NATION

PASSWORD

What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Lgbt marriage: good or bad?

Yes, love is love.
408
58%
No, it's a sin.
86
12%
No, love is for reproducing.
50
7%
No, civil unions are better.
23
3%
Maybe
13
2%
Praise David Hasselhoff (Requested by Some random cat dude)
88
13%
No opinion/neutral
30
4%
 
Total votes : 698

User avatar
Nakena
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15010
Founded: May 06, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Nakena » Mon May 13, 2019 4:45 am

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Nakena wrote:
I guess non-christians wouldn really have to be affected.

so basically
"Idk do whatever if you aren't Christian"
Is your stance


I am not a christian so I care even less.

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 13, 2019 8:50 am

Mettaton-EX wrote:
Bezkoshtovnya wrote:Not true. There is evidence that points to same sex marital practices as far back as Mesopotamia.

trans and/or nonbinary people too, for that matter

Can we not try to apply modern conceptualizations of transness to history? Thanks.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Bienenhalde
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6389
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bienenhalde » Mon May 13, 2019 9:49 am

Katganistan wrote:And the American Psychological Association disagrees with your opinion that there are only two genders and people with genders differing from their sex at birth are something new.

So please educate yourself rather than stick stubbornly to the 'it's all those damned liberals and SJWs forcing this down our throats! I Know Better!" script. Science knows best, and it doesn't support your opinion.


I clicked on the link to the American Psychological Association page on Transgender issues, but looking over the outline of questions and answers, I did not see anything concerning whether or not there are more than two genders. Anyway, it is my understanding that the claim that there are more than two genders is based on the idea of gender as a social construct. But if gender were indeed socially constructed, and not a matter of biology, then wouldn't the whole issue fall under the purview of sociologists and anthropologists as opposed to psychology?

User avatar
Mettaton-EX
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mettaton-EX » Mon May 13, 2019 10:42 am

Cekoviu wrote:

Can we not try to apply modern conceptualizations of transness to history? Thanks.

i'm not.
THIS ROBOT IS TRANS | AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT | هٰذه الآلة تقتل الفاشيين
(prefer it/its but any pronouns are acceptable)

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 13, 2019 2:41 pm

Bienenhalde wrote:
Katganistan wrote:And the American Psychological Association disagrees with your opinion that there are only two genders and people with genders differing from their sex at birth are something new.

So please educate yourself rather than stick stubbornly to the 'it's all those damned liberals and SJWs forcing this down our throats! I Know Better!" script. Science knows best, and it doesn't support your opinion.


I clicked on the link to the American Psychological Association page on Transgender issues, but looking over the outline of questions and answers, I did not see anything concerning whether or not there are more than two genders. Anyway, it is my understanding that the claim that there are more than two genders is based on the idea of gender as a social construct. But if gender were indeed socially constructed, and not a matter of biology, then wouldn't the whole issue fall under the purview of sociologists and anthropologists as opposed to psychology?

The gender spectrum doesn't have anything to do with social constructionism, not sure where you got that idea.
Though you are correct that if gender was a social construct, it would more be a sociological issue.
Last edited by Cekoviu on Mon May 13, 2019 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Mettaton-EX
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mettaton-EX » Mon May 13, 2019 5:06 pm

Bienenhalde wrote:But if gender were indeed socially constructed, and not a matter of biology,

false dichotomy. people have innate probably-biological gender inclinations but the way each individual society interprets/categorizes/defines them is constructed differently
THIS ROBOT IS TRANS | AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT | هٰذه الآلة تقتل الفاشيين
(prefer it/its but any pronouns are acceptable)

User avatar
Unia Ante
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: May 13, 2019
Ex-Nation

I am bi so I would like the option

Postby Unia Ante » Mon May 13, 2019 8:39 pm

I wish that people would take of a more isolationist approach for things that are out of their control or things that don't hurt them. Such as LBGT marriage, I simply do not understand why it bothers anybody enough for them to want to take that away. I do have a question for people who said "no opinion". Did you answer that way because this is something you don't have a lot of knowledge in or is this a topic you truly don't care about? I am sorry if I come off strong, I am really just interested in insight and would like to discuss this in a respectful manner.

User avatar
Elwher
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9243
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Elwher » Tue May 14, 2019 8:39 am

Unia Ante wrote:I wish that people would take of a more isolationist approach for things that are out of their control or things that don't hurt them. Such as LBGT marriage, I simply do not understand why it bothers anybody enough for them to want to take that away. I do have a question for people who said "no opinion". Did you answer that way because this is something you don't have a lot of knowledge in or is this a topic you truly don't care about? I am sorry if I come off strong, I am really just interested in insight and would like to discuss this in a respectful manner.


