New Page 1
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member




Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Saints Report - Message Boards > GENERAL > Everything Else Board

Google Ads
Sponsored Ads

reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2012, 06:48 PM   #85
611, 19, 5-6
 
daybreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kenner
Age: 33
Posts: 10,596
daybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Club
daybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Clubdaybreaker 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolbrat View Post
Are you Bridget Jones? I have never heard anyone claim that single heterosexual males are discriminated against.
MAN, BEING A STRAIGHT, SINGLE, WHITE, CHRISTIAN MALE IN AMERICA *SUCKS* BECAUSE OF ALL THIS PERSECUTION

amirite?

I mean... how am I ever supposed to get ahead?
__________________

daybreaker is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 06:51 PM   #86
party lamp

 
buzd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Section 537
Age: 43
Posts: 25,462
buzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Member
buzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Memberbuzd Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by antipop View Post
you were better off with the marrying a toaster argument
awesome.
__________________
QED, just sayin'
buzd is offline Reply With Quote


Old 02-26-2012, 07:16 PM   #87
Iron Era Origional
 
Crzycjunx76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle by way of DFW, Nacogdoches, Houston, Mandeville, Morgan City, and originating in Baton Rouge
Age: 34
Posts: 4,813
Crzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of Famer
Crzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of FamerCrzycjunx76 is a future SR.com Hall of Famer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintamaniac View Post
In essence, you are saying that if there were no government benefits to being married, then marriage as we know it would not be marriage.
Well first off since marriage was a secular creation dealing in joint child custody, inheritance, etc (all government benefits FYI), taking those things away would end the original purpose of marriage.

However what I think he may have been getting at was that if there were no government benefits to marriage, there would be no need for government to recognize marriage or legislate rules and requirements for marriage. Without those laws any private organization could marry whomever they liked and the government would have no say in the matter.

Of course that is already true, churches do preform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, I even attended one in the north Texas region... the church and their community recognized them as married... they were in fact married... the only thing missing was the legal standing, the property rights, the spousal benefits, etc... in other words the government benefits of a legal secular marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker View Post
MAN, BEING A STRAIGHT, SINGLE, WHITE, CHRISTIAN MALE IN AMERICA *SUCKS* BECAUSE OF ALL THIS PERSECUTION

amirite?

I mean... how am I ever supposed to get ahead?
Perhaps we should move this thread to the PDB..... J/K.
__________________
Nothing living exists in equilibrium.
Crzycjunx76 is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 07:28 PM   #88
Go to hell, Carolina!
 
TulsaSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 35
Posts: 7,243
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by VVextreme View Post
The legal definition of marriage is between man and woman based upon biological purpose. It's a definable, quantifiable law of nature that is beyond discremination and hatred. It's not subjective. It's science. I can get behind that and it makes sense. If you are going to redefine marriage and arbitrarily discrimenate against certain groups of people, you need a better logical argument than just because I say it should be this way.
I taught a college course last semester on the history of sexuality. I'm not an expert in the field, although it's one of several areas I work on as a historian. Still, I know more than enough to say that you're wrong.

I could get into a point-by-point discussion with you. I could show you how not all cultures have a concept of marriage. I could show you how historically, marriage has evolved from being a property arrangement (with the woman one of the pieces of property being traded) between a man and his family and one or more women and their families. I could talk about the origin of the Christian sacrament of marriage in the Middle Ages (the Church never really worried about marriage before then, as it was seen as a secular matter). I could talk about the abundant evidence from evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, anthropology, archaeology, history, and anatomy that indicates that humans did not evolve to be monogamous. I could discuss the radically diverse ways human societies have chosen to structure and define love, relationships, sex, and reproduction. I could show how pervasive same-sex sexuality (even if not defined as a "sexual orientation") has been in human societies for millennia.

