Author Topic: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class  (Read 22157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ryzee

  • Posts: 1259
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #175 on: March 12, 2012, 09:39:32 AM »
So after reading through this thread and the guy pride guy's thread that got locked I have to say that there's a few cats around here that should come clean with themselves before they end up a grown person married w/ a family and the next thing you know they're shooting their next door neighbor because they won't make out with them.  Just sayin.

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #176 on: March 12, 2012, 09:43:20 AM »
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."

What part of this do you not agree with?

It's already been said what the problem with that post is. If you want to have a discussion then reply to the points people posting in this thread actually make instead of the points you wish they were making.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #177 on: March 12, 2012, 10:44:37 AM »
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."

What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".

A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #178 on: March 12, 2012, 08:33:14 PM »
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."

What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".

A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.

But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I  do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #179 on: March 12, 2012, 08:35:17 PM »
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."

What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".

A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.
And who says dead people can't consent?
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #180 on: March 12, 2012, 08:37:26 PM »
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.

I lost you here.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #181 on: March 12, 2012, 08:45:17 PM »
I have a question for pro-gay marriage people. What do you think about any different parties becoming a civil union? Here's a few examples I have on my mind:

1. marriage between multiple parties (polygamy)
2. marriage between siblings
3. marriage between an individual and a corporation
4. marriage between a corporation and a corporation
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #182 on: March 12, 2012, 08:48:04 PM »
1. No problem on my end. As long as it's consensual and all parties involved are aware, I'm fine with it.
2. Iffy about this. Science shows that it's not the best idea.
3. Wh...
4. ......at?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #183 on: March 12, 2012, 08:49:58 PM »
1. No problem on my end. As long as it's consensual and all parties involved are aware, I'm fine with it.
2. Iffy about this. Science shows that it's not the best idea.
3. Wh
4. at?

Agreed with all of this post 100%. (2) would be more acceptable if it was gay siblings, and then it would remove any risk of conceiving completely.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #184 on: March 12, 2012, 08:51:39 PM »
Should what's healthy dictate what's legal? That's a very slippery slope, Adami, if you think siblings shouldn't marry for this reason.

Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #185 on: March 12, 2012, 08:53:41 PM »
Should what's healthy dictate what's legal? That's a very slippery slope, Adami, if you think siblings shouldn't marry for this reason.

Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.

I won't make any comments on sibling marriage then. Obviously them having children can have some bad genetic problems, but beyond that I can't come up with a good argument against it.


As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #186 on: March 12, 2012, 08:56:39 PM »
As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
??? I'm not objecting to gay marriage here. I'm asking a legitimate question. I think gay marriage and each of the four things I listed should be legal. I want to see what others think too.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #187 on: March 12, 2012, 08:57:33 PM »
As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
??? I'm not objecting to gay marriage here. I'm asking a legitimate question. I think gay marriage and each of the four things I listed should be legal. I want to see what others think too.


Oh. My apologies......................cake?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Gadough

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8842
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #188 on: March 12, 2012, 08:57:50 PM »
The day that Pizza Hut and KFC get married

I better fuckin be there
Gadough isn't Hitler. He's much, much worse.

Offline Gorille85

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4105
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #189 on: March 12, 2012, 08:58:14 PM »
WTF MAH BROTHA ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOOT

Offline LieLowTheWantedMan

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #190 on: March 12, 2012, 09:01:22 PM »
what the

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #191 on: March 12, 2012, 09:04:07 PM »
Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.

Pretty sure legal statuses of corporations as 'persons' is just so they can be taxed/sued easier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Mock campaign: https://www.utne.com/Politics/Woman-Wants-to-Marry-a-Corporation.aspx

This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #192 on: March 12, 2012, 09:14:21 PM »
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.

I lost you here.
Yeah, you did. That's what I said.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #193 on: March 12, 2012, 09:16:34 PM »
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #194 on: March 12, 2012, 09:18:56 PM »
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.

As long as necrophilia, beastiality, pedophilia, or whatever is left out, I'm fine.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #195 on: March 12, 2012, 09:25:15 PM »
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.

I lost you here.
Yeah, you did. That's what I said.

You lost me here.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #196 on: March 12, 2012, 09:27:42 PM »
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.

A corporation is not a single entity capable of giving its own consent. You then go into the area that the person is married to all the individuals that make up the personnel structure of the corporation in question. Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision. Corporations = a collective of human beings.

If all stakeholders in a corporation vote that they agree to be part of a polyamorous marriage alongside all their colleagues and marry a person with the corporation acting as an umbrella term for all those people, and the spouses of those stakeholders are OK with that, then sure, go ahead. Just don't treat a corporation as a single entity that has sentience and consciousness; and therefore the ability to consent.

I can't beleive I just typed that.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #197 on: March 12, 2012, 09:29:58 PM »
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #198 on: March 12, 2012, 09:36:14 PM »
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.

It may be legally defined as a person, but it still has to consent. Find me a way to make the corporation consent, and I'm fine with it. Until then, I'm just considering it a tedious slippery-slope argument that only serves to detract from the crux of the debate.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #199 on: March 12, 2012, 09:41:18 PM »
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.

