quote: Now, Jacare, the underlying assumption is that symmetry is beauty. Whether or not you change the proportions is irrelevant. Just like changing the sex.
This is obviously, demonstrably false. Imagine a perfectly symmetrical but fat man or woman. Will the first thing people notice be that they are beautiful or that they are fat? If symmetry is the key to beauty then why do models, actresses etc have almost universally similar body types but a wide range of face types? Why do women have breast augmentation surgery?
quote: Breiter said evidence beauty stimulates these primal brain circuits has never been shown. He said the findings counter arguments that beauty is nothing more than the product of society's values.
'This is hard-core circuitry,' Breiter said. 'This is not a conditioned response.'
Just another case of a scientist drawing faulty conclusions from the data. What this study shows is that a response to beauty is innate, not that the definition of beauty is innate. What yardstick did they use for measuring the beauty of the pictures they showed this guys? Symmetry *snicker*? I'd bet dollars to dimes that they weren't using Incan or Brazilian or Eskimo standards of beauty. In fact, it's pretty likely that the criteria for beauty was a subjective "let's put in a picture of this good-looking girl" from the scientist.
Let's think through this DOE- how can we prove that beauty is not a culturally conditioned response? I know! Let's show guys pictures of women our cultural conditioning has taught us are hot and see if these guys also think they are hot! Yeah, that'd do it Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m wondering if the people who think that same-sex marriage would involve a major re-definition of marriage are (mostly) the same people who believe that there are specific gender roles in marriage. Because I could see a valid argument there. If there are different “assigned” roles for husband and wife, then fitting two people of the same gender into that arrangement would take some redefinition.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this society I am extremely anti- defined roles in a marriage. In my parents marriage this has led to some of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. My mother can fix things but won't because it is my Dad's masculine job. Dad can't fix things to save his life and then gets frustrated and then they'd argue. Same thing went for taking out the trash. So, I ended up learning to fix household things the best I could (though I was a girl) and ended taking out the trash so they'd stop arguing.
I can't cook worth a plugged nickle. Steve is an awesome cook. Why should I cook just because I'm female, especially if he is going to complain about the cooking. My mother isn't a great cook either but my Dad rarely cooks, though to Dad's credit, he's never complained about the cooking, even though college cafeteria food tastes better.
Now 100 years ago before we had all of the labor saving devices like dishwashers and washing machines (particularly washing machines), pre-packaged food, and refrigerators I can understand a division of labor. Ordinary tasks that we think nothing of today took hundreds of times longer but still needed to get done.
Now, I think it the distribution of labor should be both parties contributing to the houshold labor (however their inclinations lie) at a rate, proportional to their time out of the house earning a living. For example, I spend an hour and more a day than Steve commuting. So he tends to mow the lawn in the evenings before I get home. To me that's fair.
The problems arise if each party in the relationship has a different standard of cleanliness. In fact, I have a theory that relationships that last have a lot more to do with compatible "slob" coefficients than much else.
posted
I believe in gender roles, but not the strict, traditional roles that AJ mentioned. This sums up my beliefs pretty well:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102)
posted
That was actually more what I meant by defined gender roles. I think most people (AJ’s parents being in the minority on this one) have admitted that women can do yard work and men can do housework without the structure of marriage collapsing. But I can see that the more subtle, but still distinct, gender roles would have an impact on whether you (generic you) see marriage as possible for twp people of the same gender.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again with the ad hominem attacks. I do not shun homosexual people.
Well, yes, as a matter of fact you do.
Look, you might feel bad about the position that you would force upon them. But you would force that position on them nevertheless. That "feeling bad" might make you feel as if your logistical bias against the free homosexuals of this country is somehow forgivable or even *gasp* noble. I think it's so great how Christians have to sacrifice other peoples' happiness for the sake of their own ideal society. How brave, sympathetic and merciful they are.
And I don't mean this just toward you, Jon Boy. If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
I sincerely hope that you are one day held to account for your vigilant injustice.
I am sick and tired of Christians who cannot move a single inch on this subject, not even from a secular angle, and then ask to be forgiven for their views because, after all, they can't help it.
How ironic is that.
