Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The political you... Who are you? | New poll | | Thread closed |
Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Which political area are you? See what applies to you.Liberal |
34.8%, 8 votes | Conservative |
47.8%, 11 votes | Libertarion |
13.0%, 3 votes | Statist |
4.3%, 1 vote | Multi-voting is disabled. 23 users have voted.
| |
User | Post | ||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyFirst of all, chill out. I've made it clear that I'm playing Devil's advocate and that, to be honest, I couldn't care either way for this. So I'm not having any trouble "getting over myself." "We" changed it centuries ago, and gay marriage wasn't exactly an issue back then; "you" want to change it in the present, when it is a hot political issue. There's a difference. If it were simply a change of state policy, I don't see how anyone could argue against it, but clearly the specific state policy is one that carries all sorts of religious repurcussions. So it's not that simple. |
|||
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
If you just want to play "Devil's Advocate" and you dont' care about the issue, you should have no problem just stopping or saying your position was wrong.
Same-sex marriage isn't even a new thing. There is pleanty of history about homosexual unions. Asia, early Europe, hell even the Native Americans did it. Why did we take a step back for? The spread of Christianity. A religion. Something that shouldn't matter to our country. A nice little wikipedia article that took me all of three seconds to bring up has some nice answers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny...isn't the point of the Devil's advocate to explore all avenues of discussion? Not just to lay down and die in order to feed your ego and make you feel like you've "won?" Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyIt doesn't cite a single source. |
|||
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
The point of devil's advocate? Most people who've done it to me just use questions and don't try to prove a point.
It's funny what happens when you click on links. |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyWell then, they're not exactly doing it with the degree of effort that a legitimate advocacy would call for. Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyRegardless of whether it existed in the past, why should a precedent decide whether a similar law exists in the modern world? Any number of things that were "ok" ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago are disputed in 2006. Something existing in ancient times simply means that it existed alongside practices such as ritual sacrifice (in some cultures), pedophilia (in some cultures), extreme racism (in some cultures), gender inequality (in most cultures), etc - you're making it sound like the ancients really knew what they were doing, and that they "had it all right" with homosexual relationships even though their cultures and values were clearly flawed. That is to say, none of those aforementioned tenets are at all defensible, and they demonstrate that those cultures which practiced them were imperfect; however you argue as if the precedent of homosexuality in years past somehow "proves" that it's alright. |
|||
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6328 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Young GuruJust to play Devil's advocate, why is it necessary that a homosexual union be called a "marriage?" You talk about the idea of "separate but equal" being disproven during segregation, but was that not an entirely different idea? The fact of the matter is, black schools were hardly equal to white schools; on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name. The reason why it matters, and I think many people don't understand this because they've never been in the situation, is that by giving homosexual marriages a seperate label there is a message being sent by the state that there is something fundamentaly wrong with homosexuality. It says that as a government we'll give you similar rights but there's no way we're gonna let you have the same contract that the heterosexuals get. That's the point. Going back to segregation, if you instead look at buses instead of schools, there's nothing different about riding in the front or the back of the bus, the seats are exactly the same, but by forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus there was a message being sent that they were different in a negative way that made them unworthy of the seats that white people were allowed to sit in. That's my point there. Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Young GuruHow many gay Catholics do you know? And I mean real Catholics, not the homosexual equivalent to those people who just go to church on Christmas and Easter, if at all. It's not like they'll be beating down the doors of the church to get their turn to be married, because there aren't exactly a great many of them. I don't think it will happen and I don't think there's really much of a push to have it happen. I was just using that as a way to clarify that I am not against same-sex marriage in a religious context but to show that I think it needs to be handled by each religion on its own terms. That's merely what I was getting at there. (edited by Young Guru on 10-08-06 05:41 AM) (edited by Young Guru on 10-08-06 05:43 AM) |
|||
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6327 days |
| ||
Hm, I think it's time for me to explain my position clearer, as it's obvious to me that we're not discussing the same thing. While you are discussing homosexual marriage pertaining to the current contemporary debate in American politics, I'm discussing it on a more general basis, seeing as how current domestic politics in America is an issue I am neither very knowledgeable nor highly interested in.
Further, the reason I reacted to Silvershield's post in the way I did is because I come from a country where it is written in the constitution that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is to be the state church, and where Parliament has semi-controll of the church. As such, to me it seemed that a law separating between marriage and civil unions would make it impossible for homoseuals in church. Had I thought things through, I would have known this would have seemed absurd to an American, where the concept of state church is foreign, but, as mentioned earlier, I was very tired yesterday, and thus that slip-up happened. My apologies. |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Young GuruDoes it really make a remark about the relative value of a homosexual "civil union" as compared to a heterosexual "marriage?" I feel like the analogy of a differently-named union to sitting in the back of the bus is a bit of a stretch. Originally posted by Young GuruFair enough. |
|||
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6328 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield As a person who is a strong supporter of this issue and knowing a lot of people who are homosexual and hearing their opinions on the issue I do believe that the distinction between a civil union and marriage assigns a relative lesser worth to civil unions. Imagine if we switched this to some other characterisation, such as, if you are a babtist you cannot get married, you have to have a civil union. I don't think many people would find any way to support the government disallowing baptists from getting married. It's very similar, except in the example case you could switch from babtist to an allowed religion if you wanted to get married that bad. If you are homosexual you cannot just switch to heterosexualism to get married to the person that you love. And I don't think that the bus relation is too much of a stretch, homosexuals face severe discrimination and they have to deal with hate crimes of extremely violent natures similar to what blacks dealt with in the past. |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Young GuruYou have to understand, though, that homosexuals are obviously biased in that they could easily perceive an inequality where one does not exist. Originally posted by Young GuruJust as a sidenote, a Baptist really couldn't just "switch" to a new religion to be able to marry - maybe legally, yeah, but you're making it sound as if people follow whatever religion they follow just so that they are entitled to whatever "perks" are associated with it, and that they would switch on a whim and without qualm. And anyway, to stop a specific sect from marrying would be to take away a right that already exists, whereas homosexuals have never had the right to marry in this country. It would need to be specifically granted to them. So the analogy is somewhat flawed. Originally posted by Young GuruVirtually every ethnic, racial, or religious group deals with discrimination and hate crimes. You just need to find a region where that specific group is a minority. Certainly homosexuals deal with it on a larger scale, because they are the minority nearly everywhere, but it's not as if it's a problem strictly reserved for them. |
|||
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield I absolutely love the irony. I mean, I started laughing at the irony. This is almost exactly what the other side uses. They say man and woman marriage is the precedent and we shouldn't change tradition. Obviously it isn't a strict tradition though as there is a historic precedent. If you use this argument, you can't say marriage is traditionally a man and a woman. You do bring up a good point though, ancient cultures didn't have it all right and I didn't mean to come off that way, I was just trying to show that marriage hasn't always been a man and a woman, and that cultures did practice same-sex marriages. Now a good question is, since Native Americans believed in a tradition that is essientially marriage, couldn't they bring out the race card and say that the government is refusing to allow them to follow their culture? |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyMale-female marriage is the tradition, is the precedent, in this country. And since we're talking about the laws of this country, that's all that is relevant, no? Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyReservations, where the majority of natives live, are governed by different laws than the country at large. |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6351 days Last view: 6329 days |
| ||
Just so you know, Silvershield, the bold is my commentary (the letters that have more pixels (dots) than the other letters).
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by windwakerMarriage existed as a sacred institution long before the laws of America were a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes, or before Columbus even stepped onto his ship to seek the Indies; we as Americans did not invent marriage, and we cannot alter its character by declaring it an entirely secular insitution. In any case, though, I made it quite clear that I don't have a set opinion on the matter, so don't jump all over me as if I'm your enemy. edit: Originally posted by Silvershield Originally posted by Silvershield You're an idiot. (edited by windwaker on 10-08-06 04:54 PM) |
|||
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Can anyone read the first fucking sentence in the first fucking post in the whole damn thread.
Everyone, take a moment and scroll up. Ok good. Here's the line: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Below the line, we are now in the no bullshit zone. I don't care what you belive in or how strongly you belive in it. If you have something you need to say about specific topics, that is what the New Thread button is for. This thread is the wrong place. This thread is for people to give a general overview of their overall beliefs, vote in the poll, and move on. This is not one of those talking-heads debate type of threads. Either let it go or make a seperate thread, this applies to everyone. (edited by ||bass on 10-08-06 06:25 PM) |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerNew rule: if you want me to respond to what you've written, you will present yourself as if you're an adult and not a five-year-old child. With that said, I'll respect the moderator's wishes and sit this thread out for a bit until I feel like I can speak civilly without being insulted. (edited by Silvershield on 10-08-06 06:40 PM) |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6351 days Last view: 6329 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by windwaker 1) There is no such thing as a <!> tag. and 2) ||bass is not the moderator of this forum. If I recall correctly... oh yes, he's the server admin. This thread has evolved into a discussion (one that shows how intelligent some of the people posting in it are), and the OP has no right to dictate rules of a thread. Run away from this thread if you'd like. Anyone with a real point wouldn't be dissuaded by what they claim to be sarcastic nothingness. But please, if there is any defense for "I've only ever misspelled one word!" in the same post as another misspelling, please PM it to me. Originally posted by ||bass Thanks O'Reilly. :rolleyes: I'll create another thread, but drawing a line in text is really, really lame. (edited by windwaker on 10-08-06 06:49 PM) (edited by windwaker on 10-08-06 06:51 PM) |
|||
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6334 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerDo you really have so much of an axe to grind that you're searching the source of my posts to criticize what HTML I've used? Since it interests you so much, you might be disappointed to know that I'm not exactly well-versed with HTML and it was a tag I thought I picked up along the way that is used to indicate that whatever tags occur in between are "disregarded" - and, in that way, the square brackets I used would be disregarded and not understood as containing code of their own. But, since my lack of skill with coding indicates a similar incompetence in debate, your point is certainly relevant. Originally posted by windwakerWhether he moderates this forum or not, he is, as you pointed out, an administrator. Which makes him some sort of authority figure, no? I've been banned in this forum before - for ridiculous reasons, but that's another story altogether - and if the only way to remain in a debate is to kneel down and kiss an administrator's feet, I guess that's what I'll do. Originally posted by windwakerHave you missed the entire message I've been pounding in nearly every post I've made in this thread? I have no point to make. I'm playing Devil's advocate. I'm providing you and the other people in this thread a foil to play against. My very first post made that quite clear - explicitly clear, even. And I never claimed your remarks are "sarcastic nothingness," I claimed they are immature. Originally posted by windwakerHey, I saw that post before you edited it. You missed the second colon in the :rolleyes:! Your entire post is invalidated by that typo!Originally posted by ||bass |
|||
Blue Shoes Mini Octorok Rereg of some idiot Since: 10-12-06 From: Paradise, California Last post: 6421 days Last view: 6421 days |
| ||
I thought we were supposed to stay calm in this thread? | |||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
OK, no posts for a few days except for the last reply, with it being worthless; and Libertarian in the poll being spelled wrong--plus the starter being permabanned: I think it's safe to say that this can be closed. |
Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The political you... Who are you? | | Thread closed |