Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-17-2012, 03:51 PM   #261
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977

I haven't been privy to the name-calling (if so, that's disappointing, but not entirely unheard-of here in FYM, on both sides). As far as your inability to find any real reasoning in his posts, I wonder if, again, this is because of a basic difference in worldview. "I think what you say makes no sense, so anything you use to support what you say also makes no sense." I'm certainly guilty of that; I'm guessing most of us are.

I think there is only real room for discussion if both people are willing to engage in the other's worldview with a reasonable amount of goodwill. If not, then we're at something of an impasse.
I don't really think it comes down to worldview, there are rules to what defines logic and reasoning. I can't expand now, but I'll be back later to further extrapolate.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 04:06 PM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
to make sure that men don't think it's ok to wear dresses to work.
I AM WEARING A DRESS TO WORK RIGHT NOW.

#facepalm
__________________

nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 04:19 PM   #263
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I was thinking about PhilsFan's problem. Maybe you solved it for him.
My issue is mainly that the question implies that increasing equality decreases freedom. It's a rhetorical trick that has yet to be shown to have any merit here.

I don't think BVS is entirely accurate in his assessment of INDY's logic. I think INDY generally has somewhat sound logic on the surface, but doesn't explain what he means enough when questioned on it. I think that's the main issue: that without further explanation some of the statements he makes seem faulty or underdeveloped. I certainly would like to engage in more of a back-and-forth with him and others, like yourself, as opposed to the general trend of this forum, which is reacting to news pieces. The dialogues are much more interesting to me, and I think it would be for the benefit of all to have more back-and-forth.

And while we are on the subject of name-calling and productive discussions, I do think, BVS, that you have a tendency to get frustrated by the direction of conversations in a way that becomes a detriment to them. There are times on this forum, and in any political arena, where people become angry and may overreact, and that is fine. It has happened to all of us here, save for those amazing few like Yolland who are so calm and collected all of the time. But you seem to do so pretty consistently, to the point where it comes off as rather dismissive. Yes, a lot of the conversations are redundant, and yes, there are times when people make completely illogical remarks. But flying off the handle with curt remarks, displays of annoyance, or generalizing statements about how "this is just another example of this poster's problem" do nothing for moving things forward. While it may be therapeutic to do here and there, you seem to do so in almost any extended discussion or debate, which seems a little odd to me. Not every discussion warrants disgust or anger or the need to display how confused you are that another poster could even think something like that. I think you often bring up good points and have good rebuttals, but coat them in such disdain that people want to engage you in a battle of snide remarks as opposed to a legitimate discussion.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical, of course. There are times when I make those snide remarks, or make half-assed remarks because I'm in a rush and simply want to put something down, even if it doesn't add to the discussion. There are times when I show immaturity, just like others, because I'm young and that makes me somewhat arrogant (and I really need to stop logging on to the Interference app while drinking). So, I'm not in a situation here where I'm unwittingly casting stones from a glass house. But I do think there are times where your posting style is disruptive when you may not even intend for it to be, and I think hearing it from someone who generally agrees with your points in a lot of the discussions is much more helpful than hearing it from someone like FinanceGuy for the umpteenth time.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 04:33 PM   #264
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
^ INDY's from a college town, one where total lack of social exposure would be highly unlikely. Granted, knowing some gay people is different from having had several close gay friends and I have no idea whether that pertains or not, but I'd be very surprised if total social isolation was an issue.
Gotcha. But I don't think you need "total social isolation" either - my parents lived in one of the most gay-friendly cities, a huge urban centre (Toronto) and certainly would have encountered gay people in their daily life. But that is quite something else from being close with them, inviting them into your home, celebrating their milestones with them and so on. I have no idea where on the spectrum INDY belongs, but I think that there is almost a "critical mass" that has to be achieved before you fully get it, you know what I mean?
anitram is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 04:53 PM   #265
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
His posts tend to be generally well-reasoned, even if he's coming from a completely different worldview than the majority of the posters here in FYM.

Worldview is an important issue to consider.
Worldview is important to consider when trying to understand that person's exposure or ability, but worldview is more about opinion not logic or reasoning.

I can't expect to have a productive debate or conversation about Christianity with someone who has grown up in a part of the world where Bible's are banned and all they've been taught is a distorted version of Christianity.

Now you can plug in any other religion, word, or idea in the above and it remains the same.

BUT if that person was exposed to actual Christians and had access to read and study the Bible then I can expect to have a productive conversation with them.

But worldview and/ or opinions do not play a role in this debate. This is a debate about law and equality. I think this is one of the reasons for the great divide in today's environment, we have far too many people that believe worldview and opinion is enough. You see it on all sides of the aisle and it's not only frustrating but it's dangerous.

