations of taboo than the 3rd, to disapprove is not really bigotry or at least is not seen as such. Since the third involves an act that is conciously consented to, to disapprove of it makes you at the very least a jerk-face.

Liberals apparently did such a terrible thing by creating the term homophobic, because there was in fact something about the behavior that was bigotry and was easy enough to come up with a framework as to why it was.

Stupid liberals.

[bradleybadly]

Thank you tonka for at least making an attempt to justify what you believe in. People like Snorri have no real points to make except to say that people who aren't liberal are dumb, which probably shows his own lack of intelligence.

My question to you tonka since you're making the case on the basis of consent is why don't we let every behavior ok on the basis of consent? Prostitution for the most part is still illegal even though both people are consenting to it. Are you going to start making prostitution legal as well? What about incest, are we going to make that legal if both brother and sister are consenting?

[got tonkaed]

Thank you tonka for at least making an attempt to justify what you believe in. People like Snorri have no real points to make except to say that people who aren't liberal are dumb, which probably shows his own lack of intelligence.

My question to you tonka since you've making the case on the basis of consent is why don't we let every behavior ok on the basis of consent? Prostitution for the most part is still illegal even though both people are consenting to it. Are you going to start making prostitution legal as well?

well actually yeah i would probably not have a huge problem with making prostitution legal. It would probably do a lot of good to shut down the sex slave trade, generate tax revenue, cut down on the crime from informal prostitution practices, and allow for better health protection for the people who are involved in teh action.

The burden on people like myself, who argue in favor of policy advocating choice, is that you have to deal with things that are potentially undesirable, or things you would not often do yourself. The average person cant really divorce themselves from the things they argue you about, which is why most people are terribly unintellectual and cant argue very well.

[bradleybadly]

I added the incest part after you posted so you didn't have a chance to respond to that

[Neoteny]

The burden on people like myself, who argue in favor of policy advocating choice, is that you have to deal with things that are potentially undesirable, or things you would not often do yourself. The average person cant really divorce themselves from the things they argue you about, which is why most people are terribly unintellectual and cant argue very well.

Wow.

[got tonkaed]

I added the incest part after you posted so you didn't have a chance to respond to that

the incest issue...

I believe it wouldnt be an issue because theres already another very simple taboo in place. While advocates of choice are probably numerous, there also are advocates on the behalf of more traditional approach to issues like these also numerous. The ability of advocates of choice to have success is contingent on how strong the taboo is against the act, which is why you see more advocates for homosexuality, than incest.

In my estimation at least, people would not reverse the taboo against incest because it falls under a more simplistic taboo than the consent issue, because of the number of other assumptions about family roles, and genetic concerns at the like.

We tend not to think of members of our own family as sexual beings...which helps to strongly reinforce the taboo.

[hecter]

I agree, prostitution really should be legal for the points given by tonka.

Incest is ultimately bad because of the mutant offspring... But ultimately if you want to bone your sister, go right ahead... I ain't gonna stop you. In fact, is incest actually illegal? Well, it sorta is and sorta isn't... Depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it.

[bradleybadly]

I don't see how you can make that case based on consent. If a brother and sister want to get married and they both consent to it then you should not be standing in the way of their happiness. Who are you to say that their feelings are not truly love? As long as they consent it should be ok.

I'm just guessing here but I think that you would be ok with legalizing prostitution and polygamy since you're basing things on consent.

[got tonkaed]

I agree, prostitution really should be legal for the points given by tonka.

Incest is ultimately bad because of the mutant offspring... But ultimately if you want to bone your sister, go right ahead... I ain't gonna stop you. In fact, is incest actually illegal? Well, it sorta is and sorta isn't... Depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it.

the nifty thing about simple taboos (which might be something ive just created) is i think the simpler the taboo, the less likely you actuallly have to put formal restrictions on it, because it is able to reinforce itself in most areas on its own.

Granted that means in some areas the act will occur, but that probably has the effect of stigmatizing the area in general. IE places where you can marry your sister tend to get made fun of by everyone else.

[got tonkaed]

I don't see how you can make that case based on consent. If a brother and sister want to get married and they both consent to it then you should not be standing in the way of their happiness. Who are you to say that their feelings are not truly love? As long as they consent it should be ok.

