Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

What does that have to do with your hypothesis of the gays just wanting attention?


And...


And you still haven't offer a reason why it might be problematic other than disrupting the status quo.


You have archaic views about gender roles, seem to think that the sole purpose of marriage is to produce biological offspring, and oppose extending the benefits of marriage to gay people, even though you seem to have been unaware of what those benefits are until this thread. For a start.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Did you want an answer to your question or were you asking just to play rhetorical tennis?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Your argument that a legal document being necessary to confer rights typically associated with marriage is unfair is faulty because the rights of marriage are likewise provided for by a legal document.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Your understanding of current marriage roles appears to come from Leave it to Beaver, and you make arguments based on an antiquated and unrealistic understanding of marriage that you then ascribe to all marriages. Multiple times you've equated gender roles concretely with gender, do you really believe everyone acts according to their dated societal roles, or is your argument that everyone needs to act according to the society's roles and not decide for themselves?



Pretty much every day. Even the shit that we argue about on this board is at times done simply for the sake of arguing against the 'other side'. Anti-immigration stances are anti-illegal-immigration stances, and so I am anti-immigration. I am also anti-gun in many respects, but not all.

Dvergar /
Quisling

This is a much wordier way of saying "you are wrong because you are wrong".


Everyone is a product of the world in which they live. No man is an island. If you do not realize that then the one who does not understand human psychology is you.

You're trying to allude to sexual identity and I would classify that as a purely cultural viewpoint. The belief that people can be of a gender other than their biological gender is not culturally universal nor empirically provable.

The cultural notion of "transfiguration" is not new, and although not universal it occurs in many cultures in some form - the belief that things are not what they seem, that a man can be a woman, that a dog can be a god, that a bird can be a man, that a man can be a spirit, etc. Those belief are "eccentricities" unique to particular cultures, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that our own values are somehow aloof from and impartial against those of all other cultures.

To argue that our viewpoints on purely human issues are wiser because we are more technologically advanced than any preceding culture is as wrongheaded as Victorian colonialism.

And surely enough the Victorians used the same lexicon of condescension in favor of their own viewpoints when they couldn't find an objective basis to argue the superiority of their cultural beliefs.

Didn't they make the argument that their views on sex were better than those of the Polynesians because they had better technology? So how can you be so sure that making the contrary argument on the same basis is any more valid?

In this case, making the argument that "because it is said to be so, it is so", establishes the vacuity of such reasoning.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Actually, that's not what I said. What I DID say was:

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Sexual dimorphism.



You asked a question about why I believed you were arguing the point but were apparently not interested in actually getting an answer, and you seem to be interpreting my question to you in the same spirit. On the contrary - I asked because I wanted to know. I wanted to establish what exactly your position was.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

"you make arguments based on an antiquated and unrealistic understanding of marriage that you then ascribe to all marriages." That's really that difficult for you to understand? And here I thought you wanted everyone to know how smart you are.



If we were all the same products of the same society this wouldn't be an issue. Clearly we can (and many do) reject society's roles. Basing your social argument on the assumption that we are all cookie-cutter clones is a fundamentally flaw.



Except that you go on to argue those 'realities' based on antiquated social roles. If a woman makes more money than a man, or a man chooses to stay at home and not work, should they lose the right to marriage? If one man chooses to work while his male partner chooses to stay at home, are they any different from your understanding of the "realities of heterosexual relationships" Your role argument would require both men to try to be breadwinners.

Dvergar /
Quisling

"ur dum" isn't very convincing.



I did not say that. You are straw-manning.

Socrates was killed by his people, but only that city could have created him in the first place. That's true of many figures through history from Caesar to Marx to Nehru to Malcom X.

Just because you don't agree with society doesn't mean you aren't the product of it, unless you were raised on Mars.



They have the potential to do so, do they not? If they were women their potential would likewise be equal.

Yes, marriage is based on antiquated social roles. It is what it is. It was designed for a certain purpose. It is not appropriate for this use we seek to put it to - which was why I asked Laelia to clarify his position - but we have other tools that allow us to fulfill that purpose.

What you are doing here is revisionist history - trying to change the past to suit the attitudes of the present.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You seem to be changing your explanation for people supporting equal marriage. Do you actually have an answer or are you just going to try to redirect the question to something else irrelevant?


A legal document that isn't available to gay couples. Anyone can file for power of attorney, but straight couples get it automatically by getting married. This is clearly unequal treatment. You're also ignoring the fact that many of the rights of marriage can't be assigned with any kind of document - they are strictly out of reach of gay couples.


You also said:
-Parents produce children through copulation and marriage is there to facilitate that.
-it is logical to minimize government involvement in purely human affairs to what is culturally universal...That men and women pair off and make babies is culturally universal
-A relationship between two people of dissimilar gender is different than one between two people of similar gender because: 1) they can bear young naturally and even (often) involuntarily
I guess inconsistency is natural when you try to defend an opinion on a matter you don't understand.


Lots of species have sexual dimorphism and very different types of behaviour for males and females. Most of human gender roles are cultural rather than biological, and even the parts that are biological are not deterministic - they are trends, not fixed rules.


You were asking a question about facts which are easily learned with a few moments of effort. Most people would try to figure out which benefits were being denied to a group before they formed an opinion on the matter.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

And neither is your argument of "I'm not wrong you just don't like what I'm saying"



Your argument is that people should be treated not according to how they act but how society says they should act ["These marriage rights are the products of the legacy of traditional marriage (homemaker/breadwinner) and have no meaning in the context of a same-sex couple."] You don't argue to do away with marriage because it is unnecessary or no longer serving it's purpose, you argue to disallow same-sex marriages because they don't conform to the same standards many heterosexual marriages don't conform to.



Appropriate by who's decision? If marriage is a social construct are you suggesting it is not in society's power to change it?



My argument is that you do not understand the present, I never made an argument about the past.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm siding with Jubber on this one.

Just watch out, guys. Since you're boxing certain people into a corner, I'm not looking forward to the inevitable temper tantrum and e-revolution.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I lol'd.

You know 90% of what you say is a wordy way of saying "I'm right because I'm right."

Actually, that's one possible result of what I DID say, which was:




You see, this is the curious contradiction here. You talk about freedom, but you want the power structure of society to do what some people want.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Deciding that the state will legislate purely social issues...is a dangerous precedent. If you can legalize gay marriage you can just as easily ban it. Hence I oppose legalizing gay marriage, and I also oppose banning gay marriage.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.