Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

#427 May 06 2009 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 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.


Ok, I get it. You're afraid if gay people can get married, you will somehow catch AIDS. Makes perfect sense.


[:loony:]
#428 May 06 2009 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I think it's really because every time he sees a hunky guy he feels compelled to make a play for that guy's spouse, so this will inevitably make him gay.

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

#429 May 06 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
*
58 posts
I'm so confused by your analogies. If gay people get married, you're worried they're going to have a parade down your street and you might catch AIDs by watching it?

Once again, where do you get the idea you can restrict the rights of others based on a judgement THAT IS NOT YOURS TO MAKE. It is up to God. It says so right in your ******* Holy Book.

Also, the Bible puts way more emphasis on the sins of adultery and divorce. Should the government dissolve the institution of divorce, and allowing the stoning of adulterers?

You can't pick and choose what you want to follow to make yourself a 'hip Christian'. Either you're in the ******* Old-World with Sharia-like rules, or you follow the bible liberally, hoping that the wrath of God will be more painful than any sodomy your neighbor may have enjoyed.

Also, sources... as one person pointed out, you have ONE RELIABLE SOURCE.
#430 May 06 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
trickybeck wrote:
But hatred isn't even a means!
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
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.


I'm not extremely attached to most of the ideas that I talk about in dialogue. You might be correct really; I'm not exactly sure when I became so dogmatic about ethics, especially considering that they are all specious to begin with.

I'd consider "unethical" and "bad" synonymous though.

I could have short circuited this entire discussion and just rephrased what i wass asking of catwho. Given the choice between hating or not hating, not hating is the one that I would prescribe. Prescriptions are generally associated directly with ethics.

Wow that could have been formatted better

Edited, May 6th 2009 5:59pm by Pensive
#431 May 06 2009 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Oh
Quote:

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


I deleted it because I wasn't prepared to defend it, because I was not sure if I thought it was right.

Quote:
Nnnnnoooo.


Are you taking issue with intentionality or the conclusion that followed from it?

Edited, May 6th 2009 3:42pm by Pensive
#432REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 12:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#433REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 12:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant,
#434 May 06 2009 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
*
58 posts
Scientific data should not be trusted unless it is support by several other sources. What public school failed in teaching you about the scientific method and data validity?


Edited, May 6th 2009 5:03pm by SirElephant
#435REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 1:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant,
#436REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 1:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant,
#437 May 06 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
First off I have no homosexual friends. Second of all, I do know what I am talking about. Even in the New Testament, more emphasis is placed on other sins that are tolerated by the government.

Do you think the government should ban smoking on the fact that the Bible states that one should care for their body like the Temple of God itself?


Third off,if this is a matter of religion, look up the difference between church and state. If this is a matter of public health, it is common sense that if given the institution, gay men would most likely begin more monogamous relationships. Also, just don't sleep with any men in the meantime, k Haggard?

Edited, May 6th 2009 5:11pm by SirElephant
#438REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 1:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant
#439 May 06 2009 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
Quote:
Homosexuals account for 1-3% of the population but 71% of the aids cases


I don't see how a certain minority getting an STD affects me, a non-member of said minority?

#440 May 06 2009 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts
Smiley: cheese
#441 May 06 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
#442 May 06 2009 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts


IIRC, some of varus's previous banns have stemmed from fucked up racial remarks. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd agree with you.

If I'm wrong...well...it still wouldn't surprise me if he'd agree with you.
#443 May 06 2009 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
Exodus,

They weren't f*cked up. You simply disagreed with them. And they all basically stemmed around me using the oh so dread N word.

#444 May 06 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
Neanderthal?
#445REDACTED, Posted: May 06 2009 at 1:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elephant,
#446 May 06 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
Quote:
Elephant,

You still have responded to those stats.


I know I have.
Quote:
Quote:
Homosexuals account for 1-3% of the population but 71% of the aids cases


I don't see how a certain minority getting an STD affects me, a non-member of said minority?



#447 May 06 2009 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Exodus,

They weren't f*cked up. You simply disagreed with them. And they all basically stemmed around me using the oh so dread N word.



Right......
#448 May 06 2009 at 1:37 PM Rating: Default
So your response is to ask me another question? Gotcha. You know if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the ills of society feel free to, plenty of people on this site do it quite frequently.

Don't expect me to join you.

#449 May 06 2009 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Less than three Exo.
#450 May 06 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
Fine, I'll state it.

In no way does a gay man marrying another gay man affect my life.
#451 May 06 2009 at 1:46 PM Rating: Default
Elephant,

You mean besides receiving tax benefits that every single person in this country is not entitled to?

Or how about legitamizing a behaviour that is harmful to society?

These things affect us all.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 219 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (219)