|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 12, 2017 0:26:15 GMT -5
the people setting policy are doing it in response to parents, and parents are reacting to their kids. Actually, I think a lot of parents are reacting to their memories of their own childhoods. 100% agree, no caveats. in the 60's and 70's, it was rare to see any teacher, vice principle or principle step in or get their feet wet in dealing with victimization of one student by another, at least in my experience and the experiences of every other person of that 'vintage' i've spoken too, or heard spoken-of when folks described their experiencess of bullying/schooldays-victimization, on radio. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 12, 2017 1:06:26 GMT -5
so, an elephant in the room...
queer mariage.
i consider this a sociological issue, which becomes 'political', so i broach it here, not in the politics-thread.
i completely support it, and have always been upset towards communities/politicians which don't.
i also support roe-vs.-wade.
because, for many many years, roe-vs.-wade has been at risk of being repealed, and i worry that the ratification of queer marriage might be repealed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 12, 2017 6:17:41 GMT -5
so, an elephant in the room... queer mariage. i consider this a sociological issue, which becomes 'political', so i broach it here, not in the politics-thread. i completely support it, and have always been upset towards communities/politicians which don't. i also support roe-vs.-wade. because, for many many years, roe-vs.-wade has been at risk of being repealed, and i worry that the ratification of queer marriage might be repealed. I doubt anyone could be against gay marriage if not for religious reasons, and even then it would have to be a fairly strict denomination. Two consenting adults who want to share their lives and accept the rights and the responsibilities that come with the married status? What's to oppose? I am however not in favour of the state interfering with church business. If a church condemns homosexuality as being against their deity's plans, it can't very well be forced to bless a gay union. But then I wouldn't want to be part of any church that condemns homosexuality. Something I wonder, though, is how far the liberalization of the concept of marriage will go. Forget about the caricatural ideas put forward by opponents to gay marriage ("Will I be able to marry my car???") but what about marriages with three partners instead of two, as proposed by some people already, and as seen in Samuel Delany's Babel-17? I find the concept odd, to be sure, but objectively I can't see what's intrinsically wrong with it. Eventually, the concept of marriage might become so vague as to be essentially meaningless, and be replaced by a vast assortment of different legal nuptial agreements and rules on how people live together. (But somehow I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that in the long run, marriages will keep being about two people.) |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 12, 2017 9:06:19 GMT -5
so, an elephant in the room... queer mariage. i consider this a sociological issue, which becomes 'political', so i broach it here, not in the politics-thread. i completely support it, and have always been upset towards communities/politicians which don't. i also support roe-vs.-wade. because, for many many years, roe-vs.-wade has been at risk of being repealed, and i worry that the ratification of queer marriage might be repealed. ("Will I be able to marry my car???") Roger Meadows-Taylor is very interested: |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 12, 2017 9:11:09 GMT -5
Peter Griffin wanted to marry his pie, but... the consummation (or rather "the consuming") came too early.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 12, 2017 11:14:17 GMT -5
I doubt anyone could be against gay marriage if not for religious reasons, and even then it would have to be a fairly strict denomination. Two consenting adults who want to share their lives and accept the rights and the responsibilities that come with the married status? What's to oppose? I am however not in favour of the state interfering with church business. If a church condemns homosexuality as being against their deity's plans, it can't very well be forced to bless a gay union. But then I wouldn't want to be part of any church that condemns homosexuality. Something I wonder, though, is how far the liberalization of the concept of marriage will go. Forget about the caricatural ideas put forward by opponents to gay marriage ("Will I be able to marry my car???") but what about marriages with three partners instead of two, as proposed by some people already, and as seen in Samuel Delany's Babel-17? I find the concept odd, to be sure, but objectively I can't see what's intrinsically wrong with it. Eventually, the concept of marriage might become so vague as to be essentially meaningless, and be replaced by a vast assortment of different legal nuptial agreements and rules on how people live together. (But somehow I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that in the long run, marriages will keep