As I said earlier there are certain "rules" to logic and reasoning. You and I may have different opinions when it comes to economy, but those opinions do not matter unless we discuss the reasoning and logic behind them. And those reasonings or logic are backed up by historical evidence, numbers, facts, etc. Now the interpretation of those facts and numbers may be different and affected by worldview, but that doesn't matter because we're not debating the opinions we are debating the interpretation of facts and numbers which have to follow a line of logic and reasoning.

I haven't seen any of these arguments that follow that line. They all seem to either stop at the opinion, or argue something else that distracts from the true debate.

If you could show me how you interpreted the facts to show why you think YOUR marriage is somehow affected if two women were to get married then I'd listen. But I haven't seen that.

If you could show me how YOUR freedom of religion is effected by two men getting married then I'd listen.

If you could show me reason or logic behind any ONE argument against gay marriange then I'd listen and have a discussion with you, but the truth is that isn't happening. So I can understand where it might seem circular, but it's not for the reasons you think.

We just want to hear thought out logic, but we always seem to get opinion disguised as logic.

If I've overlooked any particular argument then I'll be willing to discuss that with you. I just can't recall ever seeing or hearing one.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:18 PM   #266
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
My issue is mainly that the question implies that increasing equality decreases freedom. It's a rhetorical trick that has yet to be shown to have any merit here.

I don't think BVS is entirely accurate in his assessment of INDY's logic. I think INDY generally has somewhat sound logic on the surface, but doesn't explain what he means enough when questioned on it. I think that's the main issue: that without further explanation some of the statements he makes seem faulty or underdeveloped. I certainly would like to engage in more of a back-and-forth with him and others, like yourself, as opposed to the general trend of this forum, which is reacting to news pieces. The dialogues are much more interesting to me, and I think it would be for the benefit of all to have more back-and-forth.

And while we are on the subject of name-calling and productive discussions, I do think, BVS, that you have a tendency to get frustrated by the direction of conversations in a way that becomes a detriment to them. There are times on this forum, and in any political arena, where people become angry and may overreact, and that is fine. It has happened to all of us here, save for those amazing few like Yolland who are so calm and collected all of the time. But you seem to do so pretty consistently, to the point where it comes off as rather dismissive. Yes, a lot of the conversations are redundant, and yes, there are times when people make completely illogical remarks. But flying off the handle with curt remarks, displays of annoyance, or generalizing statements about how "this is just another example of this poster's problem" do nothing for moving things forward. While it may be therapeutic to do here and there, you seem to do so in almost any extended discussion or debate, which seems a little odd to me. Not every discussion warrants disgust or anger or the need to display how confused you are that another poster could even think something like that. I think you often bring up good points and have good rebuttals, but coat them in such disdain that people want to engage you in a battle of snide remarks as opposed to a legitimate discussion.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical, of course. There are times when I make those snide remarks, or make half-assed remarks because I'm in a rush and simply want to put something down, even if it doesn't add to the discussion. There are times when I show immaturity, just like others, because I'm young and that makes me somewhat arrogant (and I really need to stop logging on to the Interference app while drinking). So, I'm not in a situation here where I'm unwittingly casting stones from a glass house. But I do think there are times where your posting style is disruptive when you may not even intend for it to be, and I think hearing it from someone who generally agrees with your points in a lot of the discussions is much more helpful than hearing it from someone like FinanceGuy for the umpteenth time.
You're pretty spot on. I think my biggest weakness in here is that I often turn off the human aspect and just see the reasoning, logic, and the debate and tackle it from an almost challenge or problem solving way. My convictions are from a very human and real place but my execution is sometimes from a debate/ challenge aspect rather than a conversation. And as you said I get frustrated, not when the conversation doesn't go my way or when I don't agree, but when that poster can't back up their stance or apply reasoning to their stance. My usual line of defense is often snark or being dismissive. Because of this approach I also don't take things personal(most of the time) therefore don't make personal attacks.

It's something I need to work on.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:21 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Worldview is important to consider when trying to understand that person's exposure or ability, but worldview is more about opinion not logic or reasoning.
I don't disagree with you -- it would be wonderful if the world ran on clear logic, and truth was objective for everyone to immediately recognize -- but the reality is much more muddied than we may care to admit. The problem is that the truth, from which we can extrapolate logic and reasoning, is a much slippier thing these days. Pick an issue, and there are lobbyists, advocates and activists on both sides eager to couch their belief as fact, and fund studies to prove that it is so. But when the facts are debatable, negligible and available to the highest bidder, how then are we left to reason?

For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:24 PM   #268
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I AM WEARING A DRESS TO WORK RIGHT NOW.

