So no, you can't conceive of marriage as a social institution without the express permission of your particular religious tradition. There's your problem. Unless I've profoundly misunderstood you, in which case do let me know.
I swear, it's as if before you make a comment you have to grease up and apply camouflage makeup. Here's your initial comment:
The largest group of opposition is to the actual term "marriage". This is a religious institution that is held sacred.
If you'd tried to use a more passive voice, you might've hurt yourself. But that's your statement. You can deny having said it, but there it is. It has meaning, which you can claim wasn't what you meant, but it's right there for all to see.
Here's your question:
Why adopt it (marriage), when there are so many alternative options?
Maybe I'm taking crazy pills. You tell me. You're saying marriage equality is mostly opposed because marriage is a sacred institution, so gay folks should've settled for not-marriage. Is it me going off the rails to deduce from this fairly clear statement that marriage equality becoming the law of the land in some way fails to respect what you've described asd a sacred institution? Am I wrong in thinking that there is a conflict being described here?
Now, which part are you calling “attributions?”
Mind you, I'm not going to put in more than a couple weeks work here, holding you to what you've said and what it actually meant.
Do you feel like you can speak on behalf of someone that might've asked that question, or is it like you're a medium at a seance who's really just a channel through which disembodied spirits deliver Christian Dominionist messages?
You often make statements that you phrase as questions, then you hide behind the question mark as if we can't see you. If you have something to say, say it, and own it. If you have something to say on behalf of others but not yourself, say that. The question mark is only so big.
There you go again! Trying to frame an argument in your own light, get over it. Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!....This mostly the same response you'll get every/any time you construct your own sense/version of , whatever. ...........and oh, your psychoanalysis skills still really suck;-)
I've read what was offered. Recapped it fairly, too. The question to you was if you thought there was a conflict between the ‘sacred institution’ you described and people being married. This was, however, a fallback question as you'd sidestepped every other question leading up to that point. Now this one, too. Can't nail jelly to a tree, they say.
Let's forget it. I'm more interested in how this all went wrong. The only progress we've made so far is establishing that your initial comment is some kind of perfect 4-dimensional tesseract that can't be understood in any subset of dimensions that anyone else can perceive. Nobody besides yourself, and whichever divinity speaks through you, can draw any inferences from it or reason about its implications because it's just that sanctimonious.
Okay, let's start there. Can you grapple with the ideas in your comment?
Like, is marriage a sacred institution to you? I have to ask because you put it in such a passive voice, and deny even the simplest implications of the statement, that I have to wonder if you were simply the typist for observations that came from a sunbeam out of glory and heavens above.
When you ask why gay people would adopt the practice of marriage instead of some nebulous alternative option, assuming for a moment that the question isn't more truthfully scripture for which you are merely the vessel of its delivery, are you concerned people are defiling marriage itself, or just tempting judgement by an Old Testament Jehova?
Looking at this discussion from an outside perspective, all @MAGISTERLUDI said was [marriage is a] "religious institution that is held sacred". Nowhere did he state anything else, only that he believes marriage to be a religious sacrament, and that the government could have used alternative options.
I don't see this discussion going anywhere from either of you, as @MAGISTERLUDI is simply claiming he has directly stated his feelings (which he definitely has), and @AdelleChattre, you keep bringing more ideas into the discussion than he has spoken about.
@MAGISTERLUDI has not "hidden behind question marks", he is simply not going along with the extra arguments you are making.
Hey. Nice to meet you, and thanks for the caution. I would agree the discussion was going nowhere, had there been one. This series of one-sided comments and evasions can't pass for that. I'd like to apologize if you didn't like my tone, and for you to step in this way, I assume you didn't. The magister may've stated his belief, and I assume he has, but if you look closely you'll find that's not the way it's put. Anyone could state their feelings, no skin off my nose. Look again, though, and you'll find something more insidious than that.
Yes, that commenter hides behind question marks, the way a chess player may open with a pawn. In this game. accusations move side to side. retrenchments move diagonally; diversions and evasions move wherever he'd like. As often, I think, the magister hides behind his “questions” to avoid seeing any immediate consequences of his position. You've said that I'm bringing ideas into the discussion. Yeah, the direct implications of his statements.
In case you got the wrong impression, this is not a first encounter. All in good fun, though. He doesn't throw firecrackers like that into the room without expecting a result.
