How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


300 posted 07-19-2004 04:11 PM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
People have the right to act irresponsibly, so long as their actions cause no direct and actual harm to others, and people can pretty much say whatever they want as long as the language is not defamatory or does not cause others reasonable apprehension of harm.


So all narcotics should be legalized, because it's not up to the state to keep people from polluting themselves... only to protect them from one another?

Personally I think that's a gross over-simplification of the responsibility of law.  In protecting things like traditional values, people who normally would have done something destructive to themselves, either physically or morally, are shielded from the ignorance of their own actions.  It is the law's responsibility to look out for the well-being of all its citizens.  

Don't you think it would be dangerous if all things disgusting and perverse were legally considered to be "okay?"  What about our ignorant and impressionable youth... do we want them growing up in a society that legalizes self-destructive perversions?  Personally I think that is harmful to many people.

I do realize you're not speaking necessarily from your point of view but only from that of the state law, Jim... but I felt that your way of wording it was a nice one to address.  I think our freedoms often contradict the principles on which they were founded, and when we explore them, we realize that the state's responsibility is often overlooked by our democratic drive to please the masses.  We tend to feel that law is only good in as much as it's convenient for our personal desires.  This is how morality ends up declining and the law ends up being harmful rather than beneficial.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


301 posted 07-19-2004 04:46 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Local Parasite


"It is the law's responsibility to look out for the well-being of all its citizens."


That is fresh breath of truth.

  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


302 posted 07-19-2004 07:54 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
So all narcotics should be legalized, because it's not up to the state to keep people from polluting themselves... only to protect them from one another?

In my opinion, yes, absolutely (of course, what one might do while under the influence of narcotics is another matter entirely).

I would be willing to bet that an unhealthy diet kills far more people each year than do drugs. Certainly enough, at any rate, to be a serious concern. You ready to have someone tell you what you can and can't eat. Ready to have government mandated exercise thrice weekly?

When you start protecting people from themselves, you end all pretense at free will. Without the freedom to make bad choices, there are no choices at all.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


303 posted 07-19-2004 09:36 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

We take a natural need and turn it into manmade excess with food. But drugs are already a manmade thing, with special powers that directly alter the body's system, that we should use to pursue revival of natural flow and balance through scientific force, when it is fallen out in some manner.  They automatically are "excess" force, to counter other forces  for specific work/reason/need, for help and health, not for pleasure like wine and choclate.  Where there was and is a natural need and usually a great flexibility with food, that grows as naturally as we eat, there was never a native appetite for drugs nor any parallell, but that appetite was put there by manmade and extranatural force, for what are meant to counter other extranatural forces (usually manmade as well), not to fullfill an appetite in general.  
When people use drugs I think they are also, aside from obvious bodily damage,  directly devestating to the brain, the mind, the ability to think.  And once the brain is polluted the ability to make (better) choices is very much polluted.  Surely eating wrongly may go to the brain, physically or spiritually, but I don't think it ever as directly and "at once" has such harsh effects.  People more severely place them in an addiction for drugs, that body does not naturally need, and that scathe  body and the soul when used as they are not meant; and it takes far less time to cause very long lasting confusion or wounds, or permanent scars.  For this reason, I think very strict laws are more needful to be on drugs.  But food is a natural and more generally inevitable "condition" where we should be able to have more choice and freedoms.  The law certainly should work to help change and influence food industry, and be more strict, but I don't think it should ever dictate in the manner that it should dictate the use of drugs.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-20-2004 12:09 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


304 posted 07-20-2004 12:36 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't believe in the dull attempts man makes at healthmanagement with potions, pills and chemicals.  I think Nature cures most sickness best, but has a thickened and more doubtful battle needing to fight off so many  potions, pills and chemicals too.  Nature's victory over sicknesses and man's malpractice, is often deemed by man as some good use of his potions, pills, and chemicals.  But often the time the  potions, pills and chemicals may actually make the worst part of the battle, in dependences, addiction, confusion, depression, etc,.  The best cures are in Nature's cabinet, the worst ones are in man's.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


305 posted 07-20-2004 11:37 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
(Drugs) automatically are "excess" force, to counter other forces  for specific work/reason/need, for help and health, not for pleasure like wine and choclate.

