In a gay divorce, how is the judge supposed to find a way to be biased against the man?
Printable View
In a gay divorce, how is the judge supposed to find a way to be biased against the man?
Assuming there is a problem is the borderline surfing of hate speech that got me riled up in your "The problem with Islam" thread.
(underline to emphasize the whole term I'm talking about. I'm not calling this hate speech. I'm saying that it's dangerous in the invitation.)
In b4 I get accused of calling you a hater or a terrorist or that I'm somehow suppressing the free exchange of ideas.
I mean... there are problems with everything, so it's clearly fine to talk about the problems with gay marriage. It's just dangerous to frame the dialogue in the terms of negativity towards humans.
I recently read that your primary ideology is to put humans first. How are you putting gay humans above ideological criticism ITT?
(Yeah, I take the bait on this kind of troll - if it is a troll - all too easy. I'm cool with that.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbl-umsFOM
Decide which one is the least feminine and go from there?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I thought it wasn't a male/female thing just the one who had to put a dick in them in some shape/form.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
You might be thinking but what about lesbians? Well they don't have anything to begin with as they weren't with a man.
I reckon the more feminine one is usually the receiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
There's always a more butch one in every lesbian couple though. They're probably the one with the strap on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Fun fact:
If you're a female, then you're several times more likely to be a victim of domestic violence if you're in a relationship with another female than if you're in a relationship with a male.
I wonder how many people saw the title and who posted it and in their minds said "fuck off" and didn't click.
Fun Fact:
If you're a male in a relationship with a female in the United States, you're much more likely to be the victim of domestic violence than the female is.
Fun fact - if you're in a relationship with a sheep in Wales, you're much more likely to be the victim of social exclusion than the sheep is.
Fun fact - there's no domestic violence in any lesbian porn that I watch.
You must watch shitty porn thenQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm not into the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I really don't like violence in porn. I'd prefer to watch two women licking each other and playing with dildos. Not quite sure who gets turned on by violence, I just know I don't.
Serious question:
Can a person believe that a gay couple should have the right to live a free and happy life without being ridiculed by people for their choice, but also believe that marriage is specifically a traditional, sacred (contract? couldn't think of better word) between a man and a woman, and that to have any other marry is essentially breaking this sacred tradition?.....
....Without being condemned as a homophobic hater of gays or apologist or whatever the internet calls people who disagree these days.
Should that person not also have the right to not have the mob hurl things at them? The mob that hurls at the person who does not believe in gay marriage, is quite similar to those who hurl at people for being gay.
Agree/disagree?
A person has a similar right to hold a belief according to his moral code, as others have of criticizing his belief. If you're saying the person has a right to be free of criticism of his beliefs, shouldn't the objects of those beliefs then have an equal right to be free of oppressive beliefs?
I take issue with both points here. Noone has a right to not be ridiculed, and noone has a right to expect their warped defintion of "marriage" to trump the legal definition.Quote:
Can a person believe that a gay couple should have the right to live a free and happy life without being ridiculed by people for their choice, but also believe that marriage is specifically a traditional, sacred (contract? couldn't think of better word) between a man and a woman, and that to have any other marry is essentially breaking this sacred tradition?.....
You're right, there shouldn't be any threat of violence for their beliefs or statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micro2Macro
But I personally don't see how someone could be against same-sex marriage without holding some kind of negative bias against gay couples. Especially since marriage gives so many additional rights to the couple, so it's much more of a legal mechanism than any specific religious one.
Plus, you might think it's a sacred tradition, but there are tons of straight marriages out there that probably do not fit the categories of sacred or traditional. If it's OK for straight people to marry for non-traditional and non-sacred reasons, why not gay couples? IMO, it's because of a bias against them.
Is there any sense that we're dealing with homonyms, here?
I.e. religious marriage vs. legal marriage
I can appreciate the idea that religious marriage is a sacred tradition.
It is true that legal marriage confers rights and privileges.
I can also appreciate that a purely religious marriage w/o the associated bureaucratic paperwork is not a legally recognized marriage. Vise-versa, a purely legal marriage involving only court documents is not necessarily sanctified by, say, the Catholic church.
Is this controversy (at least a little bit) due to a lack of clarity in separating these two things?