Many, if not most, social justice movements are full of people who are concerned about things that don't hurt them. The Freedom Riders of the civil rights protests in the 1960's were mostly northern whites, who were not affected by southern segregation but chose an interventionist approach. I, for one, am very glad for activists on both side of issues because they bring the issue out of the shadows where it can be discussed in a respectful manner.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38272
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Mon May 20, 2019 9:47 am

Elwher wrote:
Unia Ante wrote:I wish that people would take of a more isolationist approach for things that are out of their control or things that don't hurt them. Such as LBGT marriage, I simply do not understand why it bothers anybody enough for them to want to take that away. I do have a question for people who said "no opinion". Did you answer that way because this is something you don't have a lot of knowledge in or is this a topic you truly don't care about? I am sorry if I come off strong, I am really just interested in insight and would like to discuss this in a respectful manner.


Many, if not most, social justice movements are full of people who are concerned about things that don't hurt them. The Freedom Riders of the civil rights protests in the 1960's were mostly northern whites, who were not affected by southern segregation but chose an interventionist approach. I, for one, am very glad for activists on both side of issues because they bring the issue out of the shadows where it can be discussed in a respectful manner.


Did you just equate a movement to end discrimination... With a movement that encourages discrimination?
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
CONSERVATISM IS FEAR AND STAGNATION AS IDEOLOGY. ONLY MARCH FORWARD.

Pronouns: She/Her
The Alt-Right Playbook
Alt-right/racist terminology
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 10:16 am

The Rich Port wrote:
Elwher wrote:
Many, if not most, social justice movements are full of people who are concerned about things that don't hurt them. The Freedom Riders of the civil rights protests in the 1960's were mostly northern whites, who were not affected by southern segregation but chose an interventionist approach. I, for one, am very glad for activists on both side of issues because they bring the issue out of the shadows where it can be discussed in a respectful manner.


Did you just equate a movement to end discrimination... With a movement that encourages discrimination?

We should be equally concerned about discriminating against bigots :^)
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Tarsonis
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31138
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:21 am

Cekoviu wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Did you just equate a movement to end discrimination... With a movement that encourages discrimination?

We should be equally concerned about discriminating against bigots :^)


Nah . The Progressives have their right to free speech too.
NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Thucydides: “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.”
1 Corinthians 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"
Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Akrisen
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: May 14, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Akrisen » Mon May 20, 2019 10:33 am

Undermines the traditional family unit which is what monogamous marriage was created thousands of years for in the first place not no "love".

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 112550
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Mon May 20, 2019 10:37 am

Akrisen wrote:Undermines the traditional family unit which is what monogamous marriage was created thousands of years for in the first place not no "love".

Times change. People change. It happens.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

User avatar
Heloin
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26091
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Heloin » Mon May 20, 2019 10:42 am

Akrisen wrote:Undermines the traditional family unit which is what monogamous marriage was created thousands of years for in the first place not no "love".

Of course traditional marriage. When one purchases a bride if they are from a rich tribe or village, and steals a bride if they are from a poor tribe or village. And if the man is wealthy and powerful enough he can have himself several wives, or hundreds if one fully believes the stories of King Solomon.

User avatar
Dogmeat
Senator
 
Posts: 3639
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Mon May 20, 2019 10:43 am

Akrisen wrote:Undermines the traditional family unit which is what monogamous marriage was created thousands of years for in the first place not no "love".

Umm... no. The "traditional family unit" you're talking about is very much an artifact of the 1940s and 50s, what with the "nuclear family." Before then, family units tended to be larger.

The marriage that was created thousands of years ago - which is a very long time to be generalizing about, but whatever - was more of a family and property arrangement. Depending on the exact culture and time and place.

We (gay people and straight people) don't do that anymore. And you don't find a lot of pastors arguing for the return of arranged marriages and dowries. So I think it's disingenuous to pretend that ancient or Biblical marriage is what you want.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Akrisen
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: May 14, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Akrisen » Mon May 20, 2019 11:02 am

Farnhamia wrote:
Akrisen wrote:Undermines the traditional family unit which is what monogamous marriage was created thousands of years for in the first place not no "love".

Times change. People change. It happens.