Nice choices, Essorant. The alcohol in wine is classified as poison to the human body, and the parallels between chocolate and cocaine border on the ironic. All you've done is prove what we already knew -- people only want regulation where it doesn't deprive them personally of their little pleasures in life. Depriving others, of course, is fine.

quote:
I don't believe in the dull attempts man makes at healthmanagement with potions, pills and chemicals.

Clearly, Ess, you should have been born into a different age, perhaps before the advent of civilization, when hunting and gathering were still the predominant activity of humanity. I have no doubt you would have appreciated the more natural, unspoiled way of life.

Uh, for a while? If you weren't one of the quarter of all humans who died in infancy, your life expectancy at one year of age would have been about forty. Those potions, pills and chemicals have already helped keep me alive fifteen years past forty, so I'm sure you'll understand if I don't want to join you in your primitive paradise?

Everything you eat, drink or breathe is a drug. Some are just more socially acceptable than others, partly because people still think they can legislate cause instead of effect, but mostly because they always want to control someone else's life (while always avoiding having their own controlled). Drugs. Sex. Marriage. It would seem that hypocrisy is a very normal part of the human condition.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


306 posted 07-20-2004 03:34 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Ron...you don't think we have to endure "hunting and gathering" these days and times?..When the hell was the last time you went to Walmart with your honey?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


307 posted 07-20-2004 04:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
When the hell was the last time you went to Walmart with your honey?

About 1993. Soon after, I discovered a new religion that saved me from such uncivilized trials. There's no worship involved, but you do have to sacrifice a credit card occasionally.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


308 posted 07-20-2004 04:13 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Only if you "tithe' though....and God knows I give more than my "tithe" to Walmart....ya think I'll be blessed?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


309 posted 07-20-2004 06:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"Nice choices, Essorant. The alcohol in wine is classified as poison to the human body, and the parallels between chocolate and cocaine border on the ironic. All you've done is prove what we already knew -- people only want regulation where it doesn't deprive them personally of their little pleasures in life. Depriving others, of course, is fine."

Yes, scientifically choclate or wine indeed may be much like drugs. But in real life, I think, overall, there is a great difference in the intentions, meanings, traditions, and behaviors and kind of results about these.  I think all those factors--everything counts.  Choclate and wine may perhaps be like drugs and as destructive as any drug, but I don't think they ever are, or at least ever to the frequencies or severities that heroine or cocaine are.  
Where drugs are used for things other than their specifically scientific reason, they are ALWAYS abused because severe addictions are inevitable, and as the addiction grows more severe so does great destruction; I just don't see parallells in choclate, or wine, etc.  Drugs are to be used for scientific and careful reasons, not for cheer and appetites.  Aren't they specifically made to scientifically aid a person?  Why should we let these then be taken as things that are meant to be enjoyed by the appetite like wine and choclate?   This doesn't mean that moderation in wine and choclate should not be practiced, but the use of these things are still in the right place.  They are meant for our appetite, and yet like with anything we need a bit of reason;  but they don't need as much strictness as drugs because drugs are more "specialized" and directed at more specific use.  Even that strictness is loosened a bit sometimes  by doctors because they understand what the system of the body and that the body may handle this much or this little.  I am therefore trying to say that drugs should be used for only reasons, not appetite, and that choclate and wine are meant for appetite, but still need to be moderated with some reason in deed.    

Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


310 posted 07-20-2004 07:34 PM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
I would be willing to bet that an unhealthy diet kills far more people each year than do drugs. Certainly enough, at any rate, to be a serious concern. You ready to have someone tell you what you can and can't eat. Ready to have government mandated exercise thrice weekly?