I had this discussion with my friend who I rent a room off. He thinks "marriage" should be between a man and a woman, while not being remotely homophobic. He bases this on the traditional definition or marriage. But he's not remotely religious either. I found it strange that he is willing to uphold religious values at the cost of equality, when he is neither religious nor intolerant.
Sometimes people just miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think marriage is a stupid bullshit tradition that should be discarded of, this is reason enough to not want gay marriage to be a thing because it strengthens marriage as an institution. If I had a vote on whether gay marriage should be legal or not would I vote no? Obviously not.
Not to mention that people who aren't religious pulling that shit are just being homophobic. There are different levels of homophobia obviously. Just because you aren't out beating up gay people doesn't mean you're all for it.
"Because tradition" is a cop-out. It's not a real reason. And traditions change over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why does he think that the strictly traditional definition is correct? Why doesn't the traditional definition include same-sex marriages? Why shouldn't it now? If he is OK with same-sex couples, why is he not cool if they get married?
This topic reminds me of this bit:
This gets little play in the popular discussion of gay marriage, but its most significant detraction comes from people who view gay marriage as eroding the values that make for a strong, moral, progressing, and sustainable society: the nuclear family. The desire to promote the nuclear family is where everything from anti-fornication to anti-gay mostly comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
They have a lot of really good points that nobody else seems to care about. The dissolution of the nuclear family really does look like it could be the primary driver of the dissolution of the types of values at the foundation of the society. Everything from kids being undisciplined disrespectful shits to deadbeat dads to whiny teenagers to crazy women can be related quite well to the dissolution of the family. In the minds of many religious people, gay marriage is just another of the many ways the family is dissolved.
I hold the same view that Savy holds. I support freedom and choice, so I think the government should have no part in marriage and people should be free to interpret it as they and their selected associations deem fit. But that doesn't negate the fact that gay marriage is one of the several things that has been overturning a great deal of what we know works well for humans. That's also not to say that things may be better with gay marriage. I don't know. I just think it's important to understand why many religious are against gay marriage instead of just calling them bigots and homophobes.
I can't say I agree with this, I mean marriage provides rights to spouses that aren't extended to partners. I think "civil partnerships" or whatever they call them are, legally speaking, the same as a marriage, but I'm not sure. Point is, that legal protection means that if one dies, the other is entitled to the pension of the deceased, and stuff like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I don't think so. I mean maybe, but not in my opinion in this case. I think it's just misguided. Legal definitions can change, there's nothing wrong with that. I think if he thought about it more than a casual conversation, he might reassess his position. I don't think it's important to him in the slightest, which is why I don't think homophobia plays a role. If it is playing a role, he's doing a very good job of hiding that apsect of his personality.Quote:
Not to mention that people who aren't religious pulling that shit are just being homophobic.
I don't know. He's married, and they didn't get married in a church, their marriage had no reference to god. 100 years ago, that marriage would not be recognised by the state, because it lacked the approval of the church. So he himself is legally considered married thanks to a change in its legal definition in the past. There is a level of hypocrisy there, even if he's unaware of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo
On a related note, my sister is hardcore fundamentalist christian. Homosexuality basically infuriates her. At our last family reunion, I dug into the logic she uses for being anti-gay. The fundamental belief she falls back to is that she thinks that homosexuality is corruption by the Devil. It doesn't matter that animals portray homosexuality in the wild, it doesn't matter that the more male babies a woman has the more likely the later males will be born gay, and it doesn't matter that homosexual feelings are as natural for some as heterosexual feelings are for people like her or me; the bottom line is that the soul has been corrupted. She thinks that if this isn't the case and that if homosexuality is not wrong, it puts the Bible as the Word of God in question, which would shatter her emotional sanity.
Thinking Fast and Slow gets brought up a lot on this forum, and rightfully so. Its a pretty good book. In it, the idea that we reach conclusions first, and then look for rationals is discussed. We have our immediate, gut reaction to something...and then attempt to find reasons that this reaction is legitimate.
This epitomizes the appeal to tradition fallacy that occurs with gay marriage. When saying "well, tradition is man and a women", people arent thinking about the logical implications. They have their immediate gut reaction, and then use tradition to justify it. They dont think about how, traditionally, it was between two chaste people. Of the same race. Of the same faith. They also dont recognize that just 200 years ago, marriage wasnt between a "man and a woman", but between a "30yr old man and a 14yr old girl". They also get stuck in what their own tradition might be, ignoring that people who dont share the same beliefs as them get married all the time. Its not a "christian" thing. It happens with mormons, jews, everybody.
