Choice

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No one. But if the definition of marriage is subjective, then I say--let individuals define for themselves what it is to be married. The government need not be a part of it. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is. Thus, if people want to marry a tree, a cat, whatever, fine. If people want polygamous relationships, fine. If people want to marry their car, fine. If people want marry their gay lover or their heterosexual lover, fine. Whatever floats one's boat.
Except that the government IS a part of it. It legislates any number of things regarding marriage. Given that, why should same-sex marriage be exempted?
Yes it does and it is self-refuting. Because if you can question the assumptions under which I am arguing, I can do the same to you.
That's not skepticism.
If we should reject the assumptions in which I am arguing, I see no reason to accept the assumptions on which you are arguing.
That's not skepticism either.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No one. But if the definition of marriage is subjective, then I say--let individuals define for themselves what it is to be married. The government need not be a part of it. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is. Thus, if people want to marry a tree, a cat, whatever, fine. If people want polygamous relationships, fine. If people want to marry their car, fine. If people want marry their gay lover or their heterosexual lover, fine. Whatever floats one's boat.
Except that some gays want the government version.

I doubt that I will ever vote in my life, but I still want the right to vote, and would consider it disciminatory, were I denied it.

And, on that note, imagine if the goverment, for some reason, did not count any votes but those for one candidate, and it's the one you would never vote for - would

"You're not being disriminated against - you have just as much right to vote for John Borden as anybody else"

make it not discriminatory?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
Is that a positive development--that is---were they wrong before to deny gay couples the "right" to be "married?" Now that gays can be "married" would you say this is an advancement--a product of a more "enlightened" society?
Yes
If we were to say--in 100 years---move backwards and decide gays can no longer get "married" would that be wrong? Would that be a step in the wrong direction? Would that be a sign of de-evolution from your view?
It would be a sign that society has changed. I'm not going to make personal judgements on some putative future society any more than I do of the ancient Greeks.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Just a reminder - the same thing has been done to just about every other religion.

And the left isn't attempting to do anything to "the Church". There are millions upon millions of people in "the Church" who are on the left.
The NT teachings of Jesus tend to lend themselves to some of what we call capitalism and socialism. Christians look at the teachings, not the politics
 

BMS

Well-known member
By the same token, who says reproduction has to have anything to do with marriage?

except that skepticism has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it either incoherent or self-refuting.
In the human species a man and the woman unite in sexual intimacy and conceice and offspring, and then raise. Its what has always happened and has always been seen as marriage and yet you ask what has it got to do with marriage.
Its the most significant logical rational observable criterion to marriage that makes it distinct from same sex coupling.
No other argument needed
 

Temujin

Well-known member
They cant do it, one cant be what one isnt.

no idea how your comment applies
She can do it. She is what she is, and is much happier now, she says, though mostly we talk about fuel line blockages and ignition systems.

You have no idea how anybody's comments about anything apply. And it shows.
 

BMS

Well-known member
She can do it. She is what she is, and is much happier now, she says, though mostly we talk about fuel line blockages and ignition systems.

You have no idea how anybody's comments about anything apply. And it shows.
You have forgoten what the point was. Up your game. A generation X person cant be a generation Y person because they were born at the wrong time for it

Why arent you 16 years old?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
One that doesn't take offence at merely being asked?
You have a point. If you think it would be offensive to ask the person directly, why would anyone think it is OK to as a third party to discuss such an intimate and private thing? What business is it of ours? What is gained by doing this that can not be gained in thirty seconds on Google?
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
You have a pont. If you think it would be offensive to ask the person directly, why would anyone think it is OK to as a third party to discuss such an intimate and private thing? What business is it of ours? What is gained by doing this that can not be gained in thirty seconds on Google.?
If you want me to refer to you as a woman, when you're genetically male, it's very much my business.

"Call me a woman because I think I am a woman."
"You think you have XX chromosomes?"
"No; I experience life as a woman."
"But what do you mean by that?"
"IT'S PRIVATE!"

Nah.

What if it were, say, "mongoose", instead of "woman"?
Would you be as accomodating?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If you want me to refer to you as a woman, when you're genetically male, it's very much my business.
Why? In what circumstances do you need to know?
"Call me a woman because I think I am a woman."
"You think you have XX chromosomes?"
"No; I experience life as a woman."
"But what do you mean by that?"
"IT'S PRIVATE!"

Nah.
But reality for thousands for hundreds of years. Did you know that the Chevalier D'Eon (who likely had sex with Benjamin Franklin amongst others) would arrive at orgies as a woman, then change half way through. Bets were made throughout British High society regarding his actual sex. Bribes were paid to his tailor and the matter was judged as settled by his undertaker declaring him to be male "though somewhat diminished".
What if it were, say, "mongoose", instead of "woman"?
Would you be as accomodating?
It have never happened. I'll reserve judgement. I don't find these kinds of slippery slope arguments very convincing.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Why? In what circumstances do you need to know?

But reality for thousands for hundreds of years. Did you know that the Chevalier D'Eon (who likely had sex with Benjamin Franklin amongst others) would arrive at orgies as a woman, then change half way through. Bets were made throughout British High society regarding his actual sex. Bribes were paid to his tailor and the matter was judged as settled by his undertaker declaring him to be male "though somewhat diminished".

It have never happened. I'll reserve judgement. I don't find these kinds of slippery slope arguments very convincing.
Because if use a different meaning to words how do we communicate?
Already told you this so it looks like you are proving it.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Because if use a different meaning to words how do we communicate?
Already told you this so it looks like you are proving it.
This "contribution is
1. Irrelevant
2. Rudely butting in to someone else's conversation.
3. Completely meaningless as written.
4. If amended to say what I suspect you mean, extremely stupid.
 
Top