Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/14/2009 12:13:14 PM · #2101

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. They are... less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say...

I challenge you to find ONE that's actually a reversal rather than your failure to grasp a concept.

Are you thinking I was posting about atheists?

04/14/2009 12:13:36 PM · #2102

Originally posted by coronamv:

Why are we just arguing for more rights/privillages for gays over arguing equal rights/privillages for all single people equivalent to those of married people?

What individual equivalent would you propose for a spouse's right to make medical decisions if you're incapacitated and hadn't declared your own preference beforehand?

04/14/2009 12:19:04 PM · #2103

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd say we are all Universalists because everybody can play a great Relative game until the chips are down and our toes get stepped on. At that point we all become Universalists and are keenly aware that we have been Wronged! Forget what the other guy thinks, we are due JUSTICE!

And yet even then we are subject to social norms that change over time. The idea that people should not be owned as slaves or women should have the right to vote seems like a universal" moral truth today, but both were radical concepts only a few hundred years ago. A little perspective. Someone born into slavery or a lower Indian social caste may accept their situation as "right" (because that's the cultural norm they're accustomed to), and actually demand the beating of a peer who broke the rules. Kamikazes and radical suicide bombers may be willing to takes their own lives as well as others' because they believe it's the honorable thing to do, even if they would otherwise decry murder as immoral. It's all about context, and context is subject to constant change.

You are missing that the "acceptance of their situation as "right"" does not equate to Right. Under Universalism whole societies can be deemed Wrong because there is a standard of universal measure. Of course it does not make sense to you as you pose it because you are looking through Relative glasses.

04/14/2009 12:19:46 PM · #2104

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. They are... less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say...

I challenge you to find ONE that's actually a reversal rather than your failure to grasp a concept.

Are you thinking I was posting about atheists?

Oh please enlighten us as to whom you were referring with this full quote:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. I know what their axioms are and what the logical conclusions are. The "in between" positions are varied and fluid. They are also, usually, less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say, etc.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/14/2009 12:21:42 PM · #2105

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oh please enlighten us as to whom you were referring with this full quote:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. I know what their axioms are and what the logical conclusions are. The "in between" positions are varied and fluid. They are also, usually, less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say, etc.

The "in between" positions. Duh. New Age. Pantheism. Lots of times the position doesn't have a name because it's a construct created by an individual.

Read the post right above with Brennan about people who choose to remain in the philosophical "hallway" rather than picking a "room" for context.

Apology accepted. ;P

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 12:24:45.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/14/2009 12:24:04 PM · #2106

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. They are... less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say...

I challenge you to find ONE that's actually a reversal rather than your failure to grasp a concept.

Are you thinking I was posting about atheists?

Oh please enlighten us as to whom you were referring with this full quote:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. I know what their axioms are and what the logical conclusions are. The "in between" positions are varied and fluid. They are also, usually, less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say, etc.

He's saying he can talk to/debate with atheists and theists, but that the people who are "in between" are hard for him to deal with, from a debate point of view, because they don't usually hold consistent positions and it's hard to pin them down. They contradict themselves.

R.

ETA: Doc got back to it first :-)

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 12:24:41.

04/14/2009 12:29:05 PM · #2107

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Alrighty then... are women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality Right? They weren't considered so 200 years ago, largely based upon religious moral outcry. All three are generally accepted as Right now, but you're saying that's only through Relative glasses, so by extension all three could be Wrong under a universal standard. So how do we know which is the universal standard? Now here's the kicker: is gay marriage Right, and how do you know? If you use religious doctrine as a universal standard, then women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality belong in the same category as gay marriage. The spotlight is yours, Doc.

04/14/2009 12:31:16 PM · #2108

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "in between" positions. Duh. New Age. Pantheism. Lots of times the position doesn't have a name because it's a construct created by an individual.

Ah, gotcha! I did indeed read that another way, so my apologies on that one. ;-)

04/14/2009 12:36:21 PM · #2109

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "in between" positions. Duh. New Age. Pantheism. Lots of times the position doesn't have a name because it's a construct created by an individual.

Ah, gotcha! I did indeed read that another way, so my apologies on that one. ;-)

No problem muchacho. :)

04/14/2009 12:50:05 PM · #2110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, gotcha! I did indeed read that another way, so my apologies on that one. ;-)

No problem muchacho. :)

Dammit... now I have to post a reversal due to my failure to grasp the concept! ;-P

04/14/2009 01:10:55 PM · #2111

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, gotcha! I did indeed read that another way, so my apologies on that one. ;-)

No problem muchacho. :)

Dammit... now I have to post a reversal due to my failure to grasp the concept! ;-P

What what what! Wait a second. See, this makes you BOTH obnoxious to me. :P "Oh you weren't saying MY position is not thought through. So sorry, so sorry. Kiss kiss."