But I'm not going to waste my time with that, because you already think what you think and will probably dismiss about a quarter of my evidence by just claiming it's not true and flat out ignoring the three quarters that can't be denied. I've been posting on the EE and now PDB for almost ten years, and I've learned that it's a waste of time. A few posters have shifted their opinions over the years (almost always becoming more liberal rather than the other way around), but most people just keep on believing whatever they want, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And you seem like someone who's particularly prone to thinking that your unquestioned assumptions are unassailable fact.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintman2884
Which means their is only thing remaining for me to do: You must start the Revolution without Me. For I'm to be gone at some point in this life, as we all destined to be, you must gather your strengths, use your wits and cunning to infiltrate this system and take it over.
TulsaSaint is offline Reply With Quote


11 out of 11 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 07:31 PM   #89
Go to hell, Carolina!
 
TulsaSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 35
Posts: 7,243
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
Six pages, not to mention dozens of threads on the topic over the years, and I have yet to see one person that can explain how they will be harmed if I marry a man.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintman2884
Which means their is only thing remaining for me to do: You must start the Revolution without Me. For I'm to be gone at some point in this life, as we all destined to be, you must gather your strengths, use your wits and cunning to infiltrate this system and take it over.
TulsaSaint is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 07:45 PM   #90
Truth Addict

 
V Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Close enough to Atlanta to smell the stink of Falcons
Age: 46
Posts: 10,076
Blog Entries: 9
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintamaniac View Post
V, I think you are missing the point of what I posted.

...

The point would be to spend the rest of your life with the person you love.
(For this post assume I always talk about consenting adults, so that I don't have to type it out all the time.)

A marriage is a contract. If two people want to be together forever and pledge their love, they can -- no matter their race, sexual orientation, age, religion, relation. They can call it "bliss," "marriage," "a life sentence" whatever... If there is no authority that restricts it, any two people can do anything.

Right now, certain churches restrict marriages that they recognize based on many factors -- religion, age, relation. That doesn't mean that people who do not fit those restrictions cannot get "married" -- they do: maybe not in that one church but in another church, in their own ceremonies, at JPs, Las Vegas, etc.

When the government restricts it, then there is no other choice. People can have commitment ceremonies and declare their faith but the government won't recognize it. If the government doesn't recognize it but there are no legal differences between a married couple and two non-married people, then in effect it doesn't matter that there is a "marriage." Yes, it matters to those who got "married" but like I said before any two people can do anything they want and call it marriage.

If this were the case (no government or legal reasons for a marriage), then there are two options: 1) The government still makes it illegal for two people to get married in certain situations, and 2) the government doesn't restrict it.

If 1), then that SHOULD be fought against unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so (for instance in a ridiculous world where if two certain people got "married" the world would blow up and it is a known scientific fact that this would definitely happen).

If 2), then "marriage" doesn't really matter (again, except to those involved). There are no benefits, nor legal reasons, nor any external reasons except that two people wanted to take an oath of love to each other for life. Two gay people can do this right now in every state of the union, and they do in every state. They might call it marriage. They might not. The point is, it is personal to them so what does it matter if there are benefits or not?

But that's a lot of explaining to go through, because there are TONS of benefits and legal ramifications for those denied being able to get married for no other reason than the sex of their partner.
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson

Did you find this post helpful?    | 
V Chip is offline Reply With Quote


Old 02-26-2012, 07:50 PM   #91
Truth Addict

 
V Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Close enough to Atlanta to smell the stink of Falcons
Age: 46
Posts: 10,076
Blog Entries: 9
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by V Chip View Post
You really are not ready to have a real discussion on this. That's why I didn't reply with a point-by-point refutation because 1) it would waste my time, 2) it would have no effect because you think you already have this argument figured out when you are sadly mistaken, and 3) you're not really trying to have a conversation, you're dropping bombs and seeing the reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VVextreme View Post
Ya'll have fun with this debate. I'd really like to bow out now. Thank you.
Ahh the sweet smell of prescience.



