Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: The Make up of FSP  (Read 18236 times)

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #60 on: February 12, 2009, 11:42:32 pm »

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Seems to me like some people might find this oppressive.

Single religion?  Sounds like this might also be a problem for people who don't follow that, or any religion.

I don't find marriage between a man and a woman at all oppressive.   I think it is wonderful - as it was meant to be.

You missed sonio’s point. I think she meant that a society in which marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman is oppressive, not the existence of such marriages.

I think toleration of other people and religions is a must in a free country.

Does that include people whose religion doesn’t define marriage as exclusively one man, one woman?

I think he might be building a small nation ... since it has no diversity ... it might have a population of 1

You must be building a nation of many none of whom can understand the other's spoken languages. 

So I take it your idea of a “free country” is the opposite—people are expected to all believe in the same thing? Sure sounds free to me.
Logged

Moving_on_up

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #61 on: February 13, 2009, 12:50:30 am »


1.  You missed sonio’s point. I think she meant that a society in which marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman is oppressive, not the existence of such marriages.

2.  Does that include people whose religion doesn’t define marriage as exclusively one man, one woman?

3.  So I take it your idea of a “free country” is the opposite—people are expected to all believe in the same thing? Sure sounds free to me.

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.  That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.  Are we serious when we say marriage can be between two men or two women?  What's next, marriage between a goat and people?  How about two women and a man?  And I believe government caused this clash to appease the gay lobby (aka California, Massachusetts, etc). 

2.  yes.  Out of curiosity,  which religion.


3.  Yes, I'd hope in a country that people would believe in the same things for the most part - I'm not gonna force it though.  It actually helps the cause of freedom.  Would you grant citizenship to someone who can't speak the official language or knows little to nothing about the Constitution.  Being a second generation immigrant, I know diversity has contributed a lot to the downfall of the USA.  No one in my big family can tell you who John Hancock was nor speak on the significance of his signature!  They don't care the second amendment is under attack, because where they came from didn't have a second amendment. 




« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 01:02:36 am by Moving_on_up »
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #62 on: February 13, 2009, 01:14:10 am »


1.  You missed sonio’s point. I think she meant that a society in which marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman is oppressive, not the existence of such marriages.

2.  Does that include people whose religion doesn’t define marriage as exclusively one man, one woman?

3.  So I take it your idea of a “free country” is the opposite—people are expected to all believe in the same thing? Sure sounds free to me.

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.  That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.  Are we serious when we say marriage can be between two men or two women?  What's next, marriage between a goat and people?  How about two women and a man?  And I believe government caused this clash to appease the gay lobby (aka California, Massachusetts, etc). 

“Society” preventing someone from engaging in harmless activities, such as defining and using words as one chooses, is oppressive practically by definition. (Your statement is also a logical fallacy—appeal to tradition—and factually false, but whatever.)

A goat is not a sapient being.

Yes, two women and a man can call themselves “married” if they want. (That’s what sonio was referring to as “polyamorous,” if you’re unaware.)

2.  yes.  Out of curiosity,  which religion.

Any religion I choose. Religions of one are just as legitimate as religions of one billion. My own philosophy—which you could call a “religion” if you like, although I don’t—doesn’t define marriage. It only says that the initiation of force is immoral; anything else is acceptable. “Do as thou wilt,” if you’d like.

Or do you believe that a person has to be a member of some “officially recognized” or “major” religion in order to have it accepted?

3.  Yes, I'd hope in a country that people would believe in the same things for the most part - I'm not gonna force it though.  It actually helps the cause of freedom.  Would you grant citizenship to someone who can't speak the official language or knows little to nothing about the Constitution.  Being a second generation immigrant, I know diversity has contributed a lot to the downfall of the USA.  No one in my big family can tell you who John Hancock was nor speak on the significance of his signature!  They don't care the second amendment is under attack, because where they came from didn't have a second amendment. 

The only common belief necessary for a free society is that one doesn’t engage in aggression (initiated force) against others. All other beliefs—and choice of language—are up to the individual.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #63 on: February 13, 2009, 01:30:07 am »

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.

Has it really always been defined that way? Or do people tell themselves that to feel better about what they already believe or want to believe?
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2009, 01:42:33 am »

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.

Has it really always been defined that way? Or do people tell themselves that to feel better about what they already believe or want to believe?

No—that’s what I meant by factually false.

First, if it’s always been defined that way, why is it only now that certain people are insisting this definition be written into the law books? The whole purpose of definition sections is to define words differently than they’re used in common parlance.

Second, one of the people who went up to testify in favor of the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire this year compiled an actual history of marriage. I’ll ask him to post it here. Don’t quote me on this as definitive, but I believe he said ancient Greece and Rome, and Buddhism, recognize same-sex marriages.

To bring Moving_on_up’s statement into some semblance of factuality, he’d probably have to say something like “traditional Western society, but only up until the 1980s, and only after Christianization.” But that’s not nearly as authoritative-sounding a statement, is it?

Oh, and there’s a “major” religion to answer question #2. Buddhism.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2009, 03:43:40 am »

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.

Has it really always been defined that way? Or do people tell themselves that to feel better about what they already believe or want to believe?

No—that’s what I meant by factually false.

First, if it’s always been defined that way, why is it only now that certain people are insisting this definition be written into the law books? The whole purpose of definition sections is to define words differently than they’re used in common parlance.

