Conversation
Notices
-
i dont even think i could be the bull in a cuckold situation its just so sad
-
@delores If a woman who's in a relationship offered me sex I'd just slap her and call the boyfriend/husband
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:01:25 UTC from web-
@nerthos ehhhhh depends on how i'm feeling that day. i like to think that i'm better than to accept an offer like that but i'd probably be down with it and then try to call the guy after
but i couldnt do while he watches
thats just evil-
@delores I just consider adultery utterly despicable. It's one of the worst kinds of betrayal, promising loyalty to someone you say you love and double-crossing them.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:05:44 UTC from web-
@nerthos To be fair, I give no Fluffle Puffs if it's an agreed-upon thing, though I'd probably consider people in such an arragement differently, if not more poorly. Where it's not agreed-upon though, well I've never had kind words for traitors.
-
@maiyannah If it's agreed upon it's just... ugh, disgusting.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:09:39 UTC from web-
@nerthos What two consenting adults do is their business. Unless one of them is me or the person I am in a relationship with. I can have all the opinions I like but they are essentially meaningless. As they should be.
Likewise, what people think of my and @katiekats' relationship (which is monogamous thanks for asking) means absolutely Fluffle Puff-all to me.-
@maiyannah I'm normally all "do what you want in private" but this is one of the few things I'm passionate about. If you want to sleep around, then just keep it at the fiends with benefits stage.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:12:31 UTC from web-
@nerthos Different commitments mean different things to different people. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe I should not be able to enter into a marriage because I am homosexual, for instance. But FrankerZ em.
-
@maiyannah Eh, I'm inherently "marriage is a serious thing and a tradition that should not be modified" but as far as civil partnership, do whatever you want. It's not like the value of it hasn't been run to the ground already. I'm not even religious, I just think some things should remain a constant.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:18:02 UTC from web-
-
@maiyannah Because I just think certain parts of society are better off not being changed. Certain values should be upheld. I have a chivalric vision of life and follow those rules, and firmly believe they're good and if everyone followed them the world would be a better place. Some of the main pillars of that ideology are honor, constancy, and marriage being between a man and a woman, loyal to eachother until death. Do keep in mind that I'm against gay marriage in the same way that I'm against heterosexual poorly thought marriages that end within the year. I'm not against a civil union with the same benefits and obligations, but I don't think traditions like that should be changed.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:26:45 UTC from web-
@nerthos So if you create two functionally identical things with two different names what purpose is served?
-
@maiyannah Giving homosexuals the same legal benefits while avoiding alienating religious and traditionalist people.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:28:29 UTC from web-
@nerthos So you advocate creating a system where the only reason for duplication is to spare someone's emotions?
-
@maiyannah I advocate not trivializing traditions.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:30:52 UTC from web-
-
@maiyannah I diferentiate "hurting someone's emotions" and "taking a dump on a tradition upheld for centuries"
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:32:29 UTC from web-
-
@maiyannah I just don't think there's any justification to mess with that. While I don't have anything in particular against homosexuals as you've seen by the fact I've always treated you as well as anyone else, I don't think western civilization should be revised to benefit them. Some people like change, others, like me, prefer to keep things as unchanged as it is possible.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:37:34 UTC from web-
@nerthos I think we'll just have to disagree to disagree there. Traditions in and of themselves are only valuable when they serve culture as a whole. When they do not, they should be destroyed. Otherwise, we'd still see women being bartered as if cattle for dowries, or the common man a landless villein in thrall to a leige.
-
@nerthos Er, agree to disagree. Pardon. I've been staring at network configurations too far into the early morning.
-
@maiyannah That's good enough for me. We've both shown our sides and aren't convincing the other, nor is it a difference of opinion important enough to fight about.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:44:26 UTC from web-
-
@nerthos At the same time, if gay marriage, whatever you want to call it, had the same rights as traditional marriage, I would consider that an acceptable compromise. However, it usually does not. For instance, even in Canada, which was the first nation to legalize gay marriage, a "civil union" does not have the same legal rights as a "marriage", which is why you have conflicts with church leaders and the LGB community, because those couples want to have the same rights as a traditional marriage, but church leaders do not want to marry them.
-
@nerthos I doubt we'd even be having this conversation really, if both "statuses" shared the same legal rights as a norm.
-
@maiyannah That's a flaw in the conception of law separating church from state. Now if the country is officially religious, the optimal course of action is moving to a non-religious country. A state should have no authority to force church officials to do anything, and vice versa.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:51:03 UTC from web-
@nerthos Well, in Canada, civil officials can also carry out marriage, but often refuse to, because of personal religious beliefs. If they are carrying out public office, I don't think they should be able to cite this as a reason of refusal.
No one expects a Catholic bishop to perform a gay marriage. But I shouldn't have a problem getting a municipal clerk to do so.-
@nerthos If they could just call it something else so, as you point out, they do not profane their personal beliefs, then while I'd think it's silly this is neccesary, I'd consider it a resonable compromise. I could also see saying "well its the same thing as marriage so I'm still not doing it.
-
@maiyannah IMO that's blurry at best. People have a right to refuse to do stuff based on personal ethics or religion, but then again, when that conflicts with their ability to carry out their jobs, it creates a pretty clear problem for the smooth operation of the state. I think the job description should include an agreement to carry out certain tasks, or at the very least have a sign at each place listing which services are performed and which aren't.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:57:18 UTC from web-
@nerthos Actually, and this is why I think they shouldn't be able to say this, most public servants in Canada sign a contract explicitly stating they will put the interests of the completion of their assigned job above any personal moral objections, in the same way that say, the Canadian Armed Forces sign a sort of waiver saying they understand that they are going to have to be able to kill people as a member of the military.
-
@maiyannah Well then they have to just be offered the choice to perform their job or be discharged. This shouldn't apply to people who got into office BEFORE the law was changed, as they signed up for it under different rules, but it should for people who entered service after the change.
Thursday, 26-May-16 06:01:46 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
@maiyannah Oh, of course. I don't expect people on the other side to agree with me, nor am I trying to convince anyone.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:48:06 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@maiyannah @nerthos In fact, changing the name "marriage" in law to "civil union" or whatever would be enough for me, as marriage would be exclusively a religious thing then, regulated by respective churches, while people could still get away with the legal benefits.
Thursday, 26-May-16 05:30:10 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