Well either it's called that or "seeing the blindingly obvious," I always mix up the two.
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson

Did you find this post helpful?    | 
V Chip is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 07:55 PM   #92
Easily annoyed

 
Wolbrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Wank
Age: 43
Posts: 4,335
Wolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger Club
Wolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaSaint View Post
Six pages, not to mention dozens of threads on the topic over the years, and I have yet to see one person that can explain how they will be harmed if I marry a man.
If you marry a man, all of the dinosaurs will die.
Wolbrat is offline Reply With Quote


3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 09:03 PM   #93
Super Forum Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Age: 34
Posts: 6,678
VVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to behold
VVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to beholdVVextreme is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaSaint View Post
I taught a college course last semester on the history of sexuality. I'm not an expert in the field, although it's one of several areas I work on as a historian. Still, I know more than enough to say that you're wrong.

I could get into a point-by-point discussion with you. I could show you how not all cultures have a concept of marriage. I could show you how historically, marriage has evolved from being a property arrangement (with the woman one of the pieces of property being traded) between a man and his family and one or more women and their families. I could talk about the origin of the Christian sacrament of marriage in the Middle Ages (the Church never really worried about marriage before then, as it was seen as a secular matter). I could talk about the abundant evidence from evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, anthropology, archaeology, history, and anatomy that indicates that humans did not evolve to be monogamous. I could discuss the radically diverse ways human societies have chosen to structure and define love, relationships, sex, and reproduction. I could show how pervasive same-sex sexuality (even if not defined as a "sexual orientation") has been in human societies for millennia.

But I'm not going to waste my time with that, because you already think what you think and will probably dismiss about a quarter of my evidence by just claiming it's not true and flat out ignoring the three quarters that can't be denied. I've been posting on the EE and now PDB for almost ten years, and I've learned that it's a waste of time. A few posters have shifted their opinions over the years (almost always becoming more liberal rather than the other way around), but most people just keep on believing whatever they want, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And you seem like someone who's particularly prone to thinking that your unquestioned assumptions are unassailable fact.
I'd actually find a lot of that historical context interesting if presented in a historically accurate, unbiased manner. Funny how democrats are always so dismissive of anyone outside of their views. However none of that changes the current law of the land that the definition of marriage is between man and a woman. Basing that decision based upon something that is not biased nor discrematory such as biological purpose is a notion I understand and can get behind. When we arbritralily start setting who should benefit and who should not benefit... I get a little more concerned. I'm losing faith in humanity. I know there's still a lot of good in mankind, but distinguishing between the good and the bad or self-serving is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm leaning towards the government should remove itself from the marriage business and legislating morality beyond protecting the freedom's of it's citizens such as you can't rape people, etc.

I don't really know. I haven't found any pursuasive arguments yet on the subject either.

As I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, but no one seems to want to pick up on. I'm struggling with my own views of morality, religion, truth, the human condition and government's role in our lives. I'm not trying to push any agenda, but many feel that I am.

I'm a big believer in freedom and being able to do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. But I've also seen the depths that mankind are willing to sink to in order to pursue their happiness. If you don't put limits on people, then society ceases to exist and the law of the jungle of the strongest shall survive. I don't really know how to balance the two in a fair & consistent manner if you remove religion from the equation. How much freedom should we sacrifice to obtain the Disney society? And to some, Mad Max is their ideal society... so even that's all subjective.

Personally I'd rather live in a Disney PG type of society than mad max beyond thunderdome, but in everyone of us we have a little mad max and a little Disney inside of us. How close to mad max should we allow ourselves to go?

I don't have the answers, but I sure as heck don't want someone else telling me how I should live my life either. I used to believe in the American Dream. I used to believe in Freedom. I used to believe in our country. But growing up and actually experiencing it, I finally realized what they never really taught you in school. To live in a society, you have to sacrifice at least some personal freedom. There will always be the risk that someone hoses you. Safety and security are all complete illusions. You can't just do whatever you want. You'll never truly be independent or completely free. And it doesn't matter how hard you work to create the perfect system, there will always be those that exploit it and others. And every single time you try to establish a system, you're going to screw a certain segment of your population whether it's by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

And compromise can't solve everything. For those that believe abortion is murder, how do you compromise with that if you are pro-choice? There's no reaching peace and harmony there between those two groups. There's no way to prove who's right and who's wrong. It's all subjective.