Well it's a bunch of bull. The argument that "marriage itself" would take a fatal blow at the hands of state-recognized unions is in itself an admission of bigotry. Not only does this view provide absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever to substantiate itself, it is also wholly inconsistent with the Church’s own practices concerning marriage. The divorce rate in this country is over fifty percent, and-—big surprise-—those numbers are just as high within the Church as they are in the rest of our community. I refuse to believe that this view is solely for the purpose of edifying the “institution of marriage” while the Church continues to be totally idle towards divorce and second—or third or fourth—marriages. For that matter, the Church isn’t exactly beating down Congress’s door to invalidate non-Christian marriages. Why is it okay for my atheist friend to get married to his atheist fiancée in a courthouse, but not okay for him to marry another atheist man? If the Christian ideal of marriage is really so vital to the survival of our society, why aren’t you also against marriages performed from other religions?
Why?
Because, my friends, bigotry is a selective force. It makes its selections based on fear. The Church is afraid.
Even more aggravating, your philosophy of legally segregating homosexuals from the rest of society is based upon your commitment to “loving the sinner and hating the sin”. Well here’s a clue: homosexuality is not a verb. It’s a noun. The sin and the sinner are THE SAME FRICKIN’ THING. It’s an ORIENTATION, not an afternoon sport. Indeed, Christianity’s failure to recognize this simple fact is one of its biggest downfalls. I know the crux that the Church is in over this: you cannot accept that homosexuals were meant to be homosexual unless you’re willing to toss out some portions of the Bible. That’s against your religion. On the other hand, when it has become obvious—-if it hasn’t already—-that homosexuals were created as homosexuals, you will necessarily be believing in an unjust God, and that’s against your religion, too. So, rather than making any changes in the Church, you’re left with the philosophy that you can ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’, which is simply, as Bob so often points out, a plea that your intolerance ought to be tolerated, because you think a little game of semantics can effectively move you out of the realm of religious bigotry. Not so.
There are real people in this world that are suffering injustice at the hands of this thinking. You are daring to say to them that a) you can predict the future and b) the future will collapse if they are given their equality; the fate of our society rests on their unhappiness.
America is the first place in the world I would expect to award all people equal protections regardless of religious affiliation, racial status, or sexual orientation. Freedom and individual sovereignty are two of the highest precepts upon which this society is based. I might add that they are chiefly responsible for making the United States what it is today, and what so many of you are so willing to throw away: the leader of the Free World. And yet even the basic principles of our society are not enough to break through Christian fears that homosexuality may one day be accepted. They are completely willing to throw out the values of our society and our society’s history in favor of an ideal that they themselves cannot live up to.
I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts. When you put fear and religion together there is usually nothing you can do but run away. But I’ll be damned if I can stand by while they delude themselves into thinking that they aren’t directly causing pain to other people because their illogical fears have any kind of merit whatsoever. To throw away someone ELSE’S individual sovereignty in favor of what you personally feel is “the greatest good” for society is the height of arrogance.
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
posted
My insults are aimed at a general point of view, not any individual person. I have also been told several times by Christians that they feel sorry about their beliefs hurting others in this regard, but they have to believe them anyway. I think that counts as "can't help it".
If I needed a dictionary, I'd ask someone how to spell it.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I can think is that you really, honestly don't understand the deeply-held conviction. Your characterization is so off, it isn't even in the same universe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't suppose, kat, that your 'deeply-held conviction' of which I am so incapable of understanding could perhaps respond to my arguments rather than suggesting reference materials and making character judgements.
Oh wait, I'm the arrogant one.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, obviously, you think you're so intelligent and possess such a keen, incisive mind that you can cut right through everything I say and see right into my soul.
Believe me, you can't. Like Katharina said, it's obvious that you do not understand my convictions. If you can't understand that my views are not based on bigotry or fear, then I don't see how I can continue to have a rational discussion with you.
quote:I sincerely hope that you are one day held to account for your vigilant injustice.
And I sincerely hope that one day you come to learn what justice and mercy truly are.
quote:I refuse to believe that this view is solely for the purpose of edifying the “institution of marriage” while the Church continues to be totally idle towards divorce and second—or third or fourth—marriages.
Excuse me? Which "Church" are we talking about here? My church is strongly opposed to divorce.
quote:Why is it okay for my atheist friend to get married to his atheist fiancée in a courthouse, but not okay for him to marry another atheist man? If the Christian ideal of marriage is really so vital to the survival of our society, why aren’t you also against marriages performed from other religions?
Read this before you continue to claim to know how I feel about marriage and families.
[ August 06, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, kat, I'm not really interested in what you think of what I thought of other people's posts. If you have nothing to say IN RESPONSE, I don't understand why you're posting at all.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly enough, that's the second "I don't care what you say. Why bother posting?" I've gotten in the past two weeks. I wonder why?
*thinks* You know, both times I was taking part in a discussion that was already underway, trying to add a voice/amen/clarification to a side I thought was being misunderstood. Maybe that's annoying? Last time, a Mormon yelled at me for defending pre-marital sex (I wasn't), so there is some diversity.
posted
I'm having some difficulty in piecing together the various views, and I'm sure this question will come across as a)thoughtless, b)rude, or c)both. Forgive me in advance -- I promise, it's asked in the best of spirit.
If secular marriages can be performed by non-religious persons (e.g., justices of the peace), and such marriages require an additional ceremony or process (other than just the secular paperwork) to be recognized in most religions, then why would allowing same-sex secular marriages be a problem for any such religious communities?
That is, it wouldn't be a "recognized" marriage unless it underwent the additional blessing, and thus would be a purely secular process, and so wouldn't need a separate designation as "civil union" instead of marriage.
I mean, in the Catholic tradition, if you weren't married in the Church, you weren't really married -- and thus a divorce from a purely secular marriage doesn't require annulment for remarriage. Actually, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, that first marriage never happened. (The relationship did, any moral or immoral actions between and involving those (unmarried) persons did, but not a "marriage" per se. At least, I think that's the way it works. mac? )
Or does it boil down to what Tom suggested -- namely, that it isn't so much about "marriage" and the need to keep that sacred as it is about keeping same-sex relationships from becoming more socially acceptable?
(Can anyone ask this better than me? Help! )
[Edit: hey, this might actually be more relevant to the current discussion than I thought. Is CV referring to the Catholic "Church"?]
posted
Caleb, aren't you espousing a form of bigotry, too? Particularly against Christians?
You speak at length about our failings and inability to grow and adjust, our outdated thoughts and rickety belief system. Would you say the same about African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians?
But then again, it's so easy to use a stereotype. It's almost as easy as saying "You people..."
I'm not exactly sure what to say to you, but I'd like to at least commend you on what I think was an excellent, eloquent, and heart-felt post. I'm completely behind you. I think there are a number of Christians who has posted on this thread who have been at best arrogant and at worst completely condescending.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, that's an interesting question. I do believe in defined roles for marriage partners, but I'm not obsessive about it. My husband does a lot of the cleaning, largely because he's a bigger neat freak than I am. I do the majority of the child care, because I have more experience at it and my schedule allows it (I do all the taxi-ing, setting of dr's appointments, that sort of thing). We share the financial burden, he does most of the long range planning because he's *really* good at it, and I balance the checkbook and keep an eye on the budget. I admit to some blind spots....he always does the lawnmowing, and he always takes the garbage out. For some reason, in my head, that is the man's job, and that's what he is supposed to do. He also initiates home repair, though we hire most of it out. I make the decorating decisions, he gets to implement them. By the same token, in his mind, it's my job to do the cooking, which I don't hate all the time, but certainly don't like. I figure it's a fair trade-off. And he usually cleans the kitchen afterward, though I am more persnickety about what a clean kitchen looks like than he is.
Anyway...I don't know that that has much to do with my views on same-sex marriage, but I do think it's an interesting point on your part.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting question, ClaudiaTherese, and I'll do my best to answer it.
The LDS Church regards all legal marriages as real marriages. We don't say, "If it's not an LDS temple marriage, then it's not really a marriage." Calling something a "civil union" is just a semantic game. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. . . .
My marriage will be sacred no matter who else in the world gets married. There are already plenty of people in the world who don't honor marriage vows and thus cheapen their marriage. That doesn't necessarily make all marriage cheaper.
I think Tom was probably right. It's not about preserving the quality of my own (upcoming) marriage, but about maintaining society's standards.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The LDS Church regards all legal marriages as real marriages....There are already plenty of people in the world who don't honor marriage vows and thus cheapen their marriage. That doesn't necessarily make all marriage cheaper."