being about two people.) Talking with a younger generation (I play Minecraft) I have found that many teens and early twenties people (by their own volition) are not finding commitment to another person any different more so than past generations, but find marriage increasingly either pointless, or a detriment. For the ones that I have talked to, the legal benefits (and they're not all Americans) are just not balancing the scales to what seems to be a worthwhile reason to marry. To commit to a partner; sure many of them seek love and companionship. But for them the end game isn't marriage. The end game is finding the right person and spending their lives with them. Legally and religiously, I think this new generation is finding out that marriage isn't the ultimate commitment to a person, but being committed to that person is. However this is also the generation of marrying body pillows and video game wafius, so who knows where it's going to head. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 12, 2017 11:57:23 GMT -5
Talking with a younger generation (I play Minecraft) I have found that many teens and early twenties people (by their own volition) are not finding commitment to another person any different more so than past generations, but find marriage increasingly either pointless, or a detriment. For the ones that I have talked to, the legal benefits (and they're not all Americans) are just not balancing the scales to what seems to be a worthwhile reason to marry. To commit to a partner; sure many of them seek love and companionship. But for them the end game isn't marriage. The end game is finding the right person and spending their lives with them. Legally and religiously, I think this new generation is finding out that marriage isn't the ultimate commitment to a person, but being committed to that person is. That sounds good, but being committed to a person is exactly what marriage should be about. What these people are saying is that one shouldn't get married for the wrong reasons, which I agree with. Members of my generation, thirty years ago, were already holding the "marriage is an obsolete institution and we're all above that pointless gesture" discourse, and many of them simply lived together without getting married. Not being religious, I find nothing wrong with the concept; however, on a personal basis, I feel that if two people are truly devoted to each other, and if they truly intend to spend their life together, they might as well make it official. Swear it in public, be it on the Bible, the phone book or their mint copy of Conan #24. It's one heck of a commitment, so it should be heralded with one heck of a gesture. But that's just me. The main reason to get married, however, is rather to ensure that the two partners and their eventual children are financially covered when things go south; a separation, a death, an immigration problem, they're all easier to deal with when a couple is officially together. I always think of Stieg Larsson, the author of the girl with the dragon tattoo. He and his girlfriend had been living together for decades but were not married. When he died suddenly without a will, all he owned was left... to his siblings, not to his partner, who was essentially robbed of what was morally hers (including the rights to the famous series). She had no recourse whatsoever. Couldashouldawoulda, but a little too late. For people who really, really don't want to get married, I'd definitely recommend writing up some kind of legally binding agreement. Trusting to love is very romantic, but economically very dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 12, 2017 23:17:34 GMT -5
Talking with a younger generation (I play Minecraft) I have found that many teens and early twenties people (by their own volition) are not finding commitment to another person any different more so than past generations, but find marriage increasingly either pointless, or a detriment. For the ones that I have talked to, the legal benefits (and they're not all Americans) are just not balancing the scales to what seems to be a worthwhile reason to marry. To commit to a partner; sure many of them seek love and companionship. But for them the end game isn't marriage. The end game is finding the right person and spending their lives with them. Legally and religiously, I think this new generation is finding out that marriage isn't the ultimate commitment to a person, but being committed to that person is. That sounds good, but being committed to a person is exactly what marriage should be about. What these people are saying is that one shouldn't get married for the wrong reasons, which I agree with. Members of my generation, thirty years ago, were already holding the "marriage is an obsolete institution and we're all above that pointless gesture" discourse, and many of them simply lived together without getting married. Not being religious, I find nothing wrong with the concept; however, on a personal basis, I feel that if two people are truly devoted to each other, and if they truly intend to spend their life together, they might as well make it official. Swear it in public, be it on the Bible, the phone book or their mint copy of Conan #24. It's one heck of a commitment, so it should be heralded with one heck of a gesture. But that's just me. The main reason to get married, however, is rather to ensure that the two partners and their eventual children are financially covered when things go south; a separation, a death, an immigration problem, they're all easier to deal with when a couple is officially together. I always think of Stieg Larsson, the author of the girl with the dragon tattoo. He and his girlfriend had been living together for decades but were not married. When he died suddenly without a will, all he owned was left... to his siblings, not to his partner, who was essentially robbed of what was morally hers (including the rights to the famous series). She had no recourse whatsoever. Couldashouldawoulda, but a little too late. For people who really, really don't want to get married, I'd definitely recommend writing up some kind of legally binding agreement. Trusting to love is very romantic, but economically very dangerous. precisely. conflation of marriage-issues with morals and ethics is very much the problem. applying morals and ethics to marriage is somewhere between tossing a straw-man and setting up a smokescreen. everything i’ve read by or heard from any anthropologist states that marriage began as consolidation of resources and warranties of inheritance by offspring. meaning land, lucre and material possessions… all of which are most often the impetus for immoral and unethical acts. these are secular concerns. therefore, the moralistic and ‘ethical’ arguments against ratification of Marriage Equality in 1st World economies such as Australia, are a complete crock of steaming dung, to me. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 13, 2017 21:38:04 GMT -5
So, back to PLAGIARISM. Versus Homage. Versus 'evolotion of tropes'. Versus Bull##@@!!! Saying a crime is not a crime (even though it's a white collar crime) to defend yourself against committing said-crime does not remove the criminality of the act. Despite what 'breadstick-sized genetalia' pundits of Creative Commons wish to purport. this: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/europe/12germany.html?mcubz=2About so-called 'wunderkind author' Helene Hegemann. Featuring her 'move-the-goalposts' deflection over the very existence of plagiarism itself, to justify intellectual-property-theft. No, sweetie, no. Stolen property from a previous thief who stole the property is still STEALING. Unless you bother to alter what is stolen to a significant extent, but hey, you're in Berlin, you brag about having friends giving you drugs at nightclubs, you never needed to care, right? WRONG. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 13, 2017 21:52:12 GMT -5
so, an elephant in the room... queer mariage. i consider this a sociological issue, which becomes 'political', so i broach it here, not in the politics-thread. i completely support it, and have always been upset towards communities/politicians which don't. i also support roe-vs.-wade. because, for many many years, roe-vs.-wade has been at risk of being repealed, and i worry that the ratification of queer marriage might be repealed. I have a really basic opinion on marriage, which I've probably stated before... They way it should work, IMO, is Marriage = Church Civil Union (or whatever) = Legal Who can be married should be up to whatever religion is doing the ceremony.. it's a relgious thing. For any sort of civil/legal issue (in terms for inheritance, benefits, child rearing, etc) EVERYONE should have a civil Union, or Union, or Marriage or whatever it's acceptable to call it. Any two legally consenting adults can enter into such an arrangement, much like a business partnership. Problem solved  Similarly, I don't think Abortion is a legal issue, it's a moral one, that should be decided by the person (or people) who have to make the decision. The actual medical procedure should be just as available as any other than might need. Politicians shouldn't be involved. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 13, 2017 21:56:28 GMT -5
Talking with a younger generation (I play Minecraft) I have found that many teens and early twenties people (by their own volition) are not finding commitment to another person any different more so than past generations, but find marriage increasingly either pointless, or a detriment. For the ones that I have talked to, the legal benefits (and they're not all Americans) are just not balancing the scales to what seems to be a worthwhile reason to marry. To commit to a partner; sure many of them seek love and companionship. But for them the end game isn't marriage. The end game is finding the right person and spending their lives with them. Legally and religiously, I think this new generation is finding out that marriage isn't the ultimate commitment to a person, but being committed to that person is. However this is also the generation of marrying body pillows and video game wafius, so who knows where it's going to head. That's a great point about the lack of advantages... between the fact that there is no longer any sort of stigma associated with sharing a household and/or raising children out of wedlock, and the fact that (due to the gay marriage issue) many benefits previously reservced for married couples now can often be had for any two people in the same household, there's really alot less point to it, unless you simply want to have the actual wedding for the event of it all. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 13, 2017 22:01:50 GMT -5