There's a difference between what people want and what's best for them.  I think you're confused.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


311 posted 07-20-2004 08:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
But in real life, I think, overall, there is a great difference in the intentions, meanings, traditions, and behaviors and kind of results about these.

And you don't think every drug user throughout history hasn't said much the same thing, Essorant? You think because you enjoy a glass of wine you should be free to make that choice? Perhaps you should be more willing to extend that same choice to everyone else, without imposing your own standards on them.

quote:
There's a difference between what people want and what's best for them.  I think you're confused.

I'm not confused at all, Brian. Are you suggesting that enforced exercise wouldn't be healthy? That fish and white rice wouldn't be better for you than burgers and pizza? If our goal is to legislate what is best for people, to save lives through more enlightened laws, let's start a little closer to home and dictate first how YOU should live your life. Do we impose fines for every chip, soda, or gummy bear? Or should we throw your butt in jail with all the others who refuse to respect their bodies?

Why would you or anyone else suppose that I know what's best for you?
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


312 posted 07-20-2004 08:34 PM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
Are you suggesting that enforced exercise wouldn't be healthy? That fish and white rice wouldn't be better for you than burgers and pizza?


Not at all!  In fact, things would probably be a lot better.  A lot of people probably wouldn't like it, but can you imagine how much better things would be for people in the long run?  You're trying to prove your point by appealing to me personally, but I'm concerned with a more objective good.  The problem with law is that it appeals to what people want rather than what's best for them.  That's democracy for you, huh?

quote:
If our goal is to legislate what is best for people, to save lives through more enlightened laws, let's start a little closer to home and dictate first how YOU should live your life. Do we impose fines for every chip, soda, or gummy bear? Or should we throw your butt in jail with all the others who refuse to respect their bodies?


If things were like that, I'm willing to bet I'd be a lot healthier, as would everyone else.  What are you trying to prove, anyways?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


313 posted 07-20-2004 10:02 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Geeze,

And I thought I was bad about rabbit trails.  

Stephen  
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


314 posted 07-20-2004 10:07 PM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

Stephanos,

I'm talking about law's responsibility in terms of whether or not legal "marriage" should properly represent people's freedom of action, or freedom from something potentially harmful to the impressionable future generations (in this case homosexuality).

I'm mostly concerned with what law's responsibility is in relation to marriage, and how legal "marriage" should exist so that things don't get out of control.  Such as, encouraging widespread perversion by recognizing it with legal unions.

Sorry if it seems like I'm ruining the topic.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


315 posted 07-20-2004 10:38 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Well, Stephen, when you're a little kid who knows nothing about the bible, having grown up in a secular household, hanging out with other little kids who don't know enough about the bible to explain, only to condemn, then yes, it sucks. It's "you're-not-as-good-as-me-because-you-don't-have-the-same-beliefs."

Well, pride is certainly not the proper response for Christians to have ... seeing they are no different than anyone else, being spared from God's wrath only because of his mercy, not because of any works they do.   But kids (of any persuasion) often have such an arrogance, until they grow up some and life kicks 'em around a bit.  Anyway, my point was, if they knew much about life, (and about the Bible too) they'd probably not be so arrogant.  Of course, like C.S. Lewis observed, I know that I'm usually the most proud when I assume I'm not, and when I am proud, I tend to see it most clearly in others.  I'm not saying the fault was yours.  It's just something which I think is always healthy to ponder.


quote:
I understand what you are saying- if someone really believes I am going to go to hell and they are trying to prevent it, they really aren't trying to do a mean or hurtful thing. I don't really agree with them that I am going to hell because nobody dribbled some water on my head, but that's okay. They have a right to believe that.


Heaven and Hell have little to do with dribbling water on someone's head, or not.  Maybe that's how those kids who "didn't know enough about the Bible" explained it?  


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-20-2004 11:46 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


316 posted 07-20-2004 11:06 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LP,

How's it going?  Glad you peek in from time to time here on PHIL101.