Given these three statements, how can a LDS object to homosexual marriage?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if all marriages no matter where are real marriages to LDS, then what is the significance of getting married in the temple? (Does this need to be in a separate thread?)
If getting married in the temple is somehow different and the church can exclude same sex unions there then I don't see as much of a confict. Plus if it is called a "civil union" then a marriage, then would it, or wouldn't it a marriage in the eyes of the church?
If you really believe that what you say here is not going to change your "opponent's" mind, why continue trying?
On the other side, if you can't change anyone's mind and you can assume that no one's opinion of you will change drastically (especially not based on what your "opponent" says about you), then why bother defending yourself?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriages outside the temple are temporal (till death do you part). Marriages inside the temple are eternal (for time and all eternity).
I'm really not sure I want to continue this discussion. Apparently, having religious beliefs makes me bigoted, arrogant, and condescending. Apparently, I can't express my beliefs without someone claiming that I think I have the right to determine the standards for the entire world. I'm getting really tired of it.
If anyone has any further questions, they can email me.
Edit: Good point, Saxon. I think that's one of the great mysteries of the universe.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why do you feel it's your right to determine what those stardards should be?
By the way, since we are all equal parts of society, we all have an equal right to decide what society should be. And since we have a participatory form of government, it is not only your right to determine our societies standards--at least the legal ones--it is your duty.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, that's actually why I stopped. Well, that and I didn't have any more time for long posts and the topic is too important for pithy one-liners, even if I could think of any, which I couldn't.
The original post I put up was because I was a bit offended at the ridicule against those of us who don't think that same-sex marriage is something we should just accept without reservation. I don't often feel ridiculed on Hatrack, so I felt I had to say something. Having said it, defended it a bit, I guess I'm done. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, dkw. That's why I hate that conversations on topics like this always become so adversarial. I don't agree with Jon Boy, but that doesn't preclude my having an intelligent discussion with him about our beliefs, especially since I consider him a friend.
I asked before, I'll ask again: "Can't we all just get along?"
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
>> If you really believe that what you say here is not going to change your "opponent's" mind, why continue trying?
On the other side, if you can't change anyone's mind and you can assume that no one's opinion of you will change drastically (especially not based on what your "opponent" says about you), then why bother defending yourself? << (saxon)
Because by putting your argument forward clearly and coherently, and by suppourting it with facts where possible (though this is less of a requirement here at Hatrack), you can show people other than your "adversary" that your view is reasonable. You might even persuade someone who is on the fence.
For example, on the first page of the Israeli Security Fence thread, newfoundlogic and I got into a debate about Ehud Barak's peace offer and why Yasser Arafat rejected it when, percentage-wise, it was the most territory the Palestinians had been offered in recent memory. I didn't expect to convince him of my position, but I outlined it as clearly as I could and suppourted my statements with a map of the proposal from an Israeli source, so that anyone lurking in the thread could see how I drew my conclusions. After saying my piece I more or less bowed out of the thread, aside from posting a couple of thoughts here and there.
It's ironic that the only example of an extended civil thread on that issue I've ever seen is at Ornery. IMO, that's because facts are required there if you're going to make an argument that draws on history.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I had already answered Tom's question in previous posts, which is why I was a little confused to see him asking it again. Maybe he posted before he had seen the last paragraph that I added to my post immediately before his.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. Thus, I don't believe that it deserves legal recognition similar or equal to heterosexual marriage. It's really as simple as that. To me, it would be like legalizing other things that I consider to be wrong, like prostitution. Note: I am NOT saying that homosexuality is equivalent to prostitution.
You know, I'll probably keep responding to questions on this thread, so long as they're simple, honest questions without insults or condescending attitudes attached.
Kat: Oh, I'm very familiar with the raucous side of Hatrack. For my very first post on Hatrack, I jumped straight into a Pledge of Allegiance argument.
Saxon: Thanks. I'm touched. I consider you a friend, too. Now I almost feel bad for picking on you so much over at GreNME.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there is nothing wrong with determining society's standards for marriage (and other things). I touched on this in the legislating morality thread (which died rather quickly).
And though the church respects marriage so far, I think that WILL change if it goes too far contrary to church standards. Civil marriages line up with "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"--until it gets gay marriages.
