Unhealthy2 wrote:and then keeping all the young virgin girls for later raping.
Now you are being ridiculous. What else are you supposed to do with them?!
Advertisement
by Der Teutoniker » Mon May 16, 2011 8:43 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:and then keeping all the young virgin girls for later raping.
South Lorenya wrote:occasionally we get someone who has a rap sheet longer than Jormungandr
Austin Setzer wrote:We found a couple of ancient documents, turned them into the bible, and now its the symbol of christianity.
ARM Forces wrote:Strep-throat is an infection in the throat, caused by eating too much refined sugar! Rubbing more sugar directly on it is the worst thing you can possibly do.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Communism and anarchy; same unachievable end, different impractical means.
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:44 am
by Viste Rosso » Mon May 16, 2011 8:46 am
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 8:48 am
Aestalis wrote:Tekania wrote:
Purpose and principal is what society defines it as. Our primary purpose and principals of marriage as understood in the modern Western World is property xfer and co-ownership, including legal power between life-partners. This is, for the most part in the US at least, open only to heterosexual life partners. Thus, we wish to keep the modern principal and purpose, but merely redefine the applicable parties. Which if far different than you, who wants to redefine the principal and purpose, and further limit applicable parties.
So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.
And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.
by Liang China » Mon May 16, 2011 8:49 am
by Flameswroth » Mon May 16, 2011 8:50 am
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:50 am
Aestalis wrote:and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.
by Aestalis » Mon May 16, 2011 8:51 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:Aestalis wrote:It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all,
And THAT'S all that matters. It is beneficial to our current society. It really doesn't matter how it would have benefited a society five thousand years ago, because that's not the society we live in.but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.
The historical roots of our society thought slavery was okay. Hell, the historical roots that YOU are reaching for condoned killing an entire town because they worshiped a different god and then keeping all the young virgin girls for later raping.
by Ifreann » Mon May 16, 2011 8:52 am
Aestalis wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:
Why are those principles worth preserving? Honestly, I don't give a shit about the word "marriage," but it would make a bunch of people happy, so I see no reason not to let them have it.
That happiness is not outweighed by the detriment it would cause society in the long run. These principles have shaped our societies, societies that have formed around the family unit. The throwing out of these principles would cause instability within the idea of the family and the underlying rock of society.
And if the word means so much to them, but many legal rights are already conferred onto them (in liberal democracies anyway), then I really question their motives behind seeking it
by Aestalis » Mon May 16, 2011 8:54 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:Aestalis wrote:That happiness is not outweighed by the detriment it would cause society in the long run. These principles have shaped our societies, societies that have formed around the family unit. The throwing out of these principles would cause instability within the idea of the family and the underlying rock of society.
Proof is required for these claims.And if the word means so much to them, but many legal rights are already conferred onto them (in liberal democracies anyway), then I really question their motives behind seeking it
There are a huge number of legal rights that only married couples can attain.
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:54 am
Aestalis wrote:I worded that pretty badly. It would be beneficial for them. Not for society, society should win out.
Yeah, and those roots violate the fundamental rights of humans for no legitimate gain. Some historical roots of our society were shit, some weren't. You can't lump them all together.
The witholding of these rights may deny them human rights (show me the basis of a human right to marry regardless of orientation), but it would be for a legitimate gain. An acceptable payoff.
by Ifreann » Mon May 16, 2011 8:55 am
Aestalis wrote:Ifreann wrote:Even if marriage were conceived with some particular principles in mind, that is no reason for us to alter our laws to abide by those principles now. Besides which, allowing same sex couples to marry strikes me as perfectly logical, useful and beneficial to society.
It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all, but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 8:56 am
Aestalis wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:
Proof is required for these claims.
There are a huge number of legal rights that only married couples can attain.
Don't have the proof on me, and I know it sounds like I'm evading that argument, but if we get into detail like that where studies and scientific or sociological proof is considered, then we get into arguments over which is more legitimate, which is hard to do.
The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:56 am
Aestalis wrote:Don't have the proof on me, and I know it sounds like I'm evading that argument,
but if we get into detail like that where studies and scientific or sociological proof is considered, then we get into arguments over which is more legitimate, which is hard to do.
The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.
by Aestalis » Mon May 16, 2011 8:56 am
SpectacularSpectacular wrote:Aestalis wrote:
So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.
And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.
And if the 'objective' definition offered by the church is that lightning is gods rage? Shall society adhere to such nonsense in those cases?
The difference here is that a church does not follow a logical course in their formation of definitions, society is forced to do so...As if society was to elect a light-bulb, how long would it be before we realized a mistake may have been made(prepare for cynical snarky response).
And yes, it was a terrible analogy...
by Aestalis » Mon May 16, 2011 8:58 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:Aestalis wrote:and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.
And your purpose is not the original purpose either. Ensuring that property transferred in the desired manner was.
Besides, WHO CARES if something is used in a way other than it's original purpose? Hell, by that logic, computers are bad, because they contain capacitors, which were originally used for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields for electrodynamic experiments. In computers, they are often used for various forms of timing and filtering. That's not their "original purpose"TM, so it must be immoral. Hell, they also contain software. Software is often written by reusing code for completely new purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the code. Holy shit! Computers must be extremely immoral!
I guess you should stop using computers, then. In fact, since reusing old parts in new ways is a staple of ALL forms of engineering, you probably shouldn't use any technology at all, lest you condone using all kinds of things in ways contrary to their original purposes.
Oh, I get it, this argument only applies when you want it to. Special pleading FTW!
by Tekania » Mon May 16, 2011 8:58 am
Aestalis wrote:So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.
Aestalis wrote:And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.
by New England 32 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:59 am
by Aestalis » Mon May 16, 2011 8:59 am
SpectacularSpectacular wrote:Aestalis wrote:
It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all, but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.
So its a good idea now, however in the past its a terrible idea? We learn from the past, we do not live in it.
EDIT: Aside from that you are looking through a limited perspective, regarding marriage, as not all cultures in the past shared the same beliefs for marriage. In-fact even within Christianity there has been a 'less than rock like' foundation for marriage...More of a jumbling group of stolen beliefs and social structures.
by Umbra Ac Silentium » Mon May 16, 2011 8:59 am
Aestalis wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:
And your purpose is not the original purpose either. Ensuring that property transferred in the desired manner was.
Besides, WHO CARES if something is used in a way other than it's original purpose? Hell, by that logic, computers are bad, because they contain capacitors, which were originally used for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields for electrodynamic experiments. In computers, they are often used for various forms of timing and filtering. That's not their "original purpose"TM, so it must be immoral. Hell, they also contain software. Software is often written by reusing code for completely new purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the code. Holy shit! Computers must be extremely immoral!
I guess you should stop using computers, then. In fact, since reusing old parts in new ways is a staple of ALL forms of engineering, you probably shouldn't use any technology at all, lest you condone using all kinds of things in ways contrary to their original purposes.
Oh, I get it, this argument only applies when you want it to. Special pleading FTW!
Computers aren't something that have underlied and shaped our society like marriage has. They are completely different.
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.
by Soheran » Mon May 16, 2011 9:00 am
Aestalis wrote:The notions of marriage I've offered aren't ahistorical.
We sure can recognise and strengthen childless families, but it doesn't have to be through marriage. Their status as a defacto relationship could and should grant them certain rights, but not marriage rights. We don't allocate it to those that need it most, we allocate it to those who want and can fulfil the obligations and responsibilities of marriage, and who hence deserve the benefits of marriage.
The reason our law recognises and provides for children outside of marriage because it would be inhumane not to, I don't think this can be construed as government explicitly equating children born in and out of wedlock. And even if I grant that they are, their rationale simply contradicts the idea of marriage. I'm not saying it should stop, again because that would be inhumane.
by Umbra Ac Silentium » Mon May 16, 2011 9:01 am
New England 32 wrote:Sorry but i think its wrong. GOd has made everyone and it started with adam and eve. he made a woman and a man to be together and thats how he wants it. we need to obey god and his commandments, because he knows best and loves us and we need to have respect for what he wants. look in the bible and you will see that he even says its for a man and a woman to marry and have offsprings. if he wanted gays and all that then he would have made it possible for them to have babies with each other but they cant it needs to be a boy and a girl thats the only natural psssible way.
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.
by Umbra Ac Silentium » Mon May 16, 2011 9:02 am
Geenberg wrote:I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.
by Ifreann » Mon May 16, 2011 9:02 am
Aestalis wrote:The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, New-Minneapolis, Port Carverton, The Jamesian Republic, Valrifall, Washington Resistance Army, Xind
Advertisement