#facepalm


it's probably my fault. my being sexually and emotionally attracted to men means that you can't possibly know how to act like a man.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:27 PM   #269
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's probably my fault. my being sexually and emotionally attracted to men, i've subverted god-ordained gender roles and now how can you know how to act like a man?
You'd be amazed how often I wonder, "What would Irvine do?"
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:29 PM   #270
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?


if you don't think that gay people should get married, and this is due to a religious conviction, by all means, people are free to vote for politicians who act as they believe.

but what i don't understand is how the existence of gay people or the existence of SSM is somehow a violation of someone else's right to exercise their religion as they see fit.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:33 PM   #271
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 02:56 AM
I don't get how marriage can be considered to be strictly a religious institution when

1. Not everyone who gets married is religious-in any way that anyone defines what it means to be religious. I believe in defining that for yourself, that no one else can define that for you.

2. Not everyone who gets married is married in a place of religious worship, by a minister, rabbi, etc, in a religious ceremony. Someone who is legally authorized can just declare you legally married when you stand in front of them.

I consider myself to be a religious person, in the ways that I define that. But I don't define marriage as being strictly a religious institution. That somehow excludes people who believe differently than I do. If you do define it that way don't you have to then say that anyone married under other circumstances somehow has a different or less than marriage?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:36 PM   #272
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by irvine511 View Post
but what i don't understand is how the existence of gay people or the existence of ssm is somehow a violation of someone else's right to exercise their religion as they see fit.
ZOMG READ THE BIBLEZ

And why does Interference keep screwing with my caps on that hilarious joke? (ah...there it goes.)
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:39 PM   #273
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The problem is that the truth, from which we can extrapolate logic and reasoning, is a much slippier thing these days. Pick an issue, and there are lobbyists, advocates and activists on both sides eager to couch their belief as fact, and fund studies to prove that it is so. But when the facts are debatable, negligible and available to the highest bidder, how then are we left to reason?
Oh, I completely agree. We spend a lot of time and resources to make the facts say what we want them to, that's why the more information the better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?
I think this is pretty easy. There are churches today that will not marry a black man to a white woman. There are churches today that will not recognise these unions, but guess what? They are legal.

Have those churches been denied free safe practice?
BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:40 PM   #274
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
ZOMG READ THE BIBLEZ

And why does Interference keep screwing with my caps on that hilarious joke? (ah...there it goes.)


i do mean that as a serious question. all sorts of things the US government does violates people's religious principles. why is SSM (and as we saw earlier this year, birth control) somehow exceptional cases that become liberty violations?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:55 PM   #275
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?
I also don't see how SSM will violate the freedom of religion in this country. Allowing two men or two women to marry won't suddenly close down houses of worship, ban adherents to wear religious symbols around their necks, stop people from saying grace at the dinner table, and so on. No one is forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies. It is only when that happens, then the argument over freedom of religion would make sense.

Also, your last sentence makes me wonder: if two atheists - a man and a woman - were to marry, are they really married? After all, they don't believe in God or religion, so is their union a sham?
Pearl is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 05:56 PM   #276
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
I can't comment on churches that don't endorse biracial marriages.

However, this NPR report was a fair-handed description of two principles -- equal representation under the law, freedom of religion -- in conflict.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

As far as the religious connotation of marriage...the vast majority of weddings take place in, well, a church. For some that might be a purely superficial connection; for many, not so much.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 06:03 PM   #277
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Nathan, you're dodging yet again. You always dodge the racial issues. Did you answer her question about atheists?
martha is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 06:14 PM   #278
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Nathan, you're dodging yet again. You always dodge the racial issues. Did you answer her question about atheists?
I'm not dodging anything. (Though I'm confused by your post -- am I dodging racial issues or atheist ones? You seem to be accusing me of both.) As I said, the simple fact that most marriage ceremonies take place in a church provides a religious context for the ceremony in question. For some people it's a superficial connection at best; for many, it's deeper than that.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 06:23 PM   #279
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

As far as the religious connotation of marriage...the vast majority of weddings take place in, well, a church. For some that might be a purely superficial connection; for many, not so much.
Connotation is different than institution

I don't know what the statistics are- but vast majority, if that's true, still doesn't equal all. So it's not strictly a religious institution. Questioning that doesn't mean that I think that is a "superficial" connection. The difference is perhaps that I see that as a personal thing so I recognize that it's not the same for everyone. The fact that anyone else in this world doesn't see marriage as a religious institution doesn't change how I see it one iota. Doesn't "threaten" how I see it in any way, shape, or form.

And obviously they are not all taking place in a church, there are other religious places of worship.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 06:27 PM   #280
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I'm not dodging anything. (Though I'm confused by your post -- am I dodging racial issues or atheist ones? You seem to be accusing me of both.) As I said, the simple fact that most marriages ceremonies take place in a church provides a religious context for the ceremony in question. For some people it's superficial; for many, it's deeper than that.
I am accusing you of both dodges. You consistently refuse to address any racial issues where marriage is concerned. You support a vote on marriage., particularly when it goes your way, but you steadfastly refuse to answer any questions about votes that outlawed equal access and rights for blacks. You dismiss it.

And you have not directly answered Pearl's question. You won't, I know that. But I wanted to call you out on it.
__________________

martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×