I'm just guessing here but I think that you would be ok with legalizing prostitution and polygamy since you're basing things on consent.

well in theory it should be, but the case i make isnt simply just about consent.

It rather is something that argues basically we should allow what is allowable to the point that it no longer is denied by taboo. Incredibly relativistic i know, but i would postulate things start becoming allowed for the incredibly simple truth that people stop caring so much whether or not people do the act.

More people tend to cringe when you talk about incest than homosexuality.

I think thats the telling point about why one will likely be legalized in my lifetime, and one will very likely not be.

Polygamy is a bit trickier. We do have a culture that is set up on the basis of monogamy, but that element of the culture is starting to fall apart. I dont really see polygamy in and of itself as inherently evil, though its not something i tend to think about and when i do, i tend to think of the negatives that result in teh cases that i am familiar with at least.

polygamy again though, is something i would hazard is less cringe worthy than incest and more likely to become possible in the future, given the nature of more tenuously bound marriages in general.

[bradleybadly]

I agree with what your saying about cultural taboos. My side says that if you start defining marriage as other than what it already is then basically you are calling for a culture which says anything goes. We can't live in a society that doesn't draw the line someplace. In your case you're saying the line gets drawn at consent. I'm not one of these Christian nutjobs that is going to tell you that you'll go to hell but I do believe in good and evil. There is a wrong way for a society to act and a correct way to act. I believe strong families make strong societies and that it's best for a kid to be raised by a mom and a dad. Consent is a terrible argument to make for homosexuals to get married because you end up having to redefine everything eventually.

[Snorri1234]

Thank you tonka for at least making an attempt to justify what you believe in. People like Snorri have no real points to make except to say that people who aren't liberal are dumb, which probably shows his own lack of intelligence.

Bullshit. You haven't made an actual argument on this forum in forever. Instead, you say that "the liberals" are persecuting you and insult every liberal you see because you can't grasp the idea that they might be attacking you because you show all the reasoning-ability of a dead shrimp.

I mean, the fact that you haven't read the thread is so obvious it's painfull. Do you think you're the only one who has made the link between pedophillia and homosexuality? I mean, it was brought up in the first two pages and immediately shot down by the reasonable people here.
Shit, even Nappy has admitted that it isn't really a very good comparison. (Which is like Bush admitting that the war in Iraq might not have been a very good idea.)

My question to you tonka since you're making the case on the basis of consent is why don't we let every behavior ok on the basis of consent? Prostitution for the most part is still illegal even though both people are consenting to it. Are you going to start making prostitution legal as well?

Hey, I guess we do. The prostitutes over here even pay taxes! And it does make the whole bussiness easily manageable.

What about incest, are we going to make that legal if both brother and sister are consenting?

As GT said, it probably won't be an issue. Not only is the taboo on it very big, the number of times it actually happens is very small. It's not like nearly 10% of the population has sex with their sister or something.

(10% being a rough estimation of the amount of homosexuals in the world. It might be more around 7 or 8% but whatever.)

[got tonkaed]

I agree with what your saying about cultural taboos. My side says that if you start defining marriage as other than what it already is then basically you are calling for a culture which says anything goes. We can't live in a society that doesn't draw the line someplace. In your case you're saying the line gets drawn at consent. I'm not one of these Christian nutjobs that is going to tell you that you'll go to hell but I do believe in good and evil. There is a wrong way for a society to act and a correct way to act. I believe strong families make strong societies and that it's best for a kid to be raised by a mom and a dad. Consent is a terrible argument to make for homosexuals to get married because you end up having to redefine everything eventually.

Ah i disagree with some of this. To me the most responsible act of an culture or cultural actors is defintion and redefinition of culture. Simply put, we tend to all believe you get a lot more out of something should you tend to invest your effort and your work into it. Its part of the reason we say its better to give than recieve, because we assume you had to do something to give, you may have labored for it.

To simply sit upon traditional elements of how any element of culture works is to deprive yourself of this very possiblity to actively engage in the transmission of culture. You essentially give up your propensity to act, in exchange for cultural assuredness. While i cant knock anyone for wanting that, since its a rather intoxicating notion, it certainly seems to leave an important part out - the part that you create.