It may be legally defined as a person, but it still has to consent. Find me a way to make the corporation consent, and I'm fine with it. Until then, I'm just considering it a tedious slippery-slope argument that only serves to detract from the crux of the debate.
The shareholders don't need to be in unanimous agreement for the corporation person to make a decision.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #200 on: March 12, 2012, 09:45:05 PM »
Omega, maybe I jumped to conclusions about your response. I still think you are completely, unabashedly, unequivocally wrong, but I won't get hung up on a couple of your less well-constructed arguments and write a formal response to your last post.

A But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. B So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? C And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. D And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? E And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I  do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
A. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the concept of same-sex marriage confuses our classical concept of marriage, ripping it from tradition and custom and making it arbitrary and meaningless. This would be a valid point if we did have a traditional and nonarbitrary concept of marriage, but we don't. Originally, marriage was a process by which the wife was given to the husband by the wife's father. With modernization, civil rights, and the like, this process became a little less misogynistic and awful, but marriage as a tradition has been in a constant state of flux for thousands of years. The way marriage is now is not traditional or significant in any way. People can make their marriages into whatever they want them to be. Married couples can be loving, exclusive, and pious, or they can be hate-filled, open, and atheistic. A heterosexual couple can make a marriage whatever they want; tradition and the church need not be involved. It is arbitrary. Marriage is not an ancient, holy rite. All it is is two people agreeing to get married and do whatever marriage means to them. Marriage is two consenting people agreeing to be wed.

B. What is a "polygamous couple"? Regardless, there is no reason to offer a group marriage. If we look at marriage as what it is, two people consenting to be wed, then group marriages are ruled out. Social norms and our current governmental infrastructure rely on marriages' being between two people as well.

C. I am not opposed to incest in principle. But if we have arbitrary restrictions in place in heterosexual marriage, why does the introduction of homosexuality remove these arbitrary restrictions? I'm sure whatever arguments there are against incest -- the genetic, for example -- still apply.

D. I don't know, basic logic and the definition of consent?

E. See above. Children are not capable of making decisions with such extreme consequences, and as such they cannot give consent. They have never been able to give consent. This is why underage heterosexual couples cannot marry.

Your argument is similar to one I've heard thousands of times by Rick Santorum et al.: marriage is an institution, and the introduction of homosexuality will cause a chain reaction that will allow people to marry dogs, children, corpses, and toasters. That's not the case whatsoever. Marriage is nothing. It is arbitrary. It is a piece of paper. Gay marriage only removes the arbitrary restriction that you can only consent to marry people with opposite genitals.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #201 on: March 12, 2012, 09:58:01 PM »
Just because a legal fiction of corporate personhood has been established over the years does not mean that corporations have every right individuals have.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #202 on: March 12, 2012, 10:03:32 PM »
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #203 on: March 12, 2012, 10:12:28 PM »
I have a question for pro-gay marriage people. What do you think about any different parties becoming a civil union? Here's a few examples I have on my mind:

1. marriage between multiple parties (polygamy)
2. marriage between siblings
3. marriage between an individual and a corporation
4. marriage between a corporation and a corporation

1. Sure, why not.
2. Well, ignoring the fact that incest itself is illegal in some states even between consenting adults, I don't see why not. I mean, there are definite health ramifications for any offspring they may have, but you don't need to be married to have kids. There's also issues of consent when involving parental figures (and possibly even siblings), but in principle? Eh whatever. Go for it if that's their bag.
3. Legally speaking, what does the hell that mean?
4. Isn't that basically a merger? But if not, once again I have no idea what that actually means in legal terms, which is what's relevant here.

When it really comes down to it, the government simply should not be handling marriages at all. However, if it's going to, it should be inclusive, and as it stands there's a non-negligible segment of the population being excluded. You can say that people should also be able to marry their dogs or cars or dead friends or whatever if that's the case, and personally I don't really have a problem with that. But none of those 'marriages' have a legal similarity to the current form of marriage. A corpse can't visit it's spouse in the hospital and a dog can't be given custody of its (step)children if its spouse dies. Either expand the current legal definition to include those currently excluded, or if you want to expand it to corpses and corporations, get rid of it entirely and let people handle themselves.

If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12786
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #204 on: March 13, 2012, 09:02:18 AM »
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.

Incorrect.  There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes.  There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons."  The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances.  A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations.  In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons.  In others, they do not and are quite different.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #205 on: March 13, 2012, 09:25:03 AM »
I say we end the discrimination against corporations and allow them to vote like everyone else.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #206 on: March 13, 2012, 01:27:58 PM »
If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.

And so would then be completely arbitrary. To allow only some forms of "marriage" and not others if marriage is nothing but a meaningless, arbitrary human construct would be inconsistent.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #207 on: March 13, 2012, 01:30:02 PM »
If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.

And so would then be completely arbitrary. To allow only some forms of "marriage" and not others if marriage is nothing but a meaningless, arbitrary human construct would be inconsistent.

Assuming you subrscribe to a black and what, all or nothing world view and actually define "subjective" to mean "meaningless, pointless, arbitrary and worthless"
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #208 on: March 13, 2012, 01:33:51 PM »
Oh, look. Omega once again trying to argue that if something isn't 100% objective then that means it must be a complete free for all and the only stance that makes sense is to be ok with anything and everything. Because everyone knows that the definition of "subjective" is "complete acceptance if every possibility."

What a new turn of events.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class
« Reply #209 on: March 13, 2012, 01:47:28 PM »
Oh, look its an ehra. *snap*
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