Forum Settings
       
1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 31
Reply To Thread

The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

QuoteReply
#402 May 06 2009 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Elinda,

Afraid? Why don't you tell me why 98% of the population should cater to the rest who engage in a practice that's harmful to society?
Same-sex marriage is not 'catering'. Same-sex marriage is not harmful.

Now, why don't you tell me why YOU, or anyone else, should get to tell someone who they can or can not wed.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#403 May 06 2009 at 7:34 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
This doesn't make any sense. Of course it has an object. That doesn't mean you intend to do something to that object, or that you intend for something to happen to that object. Is this a semantics thing? Perhaps you need a better word than "intention."


I see, you're using a different sense of intention than I am. I'm not really familiar with that sense though.

Quote:
I may hate poached eggs, Jacques Derrida or the new Wolverine movie, but hating them doesn't make me a morally worse person.


That's not hatred in any meaningful sense..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#404 May 06 2009 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts

Quote:
This is a declarative statement without backing.


It's cornerstone of deontology...
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#405 May 06 2009 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
trickybeck
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
I may hate poached eggs, Jacques Derrida or the new Wolverine movie, but hating them doesn't make me a morally worse person.


That's not hatred in any meaningful sense..

No true Scotsman..
▲ Page top
#406REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 7:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#407REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 7:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nexa,
#408REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 7:50 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
QuoteReply
#409 May 06 2009 at 7:55 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
No true Scotsman..


Hi, attempting to clarify our thoughts by clearly defining words is not fallacious. Part of defining a word is labeling the necessary conditions. These exclude things.

If allowing other feelings to be encapsulated by hatred renders that word superfluous, then we have a vested interest in purging that word of those feelings. What was described could be done so easily by several other words. You've castrated the meaning of "hatred" by doing that.

For example.


Quote:
I'm not saying they can't wed. I'm saying the govn has no place recognizing it.


That's not being wed in any meaningful sense.

Edited, May 6th 2009 11:56am by Pensive
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#410 May 06 2009 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
trickybeck
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
This doesn't make any sense. Of course it has an object. That doesn't mean you intend to do something to that object, or that you intend for something to happen to that object. Is this a semantics thing? Perhaps you need a better word than "intention."


I see, you're using a different sense of intention than I am. I'm not really familiar with that sense though.

You're not familiar with the sense of intention meaning "something that is intended"??

I also maintain that even if your hatred of someone is accompanied by an actual desire for ill, that desire still isn't unethical. You said before, "intentions are ethically valued, even for lack of consequence." Which I interpret as "the ends, whether they be good, bad, or nonexistent, don't justify the means." But hatred isn't even a means!

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#411 May 06 2009 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
trickybeck
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
No true Scotsman..


Hi, attempting to clarify our thoughts by clearly defining words is not fallacious. Part of defining a word is labeling the necessary conditions. These exclude things.

Then you should actually define it at some point, instead of just saying "no, that's not it."
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#412 May 06 2009 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
Now, why don't you tell me why YOU, or anyone else, should get to tell someone who they can or can not wed.


I'm not saying they can't wed. I'm saying the govn has no place recognizing it.
Well that's an interesting concept, taking away the governments ability to 'recognize' marriage. If the states don't marry people though, they'll still need to recognize some kind of legal union between two cohabiting adults. I kinda mentioned this approach earlier.

Leave it to the individuals to be actually married by whatever means they'd like - or they need not marry if they don't want, they just have to be licensed as legal domestic partners - whether that be a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#413 May 06 2009 at 8:18 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
You're not familiar with the sense of intention meaning "something that is intended"??


Most of the time when i'm talking about intention it is in the context of a subject that has an object and actively considers itself in relation to that object. I'm more acquainted with that meaning than the other, yes.

Quote:
But hatred isn't even a means!


It can feasibly contribute to or even be the proximate cause of events in the world.

Quote:
Then you should actually define it at some point, instead of just saying "no, that's not it."


That ideally comes about through discussion as we investigate the nuances of the subject. I can't give you an exhaustive list of the necessary and sufficient conditions for what it means to be "wed." I'm still perfectly correct in telling varrus that he's ignoring an extremely important part of the concept.
▲ Page top
#414REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 8:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
QuoteReply
#415 May 06 2009 at 8:47 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
If the states don't marry people though, they'll still need to recognize some kind of legal union between two cohabiting adults.


Why?
Well because we are a land seeped in legalities. Who gets the stuff when one person dies without a will, who gets visitations, who gets to decide if the plug is pulled, who's responsible for the kids, who's responsible to pay utilities at a residence with multiple peeps.

You know all the stuff that marriage means, legally speaking.

You're right though Varrus. The states really have no business marrying people - any people. Marriage is a spiritual/personal union. The states, however, need to document unions for the sake of sorting out the legal rights and responsibilities.





Edited, May 6th 2009 6:48pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#416 May 06 2009 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
trickybeck
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
But hatred isn't even a means!


It can feasibly contribute to or even be the proximate cause of events in the world.

Now you're back to the "hatred is toxic and poisons the mind" argument which you previously posted, then deleted.

Which could conceivably be an argument for "hatred is unhealthy" or possibly even "hatred is bad" but not for "hatred is unethical."

I'd also add that according to that logic, every emotion is unethical. Love can feasibly contribute to jealousy and selfishness, which can feasibly contribute to unethical actions. Selflessness can feasibly lead to self-sacrifice, which can feasibly result in unethical consequences. Continuing, if everything emotion can feasibly be unethical, then every emotion can feasibly be ethical, therefore making them ethically neutral as I originally stated.

And with that I will depart the discussion.




Edited, May 6th 2009 11:59am by trickybeck
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#417 May 06 2009 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592312361700
Sage
*
58 posts
Varrus, why don't you reply with some actual citations to the "facts" you have posted on the last two pages?

You can't win an argument without facts, champ.

Now, if you want to say you feel icky when you see two guys kiss - that's fine, it's a personal truth. But to pull numbers out of the air when talking about something that so crucially relies on actual surveys and studies is just ludicrous.

Also, if you were raised 'right', what business would you have exchanging bodily fluids with someone at risk of having HIV? I do not see how a virus can bridge the social/physical gap you seemingly have, or (for your 'best interest') should have, placed between yourself and homosexuals.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#418 May 06 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Hatred is an intention. Hatred is directed toward something; it has an object. That makes it an intention.

The thoughts we have about other people and other objects are extremely ethically relevant. They aren't neutral at all.



Nnnnnoooo.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#419 May 06 2009 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Nadenu,

Quote:
But the ones that *do* want to be monogamous should be able to be married


Why? Like i've said this is moral and health concern issue for me.





Hoist by your own petard. It's neither. You've already said you wouldn't choose to stop someone from living his own life, even if you regard it as sinful; there goes the moral issue. You also realize that whether people are married or not they're going to continue having sex; there goes your flimsy and irrelevant health issue.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
#420REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 9:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant,
QuoteReply
#421 May 06 2009 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
The fact that aids is primarily a homosexual issue is not irrelevant.

Especially when people like yourself think the govn should fund everyones healthcare.


If it's going to be covered it's going to be covered whether they're married or not. Ergo, irrelevant.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#422 May 06 2009 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
AshOnMyTomatoes
View User Forum
Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
He keeps setting up the pins and we keep knocking them down. Sooner or later all that's going to be left is "I just hate ****."
____________________________
Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#423 May 06 2009 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Allegory
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
He keeps setting up the pins and we keep knocking them down. Sooner or later all that's going to be left is "I just hate ****."

It's naive to believe the pins won't simply be recycled.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#424 May 06 2009 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Or replaced by other pins that have nothing at all to do with the original ones.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#425 May 06 2009 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
hangtennow wrote:

Except for the fact I don't want to force people to do anything. That in no way means I would want my govn to condone immorality; much like I wouldn't want **** to be on basic cable for everyone to view. I'm not going to force someone to not do ****. But you're d*mn right I'm going to do everything I can to keep that off the main air waves for everyone to view.
Ok, well once everyone can marry you can start the crusade of keeping them dirty married folks off cable ts.

Quote:
The fact that aids is primarily a homosexual issue is not irrelevant.
Yes, it is. Other STD's are heterosexual issues, yet we don't deny heterosexuals from marrying, some STD are prevalent among prostitutes, but he don't disallow them from marrying. Second hand smoke is proven to be harmful to kids and others, yet we don't deny smokers from marrying on the basis that they might expose their kids to second hand smoke.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#426 May 06 2009 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1672618693847
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
15,787 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Elephant,

I've posted quite a few cites to validate my stance. If you're to lazy to scroll back a few pages on this thread that's your problem.
The one legitimate source you've linked to was a CDC page stating that 71% of AIDS is caused by MSM (or something like that).

That is not "quite a few cites" by any stretch. That's one, poorly thought out and debunked factoid you keep throwing out there like it matters.
▲ Page top
1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 31
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 224 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (224)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC