Your stance on gay marriage

[Intangelon]

I see a homosexual couple in public.
My reaction = Meh... it happens.
Everyone else's reaction = *stare at for about five seconds, then walk away like you didn't just gaze into their souls*
People who are homophobic = F***ING FAGS! GO AWAY!

Conclusion - No one is EVER gonna come to any conclusion about it. People are just to different for any conclusion to be drawn.

Er...okay. But luckily, the way the law works, everyone doesn't need to 'come to a conclusion' about anything. Every individual gets to keep their own feelings and same-sex couples still get to enjoy equal protection under the law.

Nah.

That might be something Christ would think.

[Sungai Pusat]

It's dependent on how the person came to be through the fetus. I'll say that and that the government shouldn't impose on anyone who wants to have gay marriage, but even if it were a choice, I'd still say the same for the government position.

[Samuraikoku]

I hear it's got some amazing action scenes.

God has been known to fuck shit up in his time.

Too bad there aren't any Dragon Balls to fix that shit.

[Ifreann]

God has been known to fuck shit up in his time.

Too bad there aren't any Dragon Balls to fix that shit.

Yes. the balls are unfortunately inert.

[Samuraikoku]

Too bad there aren't any Dragon Balls to fix that shit.

Yes. the balls are unfortunately inert.

Not to mention, God doesn't have SEVEN!

[The Alma Mater]

Not at all, it's a decent book. Not as good a story line as the Quran, of course, but it's OK.

I hear it's got some amazing action scenes.

Don't forget the porn.

[Conservative capitalists]

The fact of the matter is that gays, along with everyone else, should have equal rights. To keep homosexuals from getting married is not only very cruel and unfair, but ruins the true sanctity of marriage. The true sanctity of marriage is that a couple love each other unconditional and will always be there for each other. What truly ruins the sanctity is people who get married and within eight months are getting a divorce. If two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, who are we to prevent that? While the bible does frown upon homosexuality, it also says that those who attempt to pass judgment as to who is going to heaven or hell are them selves going to hell, so lets let people live their lives are be happy, who people love is by no means anybody else's business. No government under any circumstance should inner fear with issues such as gay marriage the role of government is to keep their people safe not tell them how to run their lives.

[Make up your own mind]

Wait, you're an atheist aren't you? Telling people to go read the bible is a bit like telling them to go shove their head in a bucket of shit.

Not at all, it's a decent book. Not as good a story line as the Quran, of course, but it's OK.

It drags a bit in places, but it has some cool imagery.

[Furious Grandmothers]

The fact of the matter is that gays, along with everyone else, should have equal rights. To keep homosexuals from getting married is not only very cruel and unfair, but ruins the true sanctity of marriage. The true sanctity of marriage is that a couple love each other unconditional and will always be there for each other. What truly ruins the sanctity is people who get married and within eight months are getting a divorce. If two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, who are we to prevent that? While the bible does frown upon homosexuality, it also says that those who attempt to pass judgment as to who is going to heaven or hell are them selves going to hell, so lets let people live their lives are be happy, who people love is by no means anybody else's business. No government under any circumstance should inner fear with issues such as gay marriage the role of government is to keep their people safe not tell them how to run their lives.

Yep, people keep forgetting divorce. And btw, what verse is the one in bold and underline? Sounds interesting, I'd want to read up on it.

[Dyakovo]

The fact of the matter is that gays, along with everyone else, should have equal rights. To keep homosexuals from getting married is not only very cruel and unfair, but ruins the true sanctity of marriage. The true sanctity of marriage is that a couple love each other unconditional and will always be there for each other. What truly ruins the sanctity is people who get married and within eight months are getting a divorce. If two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, who are we to prevent that? While the bible does frown upon homosexuality, it also says that those who attempt to pass judgment as to who is going to heaven or hell are them selves going to hell, so lets let people live their lives are be happy, who people love is by no means anybody else's business. No government under any circumstance should inner fear with issues such as gay marriage the role of government is to keep their people safe not tell them how to run their lives.

Yep, people keep forgetting divorce. And btw, what verse is the one in bold and underline? Sounds interesting, I'd want to read up on it.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I'm talking about worldview. Weltanschauung. Sitz-im-Leben. Perspective.

And I'll stop you right here... The bolded indicates you are talking about subjective opinions.

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of "objective reality," and how you express it in language.

So, while they are subjective, they are also fundamental assumptions about language and how it is used, and what "objective reality" is like in the terms of those language-games.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Yep, people keep forgetting divorce. And btw, what verse is the one in bold and underline? Sounds interesting, I'd want to read up on it.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Awesome! It's like the silver bullet against evangelists who throw out the "you're going to hell" threat. I suppose they would be collecting frequent flyer miles for the number of times they would be visiting the devil.

[New Lusitaniagrad]

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

[Miem]

Eh. I can't really pass judgement on 'em. Wouldn't be very christian.

[Samuraikoku]

And I'll stop you right here... The bolded indicates you are talking about subjective opinions.

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of "objective reality," and how you express it in language.

So, while they are subjective, they are also fundamental assumptions about language and how it is used, and what "objective reality" is like in the terms of those language-games.

But it still doesn't change the fact that those fundamental assumptions are subjective.

[Ifreann]

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

So you don't support your religion being legally enforced and do support extending access to legal marriage to same sex couples?