This is why i have little fear of a culture that has to constantly redefine its borders. Certainly there is a potential for mistakes, anyone who gives the freedom to chances guarantees the right to err, but it probably will rarely be as severe as feared, especially when dealing with intangible concepts such as the family. A culture that is constantly redefining its borders creates a group of people who are more self-aware and more socially open. I think in this way you get around some of the issue of responsibilty vs choice, because people who choose alot have to become responsible if they want to keep choosing.

Freely given consent isnt a danger, its probably the best hope any of us have.

[Neoteny]

I agree with what your saying about cultural taboos. My side says that if you start defining marriage as other than what it already is then basically you are calling for a culture which says anything goes. We can't live in a society that doesn't draw the line someplace. In your case you're saying the line gets drawn at consent. I'm not one of these Christian nutjobs that is going to tell you that you'll go to hell but I do believe in good and evil. There is a wrong way for a society to act and a correct way to act. I believe strong families make strong societies and that it's best for a kid to be raised by a mom and a dad. Consent is a terrible argument to make for homosexuals to get married because you end up having to redefine everything eventually.

Ah i disagree with some of this. To me the most responsible act of an culture or cultural actors is defintion and redefinition of culture. Simply put, we tend to all believe you get a lot more out of something should you tend to invest your effort and your work into it. Its part of the reason we say its better to give than recieve, because we assume you had to do something to give, you may have labored for it.

To simply sit upon traditional elements of how any element of culture works is to deprive yourself of this very possiblity to actively engage in the transmission of culture. You essentially give up your propensity to act, in exchange for cultural assuredness. While i cant knock anyone for wanting that, since its a rather intoxicating notion, it certainly seems to leave an important part out - the part that you create.

This is why i have little fear of a culture that has to constantly redefine its borders. Certainly there is a potential for mistakes, anyone who gives the freedom to chances guarantees the right to err, but it probably will rarely be as severe as feared, especially when dealing with intangible concepts such as the family. A culture that is constantly redefining its borders creates a group of people who are more self-aware and more socially open. I think in this way you get around some of the issue of responsibilty vs choice, because people who choose alot have to become responsible if they want to keep choosing.

Freely given consent isnt a danger, its probably the best hope any of us have.

I need to hire your speech writer before we run for president. That nearly brought a tear to my eye...

[got tonkaed]

I agree with what your saying about cultural taboos. My side says that if you start defining marriage as other than what it already is then basically you are calling for a culture which says anything goes. We can't live in a society that doesn't draw the line someplace. In your case you're saying the line gets drawn at consent. I'm not one of these Christian nutjobs that is going to tell you that you'll go to hell but I do believe in good and evil. There is a wrong way for a society to act and a correct way to act. I believe strong families make strong societies and that it's best for a kid to be raised by a mom and a dad. Consent is a terrible argument to make for homosexuals to get married because you end up having to redefine everything eventually.

Ah i disagree with some of this. To me the most responsible act of an culture or cultural actors is defintion and redefinition of culture. Simply put, we tend to all believe you get a lot more out of something should you tend to invest your effort and your work into it. Its part of the reason we say its better to give than recieve, because we assume you had to do something to give, you may have labored for it.

To simply sit upon traditional elements of how any element of culture works is to deprive yourself of this very possiblity to actively engage in the transmission of culture. You essentially give up your propensity to act, in exchange for cultural assuredness. While i cant knock anyone for wanting that, since its a rather intoxicating notion, it certainly seems to leave an important part out - the part that you create.

This is why i have little fear of a culture that has to constantly redefine its borders. Certainly there is a potential for mistakes, anyone who gives the freedom to chances guarantees the right to err, but it probably will rarely be as severe as feared, especially when dealing with intangible concepts such as the family. A culture that is constantly redefining its borders creates a group of people who are more self-aware and more socially open. I think in this way you get around some of the issue of responsibilty vs choice, because people who choose alot have to become responsible if they want to keep choosing.

Freely given consent isnt a danger, its probably the best hope any of us have.

I need to hire your speech writer before we run for president. That nearly brought a tear to my eye...

actually i got a bad grade on a paper today, and a few of the articles i read for some reason were especially poetic....therefore today i am going after it to prove to myself i am not a dummy.