Ruining the topic?  Nah.  This thread has been everywhere but Neptune.  You are welcome to take it anywhere you want.  Of course I knew the main point of your argument.  I was just laughing to myself about how the concourse drifted to dietary regulations (drifting is not an unusual thing in this forum, nor is it a bad thing.  But it is amusing sometimes     ).  


And you know from previous posts that I'm in agreement with your main point... that the function of law is higher than maintaining an extreme individualism at the cost of trashing foundational things that are better for the whole community.  Of course, taken to the extreme, that could sound like an extreme authoritarianism.  And that's why things like "dietary laws" are inevitably brought up.  There will be those who insist that if you're for the preservation of traditional marriage, or something similar, you might as well make it law for everyone to cut their toenails every tuesday, and to eat no pork.  


But I fail to see why I should think that my stance is at all like the caricatures they usually offer in their arguments ... especially since,  1) Most people grassroots really are against homosexual marriage, 2) Preservation of traditional marriage is a defensive not an offensive move, since the challenge is coming from a small group of activists who seem to be more concerned with getting homosexuality normalized in the mainstream culture, than committing themselves to monogamy and getting tax breaks.  and 3)  The cultural, anthropological, and ethno-religious foundations of what marriage IS, though not scientifically quantifiable as "proof" of what should be, do hold a powerfully persuasive clue to what is right and wrong, and have been acknowledged without significant variation for hundreds of years.  And when the variation has become widespread, much trouble has accompanied.


I know, I know,  I'm only repeating myself.  (There Ron, I typed it for you.)      

Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


317 posted 07-21-2004 12:07 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The fact remains that the long tradition is sexist.  Discrimination based on sex.  Some other inequalities were long traditions too.  Therefore tradition and fixedness is not a complete ground to go by when judging whether something should be continued.  People, and understandings change, and sometimes therefore the laws or traditions must, or they no longer accuratly reflect the truth of what is in life and the people.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


318 posted 07-21-2004 12:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You're trying to prove your point by appealing to me personally, but I'm concerned with a more objective good.

There is no objective good, Brian. There is only opinion.

To legislate your opinion over someone else's is simply to destroy the diversity that is humanity. Save where others are faced with harm, people need the freedom to define their own paths, their own fates, their own accomplishments. Most will occasionally get it wrong, of course, but mistakes are the price we pay for growth. The greater good won't come from protecting people from their mistakes, but rather by helping them learn from them. First, of course, we have to learn from our own mistakes … a hurdle few will ever pass.

quote:
I know, I know,  I'm only repeating myself.

I guess that makes it my turn again?

quote:
1) Most people grassroots really are against homosexual marriage

And forty years ago, most people were against equality for blacks as well. Fortunately, human rights aren't granted by majority vote, nor even by the government. Our role, at best, is to acknowledge such rights as the will of God. Or fail to acknowledge, as is so often the case throughout history.

quote:
2) Preservation of traditional marriage is a defensive not an offensive move …

Really? Personally, I find current prejudices very offensive.

Those who wish only to defend traditional marriage need do nothing, because traditional marriage is in no danger. It will continue to exist, just as it should. After all, the marriage, intermittent affairs, divorce, remarriage, more affairs, another divorce, a third marriage, ad nauseum, hurts no one except those directly involved. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to suggest traditional marriage in the 21st Century should be better regulated. No harm, no foul works both ways.

quote:
3)  … And when the variation has become widespread, much trouble has accompanied.

Unsupported fear is a poor reason to deprive others of basic human rights. It's a common reason, I'll grant you, but a poor one nonetheless.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