That brings us to the next fallacy. The "its a christian tradition, and the bible says..." fallacy. Now, I'm not going to research Judaism...so forgive me for putting my foot in my mouth with my next line. But if jews had a rule that said "you cant eat pork on the day of your wedding", would you give a single fuck? Probably not, right? The rules of another religion, which you dont recognize or accept, have no bearing on your own beliefs. Marriage isnt about appeasing every religion on the planet, nor even just one religion. Its a personal bond between two people. Even Christian rules and beliefs don't seem to apply to most Christians! One look at the divorce rate could tell you as much. If people are permitted to get married, without strict adherence to their own religious scripture, it stands to reason that strict adherence is not a requirement to marriage. Even minimal adherence is not a requirement, though. An atheist man and women are permitted to marry in the US. It is clearly not a marriage requirement that both people, or even one person, adheres to christian beliefs.
Tradition doesnt matter. Religious views dont matter. Its a legal issue.
@ top bit - I don't agree with discarding all of that obviously I just think marriage is a bad way of going about it. You talk about legal definitions changing well same could be said here. Marriage isn't even a particularly good solution to those problems you mention either imo but different topic of conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
To be homophobic isn't to be evil or a monster or anything. That's my whole point about different levels of homophobia. I'm sure if you got into a conversation with him about it he'd change his mind but those initial prejudices (that everyone has in some shape or form btw) are still just that.
Great post, JKDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Yeah you're right, marriage isn't the only way to protect the interest of a partner. But having said that, there needs to be some form of contract between a couple in order to protect each other. Otherwise, are we saying that someone you dated for a month in the 1990's has a claim to part of your pension should you die? A marriage is a contract, currently between two people only in this country, but there's no reason why that should be the case, unless spoon is right and that it would just result in too many single men who would become aggressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
As for the homophobia thing... I'm not saying being homophobic is evil, far from it. I'm a little bit homophobic in that I find the thought of gay sex to be quite disgusting. That's a natural feeling for me, but their love is natural to them. I also would probably not want my son, if I had one, to hang out with a bummer. Strangely, it wouldn't bother me if a daughter had a gay friend. So yeah, homophobia exists in many of us.
I just feel that if there were homophobic feelings at work with my friend, he'd have been honest about it in private conversation. Maybe he's not consciously aware of it, like I am.
Careful now. Tradition has one thing going for it -Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It worked.
For something to actually work in this world, to actually manage, is the highest standard of success.
It's unwise to turn your nose up to something that's worked.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Just 'cause something happened and we didn't die doesn't mean the thing that happened wasa good thingbetter than the alternatives.
Troo.
But the alternatives are vast and many, and not all of them can hit the standard of actually working.
Though, I suppose there is something to say to the resilience of people. They live in situations that shouldn't work by any measure - like Liberia or whatever other bumblebeezed nation you can think of in south-of-sahara-africa or north-of-south-korea.
Maybe 'working' isn't that high of a standard.
Nah, I walk this back. They worked. Whether I think they should or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yes, quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If we try to get villain to fold, and we go all in for twice the pot, and he folds, does that mean it worked? Sure it did, but maybe a pot sized bet would've worked too, and if it didn't, we lose less.
We're not looking for things to simply work, we want the most +ev way of things working.
If you were to say that "a hammer worked, shouldn't change it", I'd agree with you.
But I have no idea what "it worked" can possibly mean when applied to a concept instead of a piece of equipment.
I have no idea what the context was when I said that, but is a hammer the best method of getting a nail into a piece of wood? It's the most practical based on the tools we usually have at our disposal, but it's probably not the most efficient.
No and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you're wielding the power of atoms, or stars, or long dead dinos, no. We can conceive of better.
But if you're trying to put up a fence over a weekend, then yes.
It's not applied to any concept. Something worked and you decided to put concepts to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Well, if you shove for twice the pot and he flips over the nuts, that certainly didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Notice that none of tradition encountered this problem. And, in fact, was the other side of the table almost every time.
I still don't know what you mean. What does "worked" mean when applied to marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It means "happened".Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I value things that can actually happen.
edit I don't care about gay marriage, btw. I just saw you shitting on tradition and thought this devil needed an advocate.