[Grave_n_idle]

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of...

See the problem?

[Dyakovo]

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of...

See the problem?

I guarantee (s)he doesn't.

[Samuraikoku]

See the problem?

I guarantee (s)he doesn't.

I'll guarantee his guarantee.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of "objective reality," and how you express it in language.

So, while they are subjective, they are also fundamental assumptions about language and how it is used, and what "objective reality" is like in the terms of those language-games.

But it still doesn't change the fact that those fundamental assumptions are subjective.

Now follow that to its logical conclusion.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Only thing is, worldview colors all of your perceptions of...

See the problem?

Yes, I do. Why don't you?

You are presuming that what you designate "objective reality" is indeed Objective Reality. That doesn't work. What's next, having yourself declared infallible?

[Samuraikoku]

See the problem?

Yes, I do. Why don't you?

You are presuming that what you designate "objective reality" is indeed Objective Reality. That doesn't work. What's next, having yourself declared infallible?

Let's see. What is YOUR worldview perception of marriage?

[Norstal]

See the problem?

Yes, I do. Why don't you?

You are presuming that what you designate "objective reality" is indeed Objective Reality. That doesn't work. What's next, having yourself declared infallible?

I don't mind having GnI's worldview infallible.

Except, that's not what he's advocating anyways, I think.

[Grave_n_idle]

See the problem?

Yes, I do. Why don't you?

You are presuming that what you designate "objective reality" is indeed Objective Reality.

I'm not designating anything as 'objective reality' that isn't objective.

This is where your argument diverges from mine.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Yes, I do. Why don't you?

You are presuming that what you designate "objective reality" is indeed Objective Reality.

I'm not designating anything as 'objective reality' that isn't objective.

And how do you determine what is "objective"? Do you have some standard, criterion, criteria? Please elaborate on how you, alone of all people, have managed to secure direct apprehension of the Platonic Forms.

My point in this has always been that the Constitution limits what the government can do in many areas, among which is religion. "Marriage" is a term owned by nobody. It isn't a strictly legal term, nor a strictly religious term, nor a strictly civil term, nor a strictly secular term. Religions do, however, have teachings about Marriage, and may inculcate "Sacramental Marriage." This is something over which the government has no authority, except insofar
* as the inaugural ceremonial pomp and circumstance is witnessed by someone with legal credentials authorizing him/her to do so, and thus result in the registration of the legal contract, duly signed by the aforementioned person with legal credentials,
* or as far as the civil bond/union of the legal contract may be severed legally, regardless of the views of religious sects (i.e., the termination of a Legal Marriage can be effected by legal means, generally named "Divorce" and "Annulment").

Neither of those things requires any legal tipping of the hat to Pope, High Druid, Synod, Lama, Presbytery, Swami, Rabbi, Guru, Patriarch, nor even any Arch-Secularist (if there could be such an office).

Religion has a Sprachspiel in which "Marriage" has a certain meaning and use.

Law has a Sprachspiel in which "Marriage" has a certain meaning and use.

Without denying anyone any Rights, and without the violation of anyone's Rights, semantic concerns such as precision and accuracy of terminology and other linguistic analysis must be done on what is actually put into the Law if legislated, or put into the Finding, Concurrence(s), and/or Dissent(s) if effected by the Supreme Court. To be vague is to court (no pun intended) not only misunderstanding and abuse of the law, but also further sectionalism and socio-cultural polarization.

To be precise is not giving up anything to anyone; it simply requires taking care in what words you choose, and whether they need modifiers.

"Marriage" is not a legal status. "Legal Marriage" is a legal status. "Marriage" is not a religious status. "Sacramental Marriage," or "Mystical Marriage," or some other such term(s) is a religious status.

Law must say nothing about "Sacramental Marriage" or "Mystical Marriage" or whatever term(s) the religious want to use for clarification of what they're talking about, because what they're talking about is not a legal status, but a religious one. If Law were to address this concept at all, it would be at least verging on violation of the First Amendment, and would be attempting to impose the rules of use and meaning from the legal Sprachspiel on people playing a totally different game (Sprachspiel).

Law cannot define "Marriage" because it does not belong solely to Law.

Law CAN define "Legal Marriage." That's its own home court (no pun intended).

Religion cannot define "Legal Marriage" because that's not its home court, and the game (Sprachspiel) played there is a totally different kind of game (Sprachspiel) from religious games.


All of these references to various Sprachspiele are intended to get the point across, as Wittgenstein said, "All words are vague." We can, however, through a small amount of effort, eliminate some of the vagueness, which is a source of some of the confused opposition (since they don't think of the word "marriage" in the same way that others do, which is not necessarily more and not necessarily less subjective than how others think of the word "marriage").

Sure, it could be that you're an enlightened freethinking secularist atheist with an exciting career as a paralegal, a Chasidic Jew who owns a bookstore, a Guru of Kriya Yoga, a Trappist Monk who brews ale, a Sister of the Cenacle who practices Contemplatio, or a worthy brother and fellow of the Esoteric Order of Dagon with a day job as a carpenter. Congratulations. Your worldview is colored by all of those qualifiers used to describe you (hence, not objective). And your religion (even if what you check under "Religion" is "Atheist" or "Pagan" or "Other (please elaborate)" or "Independent Fundamental Baptist") isn't going to be enforced by the US federal government, either.