I don't know how to run Bartertown ethically and morally, because we can't even agree what is ethical or moral.
VVextreme is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 09:05 PM   #94
Go to hell, Carolina!
 
TulsaSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 35
Posts: 7,243
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolbrat View Post
If you marry a man, all of the dinosaurs will die.
Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintman2884
Which means their is only thing remaining for me to do: You must start the Revolution without Me. For I'm to be gone at some point in this life, as we all destined to be, you must gather your strengths, use your wits and cunning to infiltrate this system and take it over.
TulsaSaint is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 09:15 PM   #95
Always Start Simple

 
crosswatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Age: 40
Posts: 18,279
Blog Entries: 1
crosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Member
crosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Membercrosswatt Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaSaint View Post
Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.
Well, have you seen any dinosaurs in any of those countries lately? I think Wolbrat's point is sufficiently made.
__________________
The real glory is being knocked to your knees and then coming back. That's real glory. That's the essence of it.
- Vince Lombardi
crosswatt is offline Reply With Quote


6 out of 6 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 09:18 PM   #96
Official SR twitter team
 
St.Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houma, La.
Age: 33
Posts: 11,929
St.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger Club
St.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger ClubSt.Fury 40K Burger Club
Well...they definitely are dead...
St.Fury is offline Reply With Quote


Old 02-26-2012, 09:19 PM   #97
Easily annoyed

 
Wolbrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Wank
Age: 43
Posts: 4,335
Wolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger Club
Wolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger ClubWolbrat 40K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaSaint View Post
Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.
Coincidence? I think not.
Wolbrat is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2012, 09:29 PM   #98
Go to hell, Carolina!
 
TulsaSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 35
Posts: 7,243
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
TulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger ClubTulsaSaint 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by VVextreme View Post
I'd actually find a lot of that historical context interesting if presented in a historically accurate, unbiased manner.
Historical accuracy is, to a degree, always subjective. Because we get at history through sources, and sources are written down or otherwise recorded by people. And those people have their own perspectives, knowledge, and agendas that influence what they write down. Then other people's agendas determine whether what is written down gets preserved. Then still other agendas determine whether that document is important enough to get saved in an archive. Then still other agendas determine whether the archive keeps that document and whether they make it available to researchers. Finally, the historian himself or herself has to decide whether that particular document is important enough to include in his or her own research and how it relates to the hundreds or thousands of other documents he or she is using. I think it's easy to see how it could be really daunting, if not impossible, to get at what really happened. In other words, there's no such thing as unbiased history. There's always some sort of agenda. Lots of them, in fact.

In other words, I'm probably never going to be able to present the evidence in a way that you'll find unbiased, because a lot of it will contradict what you believe to be true. Still, if there's a particular aspect of sexuality that I mentioned that you'd be interested in hearing more about, I'd be glad to suggest reading.

Quote:
Funny how democrats are always so dismissive of anyone outside of their views.
I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'm actually not a Democrat. I'm an independent. And no offense, but based on what I've read in this thread, you're not really in a position to complain about anyone being dismissive of views that differ from their own.

Quote:
However none of that changes the current law of the land that the definition of marriage is between man and a woman.
That's actually just the law of a part of this country. Lots of other countries have different laws. Regardless, even if it were the law of everywhere, what would that matter? Law in the United States prohibited certain kinds of marriage for a long time. Laws in other countries have prohibited all sorts of marriages too. Those laws change all the time, marriage changes to fit new circumstances, and the world goes right on turning.

Quote:
Basing that decision based upon something that is not biased nor discrematory discriminatory?such as biological purpose is a notion I understand and can get behind. When we arbitrarily start setting who should benefit and who should not benefit... I get a little more concerned.
I'm not sure I follow you here. The very selection of a vaguely defined "biological purpose" as the basis of marriage is based upon a preference for a certain group of people's idea about what marriage is supposed to mean. Once again, marriage has meant a lot of different things in a lot of different cultures. Procreation has only been one of those meanings.

What's discriminatory, in my view, is telling me I can't get married because I can't have a kid with the person I choose to marry. Which completely ignores the fact that just like an infertile heterosexual couple, my partner and I could hire a surrogate. Or we could father a child with a lesbian couple. And quite probably raise the child just as well as any other couple or person or family.

Quote:
I'm leaning towards the government should remove itself from the marriage business and legislating morality beyond protecting the freedom's of it's citizens such as you can't rape people, etc.
I agree.

Quote:
I'm struggling with my own views of morality, religion, truth, the human condition and government's role in our lives. I'm not trying to push any agenda, but many feel that I am.
Point noted.

Quote:
I'm a big believer in freedom and being able to do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. But I've also seen the depths that mankind are willing to sink to in order to pursue their happiness. If you don't put limits on people, then society ceases to exist and the law of the jungle of the strongest shall survive. I don't really know how to balance the two in a fair & consistent manner if you remove religion from the equation. How much freedom should we sacrifice to obtain the Disney society? And to some, Mad Max is their ideal society... so even that's all subjective.
I mean, it's a really easy limit. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. There are plenty of other moral codes besides religion. I don't see why religion (and one interpretation of one religion in particular) should determine what I can and cannot do and who I can marry or not marry (as long as they're an adult old enough to consent).

Quote:
I don't have the answers, but I sure as heck don't want someone else telling me how I should live my life either.
So can't you step back for a moment and see why I don't want someone telling me how I can live my life? And when my rights are violated by idiotic constitutional amendments like the one we're about to vote on here in North Carolina, that's exactly what happens. See how you feel when they start putting your civil rights up for a vote.

Quote:
I used to believe in the American Dream. I used to believe in Freedom. I used to believe in our country. But growing up and actually experiencing it, I finally realized what they never really taught you in school. To live in a society, you have to sacrifice at least some personal freedom. There will always be the risk that someone hoses you. Safety and security are all complete illusions. You can't just do whatever you want. You'll never truly be independent or completely free.
Of course, that's a basic principle of any human society. They all have agreed-upon rules. But each society has very different rules, which implies an extent of arbitrariness. And that implies that as societies change, they can re-write the rules. And that's what happening in the West when it comes to marriage. And it's not the first time the rules about marriage have been rewritten either.

Quote:
And it doesn't matter how hard you work to create the perfect system, there will always be those that exploit it and others. And every single time you try to establish a system, you're going to screw a certain segment of your population whether it's by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
I don't think that's necessarily true. The history of our country, until now, has been one of steadily expanding the right to participation. First we abolished slavery, then we gave women the vote, then we took away limits on black people's political participation. We've steadily tried to screw fewer and fewer people. (Although I'd argue that the vast majority of us are screwed by a tiny wealthy percentage of the population, but that's for another thread.) The point is that the fact that society isn't fair isn't an excuse to deprive me of the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. See how you feel if I decide that a group you're a part of is the one that needs to be screwed to make the rest of us happy. It's not a nice feeling, let me tell you.

Quote:
And compromise can't solve everything. For those that believe abortion is murder, how do you compromise with that if you are pro-choice? There's no reaching peace and harmony there between those two groups. There's no way to prove who's right and who's wrong. It's all subjective.
The abortion debate is based on a philosophical difference about when personhood begins. And being a philosophical rather than biological question, it can't be resolved objectively. I'm reluctant to limit a woman's right to choose based on some people's subjective opinion about when personhood begins.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting but I feel like you're needlessly complicating matters and muddying the waters. It's really simple. What gives some people the right to limit the personal freedom and civil rights of others if their actions are not hurting anyone else? I have yet to hear a convincing answer to that question.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintman2884
Which means their is only thing remaining for me to do: You must start the Revolution without Me. For I'm to be gone at some point in this life, as we all destined to be, you must gather your strengths, use your wits and cunning to infiltrate this system and take it over.
TulsaSaint is offline Reply With Quote


3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 PM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, 1997-2014 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0