NationStates

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.

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.

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?

Cekoviu wrote:

Mettaton-EX wrote:trans and/or nonbinary people too, for that matter

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

i'm not.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 :^)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.