so, an elephant in the room... queer mariage. i consider this a sociological issue, which becomes 'political', so i broach it here, not in the politics-thread. i completely support it, and have always been upset towards communities/politicians which don't. i also support roe-vs.-wade. because, for many many years, roe-vs.-wade has been at risk of being repealed, and i worry that the ratification of queer marriage might be repealed. I have a really basic opinion on marriage, which I've probably stated before... They way it should work, IMO, is Marriage = Church Civil Union (or whatever) = Legal Who can be married should be up to whatever religion is doing the ceremony.. it's a relgious thing. For any sort of civil/legal issue (in terms for inheritance, benefits, child rearing, etc) EVERYONE should have a civil Union, or Union, or Marriage or whatever it's acceptable to call it. Any two legally consenting adults can enter into such an arrangement, much like a business partnership. Problem solved Similarly, I don't think Abortion is a legal issue, it's a moral one, that should be decided by the person (or people) who have to make the decision. The actual medical procedure should be just as available as any other than might need. Politicians shouldn't be involved. I disagree, but love that we can do that here without someone reading what we say to each other and becoming histrionic and whining to mods behind the scenes to get either of us banned "because... feeeeeeeeelingsssssss.' (Youtube joke). More soon, good post. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 13, 2017 22:08:55 GMT -5
so, wildfire2099, please understnd that if we explore this philosophically (since it could be argued that 'marriage' is at its core a philosophical-affair), if I offer counterpoints to what you post, I still respect what you post. Since marriage is personal, and the Personal Is The Political. Marriage = Church Civil Union (or whatever) = Legal From your side and the side of many others, I get this. And in your case, I accept this. The problem is that it leaves out atheists, proper-agnostics, whom are capable of a lovely-dedicated-respectful-union with another, whom don't break secular laws, whom are good citizens whom pay their taxes, but never go to church. And often are more moral/ethical than Tammy Faye Baker and other Evangelists. Shouldn't the aformentioned 'avoid-the-classical-church' people have a shot at marriage, too? |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 13, 2017 22:19:15 GMT -5
so, wildfire2099, please understnd that if we explore this philosophically (since it could be argued that 'marriage' is at its core a philosophical-affair), if I offer counterpoints to what you post, I still respect what you post. Since marriage is personal, and the Personal Is The Political. Marriage = Church Civil Union (or whatever) = Legal From your side and the side of many others, I get this. And in your case, I accept this. The problem is that it leaves out atheists, proper-agnostics, whom are capable of a lovely-dedicated-respectful-union with another, whom don't break secular laws, whom are good citizens whom pay their taxes, but never go to church. And often are more moral/ethical than Tammy Faye Baker and other Evangelists. Shouldn't the aformentioned 'avoid-the-classical-church' people have a shot at marriage, too? Sure, they can have it in front of a judge as stated, or a ship's captain, or whatever they heck they'd like. I see what most people consider one institution two very distinct ones.... one is two people committing to each other on whatever personal/spiritual/philposophical bond they share. Call it marriage. Call it a civil union. Call it Shacking Up. it's just a term, and it that term can be whatever fits for the couple in question. The other is a legal institution that governs inheritance, custody, and a variety of other municpal things. Or, if the term is what is upsetting, call the legal one 'Marriage' and the religious one 'Religious Union' (though good luck getting the Fundamentalist on board with that  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 13, 2017 22:22:38 GMT -5
so, wildfire2099, I really want to sociologically discuss plagiarism today, but you've been very respectful and adroit re your points on the topic of marriage, so in mutual respect, no 'gotcha' bullpuckey, I'd like to explore that, but only if YOU wish to.
Specifically on the definition of 'church'. I hasten to add a qualifier: I don't 'mosque' vs synagogue vs cathedral; I'm not going PBS/NPR here, at all. I do admit I'll be going a bit anthropological.
There are spiritual and metaphysical practices and/or institutions which predate Hebrew/Christian/Muslim.
They survive, with few members but members still, in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Ireland.
May we discuss them, too, please?
|
|