Get a room you two... oh wait. You did and you are not going to leave. And you are just sitting in those rooms going "my room is better" "nuh uh, my room is better" but then, when I'm in the hallway telling you you could both be wrong, NOW you have something to agree one. Namely that I'm wrong.

Toddlers! hehe.

04/14/2009 01:16:20 PM · #2112

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are missing that the "acceptance of their situation as "right"" does not equate to Right. Under Universalism whole societies can be deemed Wrong because there is a standard of universal measure. Of course it does not make sense to you as you pose it because you are looking through Relative glasses.

Alrighty then... are women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality Right? They weren't considered so 200 years ago, largely based upon religious moral outcry. All three are generally accepted as Right now, but you're saying that's only through Relative glasses, so by extension all three could be Wrong under a universal standard. So how do we know which is the universal standard? Now here's the kicker: is gay marriage Right, and how do you know? If you use religious doctrine as a universal standard, then women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality belong in the same category as gay marriage. The spotlight is yours, Doc.

This brings me back to the same basic theme. EVEN IF there is a universality to morals we cannot know it. It's like a pixel in a photo saying "this photo is all green" because they are in a patch of grass when the whole picture could be mostly sky. Whether there is a universality to morals is as moot as whether there is a God, because none of us humans will be able to ever correctly deliver the message. We are stuck in our mortal bodies, in our mortal time, in our mortal place (this last is more fluid than ever before in history but someone traveling all over the world I would believe to be even MORE fluid on their ideas of morals, not less)

04/14/2009 01:25:23 PM · #2113

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Dammit... now I have to post a reversal due to my failure to grasp the concept! ;-P

What what what! Wait a second. See, this makes you BOTH obnoxious to me.

Um... I just admitted that I was wrong to think he was referring to Atheists, and THAT made me obnoxious? Hmph. I thought I was obnoxious WAYYY before then.

04/14/2009 01:41:08 PM · #2114

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Dammit... now I have to post a reversal due to my failure to grasp the concept! ;-P

What what what! Wait a second. See, this makes you BOTH obnoxious to me.

Um... I just admitted that I was wrong to think he was referring to Atheists, and THAT made me obnoxious? Hmph. I thought I was obnoxious WAYYY before then.

Oh you were but never towards me before. ;)

04/14/2009 01:46:45 PM · #2115

QUESTION!!!!!

What about if a gay man marries a gay woman to get the legal benefits of marriage, and then continues dating whoever they chose? Is that not worse? Does that not water down the "sanctity" of marriage much more than a committed gay marriage of love? (That movie Chuck & Larry did this in the opposite, I never saw it but I can't imagine it did a service to the gay movement)

The truth is, no one can stop a man and a woman (barring age and familial relationships) from marrying REGARDLESS of their intentions. EVEN IF the "sanctity of marriage" argument held water (which it doesn't), it still does not address the already legal and obvious "knocks" at marriage. Divorce, adultery, marrying for money, marrying for a green card, mail order brides, marrying in the name of Satan (getting hyperbolic I know) etc.

ETA: Thought even the age rule can be overruled in cases of parental consent and for religious reasons.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 13:47:53.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

04/14/2009 01:53:17 PM · #2116

Originally posted by escapetooz:

What about if a gay man marries a gay woman to get the legal benefits of marriage, and then continues dating whoever they chose?

Isn't the whole point to confer legal benefits to the chosen partner? The person they're dating still wouldn't have any authority to make medical decisions or inherit property.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

04/14/2009 01:56:53 PM · #2117

nm, was looking at the wrong "main point"

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 13:57:34.

04/14/2009 02:12:56 PM · #2118

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Get a room you two... oh wait. You did and you are not going to leave. And you are just sitting in those rooms going "my room is better" "nuh uh, my room is better" but then, when I'm in the hallway telling you you could both be wrong, NOW you have something to agree one. Namely that I'm wrong.

Toddlers! hehe.

You could try attending Agnostics Anonymous, but frankly they're not sure when the next meeting is. :P

04/14/2009 03:08:11 PM · #2119

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
What about if a gay man marries a gay woman to get the legal benefits of marriage, and then continues dating whoever they chose?

Isn't the whole point to confer legal benefits to the chosen partner? The person they're dating still wouldn't have any authority to make medical decisions or inherit property.

