Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LGBT+
(21 Nov 2017, 17:34:08)SoD Woods Wrote: The reason for the fuss is that some people see marriage as the union between a man and a woman (possibly before a Divine Being, possibly not) purely for the sake of bringing children into the world and raising them to be good people. Two men or two women cannot bring a child into the world; we can all agree that that is biologically impossible. See, the LGBT+ movement is trying to completely redefine marriage. A couple hundred years ago, people began to think of marriage having something to do with actual love rather than pure practicality (is this a family that I will benefit from by being related to them? Can they uphold the family honor? etc, etc). Now, the LGBT+ movement is redefining marriage as purely an affair of the heart, between two people who claim to love each other (and they really might, I use claim because such feelings can change).

So why all the fuss about the competing definitions? Humans are social animals, to use a scientist's definition. We love community. We love being together. And the cornerstone of any community is the family. If the family is weak, the community falls apart; if the family is strong, the community draws al its strength from it. Marriage defines the family; redefine marriage, redefine family, redefine humanity as a whole. Completely change how we see each other. This matters. And that's why there's such a big fuss.

Yes they can't have children, but they will adopt a child if they want one. There are thousands of children out there who don't have homes, and it's good that these people are giving them one.
TrollMoved to Silver RobinsonTroll
(25 Nov 2017, 04:02:24)King Silver I Wrote:
(21 Nov 2017, 17:34:08)SoD Woods Wrote: The reason for the fuss is that some people see marriage as the union between a man and a woman (possibly before a Divine Being, possibly not) purely for the sake of bringing children into the world and raising them to be good people. Two men or two women cannot bring a child into the world; we can all agree that that is biologically impossible. See, the LGBT+ movement is trying to completely redefine marriage. A couple hundred years ago, people began to think of marriage having something to do with actual love rather than pure practicality (is this a family that I will benefit from by being related to them? Can they uphold the family honor? etc, etc). Now, the LGBT+ movement is redefining marriage as purely an affair of the heart, between two people who claim to love each other (and they really might, I use claim because such feelings can change).

So why all the fuss about the competing definitions? Humans are social animals, to use a scientist's definition. We love community. We love being together. And the cornerstone of any community is the family. If the family is weak, the community falls apart; if the family is strong, the community draws al its strength from it. Marriage defines the family; redefine marriage, redefine family, redefine humanity as a whole. Completely change how we see each other. This matters. And that's why there's such a big fuss.

Yes they can't have children, but they will adopt a child if they want one. There are thousands of children out there who don't have homes, and it's good that these people are giving them one.

Technically 2 women couples can still have a child as the sperm is put in one of them and she can give birth just like any other women. I do agree that we have kids that need to be adopted and there's not enough straight couples to adopt these kids or straight couples don't want kids which is their choice. They can apply all the same requirements to gay couples as they do straight couples. Gay couples can provide good, loving home where the child turns out normal.
 Joshua W. Bates
President of the Etruscan Federation
Quote:Sorry, what? For one, it's a tiny minority that exists outside of, or between, the male/female binary. It won't actually affect that many people. Secondly, things like using gender-neutral pronouns, and having unisex bathrooms, make complete sense anyway and we shouldn't need this to push it.

A very loud minority. Other than that, I agree on the unisex bathrooms, provided that the stalls are made more private than they currently are. That doesn't bother me so much. The gender-neutral pronouns, however, just make me scratch my head. I can't think of very many times when a law was made about language, which is one thing. Of course, as micronationalists know, you don't always need precedent. The gender neutral pronouns actually tie in more to the next point:

Quote:But you can tell it, usually, by hair and manner of dress.

I'll accept that. So when referring to those people by third-person pronoun, I will use the pronoun based on whether I think they were a man or a woman. And they won't be around to hear, so they won't get offended--because in all honesty, I mean them none. This is a subject that needs to be debated, I think. Now, if second-person pronouns were gendered, then I might consider backing gender-neutral pronouns. But they aren't. And I just realized, isn't "it" gender neutral? Would you consider using that, or is that too demeaning? And why?

Quote:That's true, yes, but history is full of asking new questions. That's the only way we learn.

We learn by finding answers. Which is why I'm continuing this debate. So together, we can find the answers.

I hope I haven't offended anyone deeply. I only wish to have a conversation about these things, because they need to be talked about.
 
(27 Nov 2017, 01:16:10)SoD Woods Wrote: Now, if second-person pronouns were gendered, then I might consider backing gender-neutral pronouns. But they aren't. And I just realized, isn't "it" gender neutral? Would you consider using that, or is that too demeaning? And why?

Here's three example sentences for you. They may not look that different, but one of them will be vastly more offensive than the restl (as well as not making much sense).

"Hey, you know Christopher?" "Yeah, he's pretty cool."
"Hey, you know Christopher?" "Yeah, they're pretty cool."
"Hey, you know Christopher?" "Yeah, it's pretty cool."

You'll use 'it' to refer to something that's non-living or otherwise isn't human. Using 'they' for just one person does sound kind of weird, but it's a whole lot better than it.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=992]
Nick Fredriksson
Of Sademaara, formerly of Førvania

Granted. I'm glad you still have some respect for the English language.
 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)