Second, one of the people who went up to testify in favor of the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire this year compiled an actual history of marriage. I’ll ask him to post it here. Don’t quote me on this as definitive, but I believe he said ancient Greece and Rome, and Buddhism, recognize same-sex marriages.

To bring Moving_on_up’s statement into some semblance of factuality, he’d probably have to say something like “traditional Western society, but only up until the 1980s, and only after Christianization.” But that’s not nearly as authoritative-sounding a statement, is it?

Oh, and there’s a “major” religion to answer question #2. Buddhism.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I had meant to direct that for Moving_on_up's consideration. :)

If anything, on the issue that the static definition of marriage can be oppressive is beyond belief, I think it only necessary to point out that married women are still the personal property of their husbands. Because that's the way it has always been done.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2009, 07:48:48 am »

1.  Society has always defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.  That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.  Are we serious when we say marriage can be between two men or two women?  What's next, marriage between a goat and people?  How about two women and a man?  And I believe government caused this clash to appease the gay lobby (aka California, Massachusetts, etc).

Blatantly false.  Marriage has exited in myriad forms, throughout history.  "One man, one woman" as the only form is a very modern notion.

2.  yes.  Out of curiosity,  which religion.

Christianity, for one.  Go read the Bible.  Lots of marriages with more than two members...

3.  Yes, I'd hope in a country that people would believe in the same things for the most part - I'm not gonna force it though.  It actually helps the cause of freedom.  Would you grant citizenship to someone who can't speak the official language or knows little to nothing about the Constitution.  Being a second generation immigrant, I know diversity has contributed a lot to the downfall of the USA.  No one in my big family can tell you who John Hancock was nor speak on the significance of his signature!  They don't care the second amendment is under attack, because where they came from didn't have a second amendment.

My godfather came to this country knowing only two words of English.  He knew nothing about this system of government, having been raised in Iran.  Moving a few years forward, he's a successful business owner, knows far more than most about the Constitution and, having come from such an oppressive place, truly does understand the value of freedom.

But I guess you wouldn't want him here.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2009, 12:27:55 pm »


Perfectly stated. The God, regardless of the particular fantasy of choice, is always at odds with the individual pursuing his own happiness on his own terms via his own mind and values.

I believe it to be true also.  God does not care a lick about our happiness.  Our salvation matters, however.


Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Seems to me like some people might find this oppressive.

Single religion?  Sounds like this might also be a problem for people who don't follow that, or any religion.


I don't find marriage between a man and a woman at all oppressive.   I think it is wonderful - as it was meant to be.  I think toleration of other people and religions is a must in a free country.

I think he might be building a small nation ... since it has no diversity ... it might have a population of 1

You must be building a nation of many none of whom can understand the other's spoken languages. 

I don't care a lick about god, but as far as salvation goes, can someone please save me from religious zealots.

As mentioned, one man one wife is not a biblical model. Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon etc
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

D. Stewart

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2009, 12:29:10 pm »

Being a second generation immigrant, I know diversity has contributed a lot to the downfall of the USA.

Yes, I see your point.  After all, the original creation, population and subsequent union of the states was all intended to perpetuate a monoculture with a single established religion and belief system.   ::)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 12:31:17 pm by Donald McFarlane »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #69 on: February 13, 2009, 12:37:39 pm »

Being a second generation immigrant, I know diversity has contributed a lot to the downfall of the USA.
Yes, I see your point.  After all, the original creation, population and subsequent union of the states was all intended to perpetuate a monoculture with a single established religion and belief system.   ::)

You sound like one of them furrinners.

Everyone knows that this place sucks, and no one who loves liberty would ever move here from another country, so clearly you are here to destroy us!  Shun! :o ::)

[note for folks without senses of humor: that was sarcastic]

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

sonio

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • Sonio on Facebook
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #70 on: February 13, 2009, 06:57:38 pm »

Quote
That being oppressive is beyond belief, actually.  Are we serious when we say marriage can be between two men or two women?

Two men, two women, three men and a woman or vice versa...

You really think the government has a right to tell me what I can consider marriage?  Sounds like a typical statist hiding behind pseudo religion/science, to me...
Logged
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #71 on: February 13, 2009, 07:09:12 pm »

mar⋅riage
 [mar-ij]
–noun
1.    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Where's the force being enacted now?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 11:02:59 pm by sj »
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

sonio

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • Sonio on Facebook
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #72 on: February 13, 2009, 07:37:16 pm »

The force comes in when the government pretends that it has some power over personal relationships.

I don't have any problem with religious institutions preaching what is or isn't marriage by their own standards.  I do have a problem with the government defining it for me.  Especially since I think that consenting adults should be treated equally...
Logged
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2009, 08:02:07 pm »

mar⋅riage
 [mar-ij]
–noun
1.    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Where's the force being enacted now?

That definition itself is not an act of force. But government treats people differently based on that definition. It may be a Pareto improvement for one group of people to benefited by it. Such as, say, white people no longer need to pay taxes. Everyone should be happy for them. But we also seem to hold this notion that if we are to have laws at all, they should be administered "fairly". 'Course, I think the fundamental problem here is government involvement, not what various people want to call their relationships.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 11:03:06 pm by sj »
Logged

sonio

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • Sonio on Facebook
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #74 on: February 13, 2009, 08:12:30 pm »

Quote
'Course, I think the fundamental problem here is government involvement, not what various people want to call their relationships.

Perfectly stated.  ;D
Logged
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up