No you miss my point. It was posed to those religious folks who worry about the sanctity of marriage as in "would this anger you as well even though its a man and a woman?" as opposed to posing a solution to the gay community.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/14/2009 03:14:59 PM · #2120

Another QUESTION:

How about a complete transsexual? As in all surgeries complete for gender reassigning. Which gender should they legally be allowed to marry? How about a hermaphrodite? Can they not get married at all because either way it is a "gay" marriage?

There was an "female" track winner who was stripped of her metal after a sex test found she was not fully a woman. Can this same idea be applied to marriage? Can a marriage be broken up if one of the partners is found to be a not fully one gender or the other?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/14/2009 03:41:02 PM · #2121

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Get a room you two... oh wait. You did and you are not going to leave. And you are just sitting in those rooms going "my room is better" "nuh uh, my room is better" but then, when I'm in the hallway telling you you could both be wrong, NOW you have something to agree one. Namely that I'm wrong.

Toddlers! hehe.

You could try attending Agnostics Anonymous, but frankly they're not sure when the next meeting is. :P

That's so funny! You should be a comedian! Speaking of which I did try attending Theist Anonymous but unfortunately all of the information they gave about where to meet was wrong. :P

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 15:41:24.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/14/2009 04:14:36 PM · #2122

Originally posted by coronamv:

Why are we just arguing for more rights/privillages for gays over arguing equal rights/privillages for all single people equivalent to those of married people?

The issue is just that you see... gays are NOT seeking any more rights and or priviledges... they simply want to be treated the same... therein lies the difference.

Ray

04/14/2009 04:24:21 PM · #2123

Originally posted by escapetooz:

The easiest way to clear it up in some legal manner would be to look at the sex chromosomes. If you have a Y chromosome you are a male, if you do not, you are female. Most cases of hermaphroditism are rather "ambiguous genitalia" but their cells all carry the same number and type of sex chromosomes. There are very few (but are reported) cases of mosaic hermaphrodites where some cells have a Y chromosome and others do not.

My question back to you would be, why throw out a system that works for 99.981% of the population (talking about hermaphriditism here, not gays) because of the other 0.018%? If we go to that extreme we may be throwing out a lot of other conventional systems as well.

04/14/2009 04:35:43 PM · #2124

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Another QUESTION:

How about a complete transsexual? As in all surgeries complete for gender reassigning. Which gender should they legally be allowed to marry? How about a hermaphrodite? Can they not get married at all because either way it is a "gay" marriage?

There was an "female" track winner who was stripped of her metal after a sex test found she was not fully a woman. Can this same idea be applied to marriage? Can a marriage be broken up if one of the partners is found to be a not fully one gender or the other?

The easiest way to clear it up in some legal manner would be to look at the sex chromosomes. If you have a Y chromosome you are a male, if you do not, you are female. Most cases of hermaphroditism are rather "ambiguous genitalia" but their cells all carry the same number and type of sex chromosomes. There are very few (but are reported) cases of mosaic hermaphrodites where some cells have a Y chromosome and others do not.

My question back to you would be, why throw out a system that works for 99.981% of the population (talking about hermaphriditism here, not gays) because of the other 0.018%? If we go to that extreme we may be throwing out a lot of other conventional systems as well.

Are you serious with this argument? Yea I mean why stop there? Screw all those handicap parking spots, they could go to us "normal" people. And ramp and elevator regulations? I mean come on, the REST of us can take the stairs. Too bad for them. I like stairs. Stairs have worked for us for years. Why go all EXTREME just for a few people?

It's called progress. And it only seems extreme to people who oppose it.

And with this chromosome thing? What if a person was raised a girl her WHOLE life and then found out she had a Y chromosome? Should she not be allowed to marry the man she loves? Should her dreams be dashed because of a chromosome? Gender is not that simple. And no one is going around testing YOUR chromosomes in order for you to get married. That is an EXTREME violation of personal rights.

So it gets to the core of it. Gender has NOTHING to do with 2 consenting adults loving each other and wanting to enter into a legal contract. Churches can keep them out if they like, but legally it makes no sense.

And you never answered the transsexual portion of the question. I mean so... if a man has a sex change, he still has the chromosomes of a man, but as a vagina, by your definition he can marry a woman? Physically it would be a lesbian relationship. So they can get married even though they both have a vag and can't make children? Doesn't that go against the heart of the Christian arguement?

ETA: And there you have it. "No one has the right to get married but ME and people LIKE ME." And f*ck everyone else!

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 16:40:42.