Im not calling it bad, I am saying there is no point to the concept of marriage if children are not generated. Humans are by nature polygamous we have sex with many partners casually, monogamy is a construct of organized society and mainly happened due to one boy and one girl creating children.

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:11 am

Akrisen wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Times change. People change. It happens.


Im not calling it bad, I am saying there is no point to the concept of marriage if children are not generated. Humans are by nature polygamous we have sex with many partners casually, monogamy is a construct of organized society and mainly happened due to one boy and one girl creating children.

It's worrying that you're discussing marriage in the context of "boys and girls."
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Akrisen
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: May 14, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Akrisen » Mon May 20, 2019 11:14 am

Cekoviu wrote:
Akrisen wrote:
Im not calling it bad, I am saying there is no point to the concept of marriage if children are not generated. Humans are by nature polygamous we have sex with many partners casually, monogamy is a construct of organized society and mainly happened due to one boy and one girl creating children.

It's worrying that you're discussing marriage in the context of "boys and girls."


Well that is what marriage is the sexual union between a boy or girl to create children and nothing more. A man and man getting together is love but not marriage, and same to a woman and woman. Heterosexual marriage is on its way out, have no idea why homosexuals or bisexuals care about this outdated social construct so much.

User avatar
Heloin
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26091
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Heloin » Mon May 20, 2019 11:16 am

Akrisen wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:It's worrying that you're discussing marriage in the context of "boys and girls."


Well that is what marriage is the sexual union between a boy or girl to create children and nothing more. A man and man getting together is love but not marriage, and same to a woman and woman. Heterosexual marriage is on its way out, have no idea why homosexuals or bisexuals care about this outdated social construct so much.

Children shouldn't get married to each other. May led to an outbreak of cooties.

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:18 am

Akrisen wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:It's worrying that you're discussing marriage in the context of "boys and girls."


Well that is what marriage is the sexual union between a boy or girl to create children and nothing more. A man and man getting together is love but not marriage, and same to a woman and woman. Heterosexual marriage is on its way out, have no idea why homosexuals or bisexuals care about this outdated social construct so much.

A boy and a girl generally can't make babies unless they're undergoing precocious puberty.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:19 am

Heloin wrote:
Akrisen wrote:
Well that is what marriage is the sexual union between a boy or girl to create children and nothing more. A man and man getting together is love but not marriage, and same to a woman and woman. Heterosexual marriage is on its way out, have no idea why homosexuals or bisexuals care about this outdated social construct so much.

Children shouldn't get married to each other. May led to an outbreak of cooties.

I was more focused on the issue that children shouldn't be having sex, but also that.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Hammer Britannia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5390
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hammer Britannia » Mon May 20, 2019 11:24 am

The amount of summer posters trying to be Ben Shapiro 2.0 on this thread is kinda funny TBH

They're still wrong. Gay love is still a great thing, along with straight love.
All shall tremble before me

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:25 am

Hammer Britannia wrote:The amount of summer posters trying to be Ben Shapiro 2.0 on this thread is kinda funny TBH

They're still wrong. Gay love is still a great thing, along with straight love.

Has NS Summer started yet? I thought school for kids didn't get out for another week or two.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Hammer Britannia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5390
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hammer Britannia » Mon May 20, 2019 11:26 am

Cekoviu wrote:
Hammer Britannia wrote:The amount of summer posters trying to be Ben Shapiro 2.0 on this thread is kinda funny TBH

They're still wrong. Gay love is still a great thing, along with straight love.

Has NS Summer started yet? I thought school for kids didn't get out for another week or two.

They're evolving, it seems.
All shall tremble before me

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 112550
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Mon May 20, 2019 11:28 am

Akrisen wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Times change. People change. It happens.


Im not calling it bad, I am saying there is no point to the concept of marriage if children are not generated. Humans are by nature polygamous we have sex with many partners casually, monogamy is a construct of organized society and mainly happened due to one boy and one girl creating children.

Nice back-pedal. You don't see that sort of technique much anymore. And since marriage is a "construct of organized society," as you say, why shouldn't same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits it conveys, even if they do not have children? Children aren't the be-all and end-all of marriage, after all, many heterosexual people are childless and yet remain happily married for decades. If you don't like the idea of same-sex couples being married, just say so, don't dance around trying to justify it. It's okay, really, we don't hunger for the approval of every single person on the planet. We really don't.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Billyabna, Cretie, Experina, Foxyshire, Kannap, Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations, The Black Forrest, The New York Nation, The Stellar Union

Advertisement

Remove ads