And like I said in another thread, the church might have to change some wording here and there if gay marriage is widely accepted. E.g., the wording on the definition of Chastity.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, if you could only see a normal conversation with my friends from high school, to say nothing of my aunts and some of my in-laws, you'd know that you have a lot of catching up to do before you could offend me.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
A heartfelt thanks to you for understanding the frustration that leads to my more assertive posts.
Sopwith:
quote:Caleb, aren't you espousing a form of bigotry, too? Particularly against Christians?
You speak at length about our failings and inability to grow and adjust, our outdated thoughts and rickety belief system. Would you say the same about African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians?
But then again, it's so easy to use a stereotype. It's almost as easy as saying "You people..."
No, it's not a form of bigotry. I am responding to specific points of view espoused by many Christians, and I wouldn't be responding to them if I didn't feel that they were dreadfully wrong.
In that sense, I judge them. Judge them a lot, to be honest.
But I specifically addressed my above rebukes to the following audience:
quote:If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
I recognize of course that not all people of the Christian faith fit into this category. Our own Anne Kate, bless her heart, is one of those who can see how much damage Christianity does to our community and to itself with this bigotry. She, however, would not fit into the above address.
And in the sense that I wasn't addressing any specific individual, you are right in saying it's almost as bad as saying "you people". Because that's what I AM saying. "You people" are wrong because of the following.
But neither 'us people' nor 'those people' are very good at admitting fault or error--especially when it comes to matters of faith--so 'those people' refrain from discussing the many many flaws that I and others have pointed out in their philosophies, and revert rather to circular logic and character assessment.
For instance, I can accuse a large section of the population of arrogance, as I did above. And instead of explaining why their views don't constitute arrogance--I'll give you three guesses as to why they are unable to do this--the first response I get is to go look something up in the dictionary.
No arrogance there, right? I should go take a nap, right? I'm just a crybaby that hasn't had enough sleep, right?
Yeah, and then they can accuse me of not listening to them. The fact is, I have been listening to them, and I have been answering all of their points to the best of my ability, and not once have I been treated with respect for doing so. I at least can recognize their motives and discuss them. They, apparently, can see no other motives but their own.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think your bolding really changes the way those two sentences read. If you read them as bolded and Caleb wrote them with opposite emphasis, then you're arguing about two starkly different paragraphs.
>> I believe homosexuality is wrong. Thus, I don't believe that it deserves legal recognition similar or equal to heterosexual marriage. It's really as simple as that. To me, it would be like legalizing other things that I consider to be wrong, like prostitution. Note: I am NOT saying that homosexuality is equivalent to prostitution. << (Jon Boy)
*nods* Okay. Thanks for the straightforward explanation Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, not to get off topic and I don't mean to sound rude, but is "suppourting" actually spelled with a U in Canada? I know you folks (along with the rest of the Commonwealth) like to throw in lots of extra Us, so I wasn't sure.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I came up with my address very much intentionally, so as not to confuse the issue. If you have a problem with the 'words that I put into your mouth'--when in fact the address was to people making a choice, not saying words--all you need to say is that you don't fit into that address. It's obvious that you do, though, so I don't understand the hubbub about putting words into your mouth. I had very good reasons for addressing that post to a nebulous audience.
As to the rudeness of not caring how you interpret my reading of other peoples' posts... I can only say that you apparently are unable to withstand the treatment that you give to others. I really DON'T care to hear you tell me that I should have listened to other posts rather than making your own. Again I feel that it is you who is rude and insulting to suggest that I had completely ignored them in the first place, when the post I had JUST MADE was my best effort at a response to those very posts.
In essence, you said: "You just don't understand; Get a dictionary (or an education); Go read earlier posts for once."
Well, kat, forgive me but I think that's a really stupid way to respond to someone who put a lot of effort into answering questions from the opposition and trying to show what he felt were glaring inconsistencies in their position.
If none of that MATTERS to you, or if you don't have any rebuttal to offer my points, I really don't see the point of posting except to take pot shots at me just because I'm on the opposite side.
Although admittedly I do not envy you for needing to show that you aren't as arrogant as I've 'painted' you, when the posts above fall so neatly in line with my rendition. However, I've seen you be a really great person and I know that at the base of things you ARE. For some reason the sh*t just really hits the fan whenever your beliefs are brought into question, but as long as you're participating in this discussion those beliefs, I'm afraid, are fair game.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