319 posted 07-21-2004 12:47 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Accusing something as being wrong, and people thereof as wrongdoers, is nothing but name calling if one gives no reference to what is the offence, crime and ill that make them evil, wrong, destructive, etc.  Yes, many homosexuals are part of movements, and are activists and extremists; but so are many heterosexuals, and so are probably some christians.  But those "parts" are no basis upon which to judge the whole of those manners of people and deprive the members of their "groups" of rights about this or that because of the behavior of others in that group.  An honest homosexual that really does pratice monogomy and wishes to be married should not be deprived of the right to because a group of homosexuals elsewhere are rioting and throwing thunder and really only seem to wish to make outrage.  Those that are rioting and throwing thunder are the ones that deserve to be reproached and spoken against for their foul outrage.  That is just not what sexuality is, or a reason to call all people that are of that sexuality-manner, wrong and sinners, and unworthy of marriage.  If it was, then no one should be able to marry because every manner of people seems to have another manner out of them that goes to outrages and extremes about issues.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


320 posted 07-22-2004 12:20 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
The fact remains that the long tradition is sexist.  Discrimination based on sex.

Even so, sexism is based on gender.  This has nothing to do with biological gender.  No one is discriminating against homosexuals based upon the gender they were born with.  Pointing to one thing that traditionally has been out of balance (ie, sexism against women), does not in any way suggest something else bound in tradition is therefore wrong.


Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


321 posted 07-22-2004 12:35 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
And forty years ago, most people were against equality for blacks as well.


You've never established that that comparison is noteworthy ... except by repeating that you think it is.  Their differences you've tended to avoid in our discussion.

quote:
Our role, at best, is to acknowledge such rights as the will of God. Or fail to acknowledge, as is so often the case throughout history.

Homosexual marriage is a right, according to the will of God?  What do you base that upon, other than your opinion?

Also You've stated before that free-will is important enought to God, to have given us a measure of it.  But you cannot support scripturally that he gives anyone the "RIGHT" to sin.  Longsuffering and forbearance are not to be confused with advocacy.


quote:
Those who wish only to defend traditional marriage need do nothing, because traditional marriage is in no danger. It will continue to exist, just as it should.

What I meant by traditional marriage is it's heterosexually exclusive nature and definition.


quote:
Unsupported fear is a poor reason to deprive others of basic human rights. It's a common reason, I'll grant you, but a poor one nonetheless.



What one man denounces as "fear" may turn out to be prudence even wisdom.  Time will tell.  But my assertion is that time has indeed already told, if history's patterns are to be learned from.


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


322 posted 07-22-2004 09:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Even so, sexism is based on gender.  This has nothing to do with biological gender.  No one is discriminating against homosexuals based upon the gender they were born with.  Pointing to one thing that traditionally has been out of balance (ie, sexism against women), does not in any way suggest something else bound in tradition is therefore wrong.

I was pointing here to:  the fixed notion that a man should not be involved this way/that way with a man because he is man/male; that a woman should not be involved this way/that way with a woman because she is a woman/female.  That two men or two women should not be together this way/that way because they are the same sex.  Only a man should intimize and be able marry a person of this sex: female; only a woman should be able to a person of this sex: male.  Only that sexual combination is good enough to enjoy the estate of marriage.   To me that sounds like sexism.  I wasn't trying at all to refer to sexism as in masculinism, patriachism, etc, but sexism as in sexism against people of the same sex.
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


323 posted 07-23-2004 12:21 AM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
Only a man should intimize and be able marry a person of this sex: female; only a woman should be able to a person of this sex: male.  Only that sexual combination is good enough to enjoy the estate of marriage.  


Black people have something in their skin that naturally keeps them from getting a sunburn.  Is that racism?

Throwing "ism"s at anything that distinguishes between one group and another is a very short-sighted way of dismissing anything.  I could very well say that your whole argument is false because it distinguishes between my argument and your argument and therefore is argumentalism---because all arguments need enjoy the same priveleges as one another, and one cannot be more right than the other because all points of view are equally valid at all times.  Wow, I sound like Ron.  

You can eat pudding with a spoon, but you'd be less likely to eat a spoon with pudding, or eat pudding with pudding, or a spoon with another spoon.  Is there an ism for that?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


324 posted 07-23-2004 12:52 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Black people have something in their skin that naturally keeps them from getting a sunburn.  Is that racism?

Not until you use it to keep them from doing something you want to reserve for yourself and the other "right" people.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors