2009-10-19, 16:52 | Link #261 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
Anti-social tendencies are criminalized when said tendencies harm other citizens, or could result in harm to other citizens. So, even if they are "natural" (which is not always a general case - many antisocial behaviors are caused by societal pressures, genetic (etc) problems, and a variety of other symptoms that need not actually correlate to the "average" human (in other words, antisocial behaviour can often be particular to a person or even a small group, but not necessarily anything larger than said small group)), if they cause harm, then they are bad. Homosexuality (and same sex "marriage") cannot really be comapred to antisocial tendencies since homosexuality seems to produce no real (known) harm. |
|
2009-10-19, 17:02 | Link #262 |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Yeah we liberals are being totally hypocritical and snooty . Refusing to accept time honored traditions of society and morality . An interesting parody was written along these lines by Jen T titled The Militant gay Movement
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...y_movement.htm << Language is a little NSFW be warned >>
__________________
|
2009-10-19, 17:05 | Link #263 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
@Zu_Ra excellent parody
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 17:09 | Link #264 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
And yeah, the parody's awesome. The way it's written almost reminds me of anonymous |
|
2009-10-19, 17:25 | Link #265 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
As ravers would say P.L.U.R
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 18:05 | Link #266 | |
blinded by blood
Author
|
Quote:
Until they're able to provide a valid moral reason why I shouldn't be able to marry another girl, I'm going to pretty much just treat them like the real-life forum trolls they are.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 19:05 | Link #267 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 19:08 | Link #268 | |
Test Drive
Author
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 19:11 | Link #270 | |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
However, when you consider the homosexual couples, in some societies, not even a small part of that would be allowed. Unless you consider platonic relationships as sufficient.... |
|
2009-10-19, 19:17 | Link #271 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-19, 19:25 | Link #272 | |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Think its just a minor type which made a major difference . This is what I assume FlipSkuul wanted to say ^^
Quote:
Edit : Just struck me, the term which should have been used was Top / Bottom w.r.p. to same sex couples
__________________
Last edited by Zu Ra; 2009-10-19 at 19:40. |
|
2009-10-19, 19:40 | Link #273 |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
I am talking about the side that is in needs, if the need is indeed a nature-triggered one. In a polygamy relationship, I am referring to the dominant side with that need, which is typically the male side. So, even if you forbid the person to not have any kind of polygamist relationship, since the society would still be allowing a heterosexual relationship, he can continue to have this at least on a minimum level, that would still be accepted by the society. And that means, he can still be able to marry a woman.
However, if you consider a homosexual relationship, when you forbid the relationship on any kind of level, you would also be denying the person any kind of relationship that matches his/her natural instincts. Is this better, or still not clear? |
2009-10-19, 19:43 | Link #274 | |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Quote:
EDIT : oops my bad there . Point taken and noted ^^
__________________
Last edited by Zu Ra; 2009-10-19 at 19:54. |
|
2009-10-19, 19:48 | Link #275 |
PolyPerson!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern VA
|
We already (or I already) briefly went over the whole "polygamy USED to be male dominated" thing; thankfully the newer polyamoury movement means more equality, etc. But that's not terribly relevant to the current discussion, so we're getting a bit sidetracked.
__________________
|
2009-10-19, 19:50 | Link #277 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Second part of your post = That's what we are all trying to prove in this whole damn thread! And yes, I finally fully understand what you are saying. And I agree. Basically, you were comparing why it's acceptable for polygamy to be illegal as opposed to homosexuality which would go against ones nature. In the polygamy case, it's just "luxury"
__________________
|
|
2009-10-20, 02:15 | Link #280 | |||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
I'm heading back to the grindstone so, again, I have limited time to develop my points.
Quote:
Are you absolutely sure that bigamy or polygamy "naturally" suppresses women? Or is that just your unspoken assumption talking? What if the parties involved in a polygamous relationship have all consented to such an arrangement? Where then is the "harm"? What business, then, is it of the State to prohibit such a marriage relationship, if it is the decision of mutually consenting adults? After all, where there is "consent", presumably there is no "harm" being caused, is there? Now, consider suicide. Why do most, if not all, legal systems regard suicide as a crime? What "harm" is being caused? Is the person attempting suicide "harming" other people? His act of taking his own life "harms" no one but himself. He makes a conscious choice to take his own life, for reasons only he would fully comprehend. Why then should the State step in to prevent this act of "free will"? What "harm" is being caused to third parties through the act of suicide? There is the trauma inflicted on the individual's family and friends, but why should their emotions and feelings override the desire of the individual to end his own life? So, again and again: Define "harm". To those who would argue for homosexual relationships and same-sex unions, of course you would see no "harm" in such arrangements. But to those who fervently believe that the very concept of "marriage" defines only the union of a man with a woman, they see "damage" being inflicted on a "sacred" cultural institution. Can they therefore sit idly by while such change is being called for in the name of "progress"? "Progress" for whom? Quote:
As someone else has also pointed out, there are different kinds of "natural law". The most natural law of all would be the "law of the jungle", ie, "might makes right". But I think we would all readily agree that such an ethical system would be completely incompatible with "civilised" life. The idea of "natural law" stems from the unspoken assumption that there are concepts that are "universal" to all men, values that transcend "cultures" and "beliefs". If only such "laws" were so easy to identify. Even if such "universal" laws do exist, it is clear that each individual perceives them differently, because he sees them through the prism of his own cultural/ethical environment. In other words, we cannot escape from the simple reality that, no matter how hard we try, our views of what constitutes "natural law" is necessarily affected by our culturally-inspired moral views. We cannot escape the fact that at least some degree of cultural relativism does indeed apply to the concept of "justice". So, in cases where there are different contenders as to what makes "natural law", when there is no consensus over what is more "universal" than the other, what then should a society do? Again, as I've said before, the "fair" thing to do would be to put the matter to a vote. And, if the majority votes to define "marriage" as the union only between a man and a woman, can we still insist that society is "all wrong"? Quote:
Suppose a reporter chances upon an explosive scoop. He found a whistleblower who could potentially tear apart the reigning government. But, in breaking the story, the newspaper runs the very real risk of being sued to kingdom come, effectively destroying the company in the process. Should the reporter and his editor still press ahead, at all costs, in the name of "social justice"? That might seem like the most obvious answer, since we would then be staying faithful to our journalistic "duty" to speak the "truth". But then, does the reporter also not owe a "duty" to his colleagues, who are not privy to this top-secret scoop? If, by breaking the story, he also breaks the rice bowl of his colleagues, through no fault of their own, could he not also be deemed to have failed his "duty" to another group of people? Is such a situation necessarily a "false" dilemma? It is easy to say, from the comfort of our armchairs, that the journalist should pursue the higher ideal at all costs. But what if we are faced with a situation of a flagging economy, where jobs are hard to come by, that if the reporter renders his colleagues jobless, there is a high chance they would not be able to feed themselves or their families? Does the reporter not then also have a duty to ensure that such "harm" does not befall his colleagues? These are all matters that must be seriously considered. It is one thing to question other people's assumptions, but do we also question our own? If there is ever a day when you feel that your beliefs are above reproach, that is precisely the day when you should be worried about your assumptions. There is always room for doubt, even for your own beliefs. Never, ever, be so arrogant as to think otherwise. |
|||
Tags |
discussion, homosexuality, human rights |
|
|