[Neoteny]

actually i got a bad grade on a paper today, and a few of the articles i read for some reason were especially poetic....therefore today i am going after it to prove to myself i am not a dummy.

Sad day. Well, you sure have me fooled.

[bradleybadly]

Ah i disagree with some of this. To me the most responsible act of an culture or cultural actors is defintion and redefinition of culture. Simply put, we tend to all believe you get a lot more out of something should you tend to invest your effort and your work into it. Its part of the reason we say its better to give than recieve, because we assume you had to do something to give, you may have labored for it.

To simply sit upon traditional elements of how any element of culture works is to deprive yourself of this very possiblity to actively engage in the transmission of culture. You essentially give up your propensity to act, in exchange for cultural assuredness. While i cant knock anyone for wanting that, since its a rather intoxicating notion, it certainly seems to leave an important part out - the part that you create.

This is why i have little fear of a culture that has to constantly redefine its borders. Certainly there is a potential for mistakes, anyone who gives the freedom to chances guarantees the right to err, but it probably will rarely be as severe as feared, especially when dealing with intangible concepts such as the family. A culture that is constantly redefining its borders creates a group of people who are more self-aware and more socially open. I think in this way you get around some of the issue of responsibilty vs choice, because people who choose alot have to become responsible if they want to keep choosing.

Freely given consent isnt a danger, its probably the best hope any of us have.

So if gay marriage becomes the normal tradition then you would have no problem with a culture that redefines it back to one man and one woman sometime in the future. Come on man! If you are always going to be redefining what is right and wrong then the line never gets drawn anywhere and society won't ever know how to respond correctly. What you're really saying is that you want homosexuals to be viewed as equal. Please don't give me this crap about a responsible culture constantly questioning itself and changing because if that were true you'd be ok with the culture being changed back to the current laws we have today given enough time.

[bradleybadly]

tonka I gotta go but thank you for at least writing out your thoughts. you're a different kind of liberal here.

[got tonkaed]

i think your a bit incorrect in assuming all members of a culture agree with the changes that are taking place.

You are actually proof of the inaccuracy of your claim that people cannot live in a culture where they dont believe in the lines as they are drawn.

edit but to be fair all of us are, since none of us like all of the cultural boundaries we find...

Thank you.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I think I made a really frickin good point on page 67 which bradley hasn't replied to.

Come on, man use your logic.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder and stealing? Killing someone or stealing from them is an infringement on THEIR liberty. Can you explain to me how someone else's right to marry whom they choose infringes on yours?

You missed my point. You're saying that the government shouldn't get involved because it's a moral issue. I'm saying you can't escape morality because almost every law the government passes is based on whether or not they think it is moral. There's no way to escape the fact that laws are either moral or immoral.

I'm not missing your point at all. I'm saying the government shouldn't get involved because it is a moral issue which is based SOLEY on religion.

I think you missed MY point. This country is founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and property. The government's purpose is to protect those three ideals. Murder would violate life. Theft would violate property.

Gay marriage doesn't violate any of them, and as a restriction of it such doesn't belong in American laws.

If America was founded on "life, liberty, property, and Christian morality," then it would be our place to legislate the morality of certain kinds of marriage. But it wasn't, so it's not.

[comic boy]

Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I think I made a really frickin good point on page 67 which bradley hasn't replied to.

Come on, man use your logic.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder and stealing? Killing someone or stealing from them is an infringement on THEIR liberty. Can you explain to me how someone else's right to marry whom they choose infringes on yours?

You missed my point. You're saying that the government shouldn't get involved because it's a moral issue. I'm saying you can't escape morality because almost every law the government passes is based on whether or not they think it is moral. There's no way to escape the fact that laws are either moral or immoral.

I'm not missing your point at all. I'm saying the government shouldn't get involved because it is a moral issue which is based SOLEY on religion.

I think you missed MY point. This country is founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and property. The government's purpose is to protect those three ideals. Murder would violate life. Theft would violate property.

Gay marriage doesn't violate any of them, and as a restriction of it such doesn't belong in American laws.

If America was founded on "life, liberty, property, and Christian morality," then it would be our place to legislate the morality of certain kinds of marriage. But it wasn't, so it's not.

And that surprises you