Thank you Spar, ......now ,@AdelleChattre-"Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!..."
You've said that I'm bringing ideas into the discussion. Yeah, the direct implications of his statements.
Yeah, that's definitely a fair point (and one I do not disagree with). If you are commenting on a discussion forum, you need to be ready to discuss your views. The fact that this discussion is, as you said, "not a first encounter" removes the concern I had initially.
Spar, I'm not too familiar with magister, but Adelle has been here for a while now. she rarely comments, but civil rights, specifically gay rights appears to be something of her 'pet issue' and when there is an article regarding gay rights, you can count on her commenting on it. Everyone has pet issues that they are more passionate about.
Also, I don't really know the history between them on this issue. That said, I don't like the tone from either of them in this discussion/argument. If I were their parent, I would physically separate them to insure that this doesn't continue.
So no, you can't conceive of marriage as a social institution without the express permission of your particular religious tradition. There's your problem. Unless I've profoundly misunderstood you, in which case do let me know.
Again, more attributions, "there's your problem", and yes you have.
I swear, it's as if before you make a comment you have to grease up and apply camouflage makeup. Here's your initial comment:
If you'd tried to use a more passive voice, you might've hurt yourself. But that's your statement. You can deny having said it, but there it is. It has meaning, which you can claim wasn't what you meant, but it's right there for all to see.
Here's your question:
Maybe I'm taking crazy pills. You tell me. You're saying marriage equality is mostly opposed because marriage is a sacred institution, so gay folks should've settled for not-marriage. Is it me going off the rails to deduce from this fairly clear statement that marriage equality becoming the law of the land in some way fails to respect what you've described asd a sacred institution? Am I wrong in thinking that there is a conflict being described here?
Now, which part are you calling “attributions?”
Mind you, I'm not going to put in more than a couple weeks work here, holding you to what you've said and what it actually meant.
I asked a simple, straight-forward question, it's you who attributes to that some sort of belief(s).
Do you feel like you can speak on behalf of someone that might've asked that question, or is it like you're a medium at a seance who's really just a channel through which disembodied spirits deliver Christian Dominionist messages?
Please stop these/your processes of attributions, It goes nowhere with me, it's pure inanity!
You often make statements that you phrase as questions, then you hide behind the question mark as if we can't see you. If you have something to say, say it, and own it. If you have something to say on behalf of others but not yourself, say that. The question mark is only so big.
There you go again! Trying to frame an argument in your own light, get over it. Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!....This mostly the same response you'll get every/any time you construct your own sense/version of , whatever. ...........and oh, your psychoanalysis skills still really suck;-)
I've read what was offered. Recapped it fairly, too. The question to you was if you thought there was a conflict between the ‘sacred institution’ you described and people being married. This was, however, a fallback question as you'd sidestepped every other question leading up to that point. Now this one, too. Can't nail jelly to a tree, they say.
Let's forget it. I'm more interested in how this all went wrong. The only progress we've made so far is establishing that your initial comment is some kind of perfect 4-dimensional tesseract that can't be understood in any subset of dimensions that anyone else can perceive. Nobody besides yourself, and whichever divinity speaks through you, can draw any inferences from it or reason about its implications because it's just that sanctimonious.
Okay, let's start there. Can you grapple with the ideas in your comment?
Like, is marriage a sacred institution to you? I have to ask because you put it in such a passive voice, and deny even the simplest implications of the statement, that I have to wonder if you were simply the typist for observations that came from a sunbeam out of glory and heavens above.
When you ask why gay people would adopt the practice of marriage instead of some nebulous alternative option, assuming for a moment that the question isn't more truthfully scripture for which you are merely the vessel of its delivery, are you concerned people are defiling marriage itself, or just tempting judgement by an Old Testament Jehova?
Looking at this discussion from an outside perspective, all @MAGISTERLUDI said was [marriage is a] "religious institution that is held sacred". Nowhere did he state anything else, only that he believes marriage to be a religious sacrament, and that the government could have used alternative options.
I don't see this discussion going anywhere from either of you, as @MAGISTERLUDI is simply claiming he has directly stated his feelings (which he definitely has), and @AdelleChattre, you keep bringing more ideas into the discussion than he has spoken about.
@MAGISTERLUDI has not "hidden behind question marks", he is simply not going along with the extra arguments you are making.
Hey. Nice to meet you, and thanks for the caution. I would agree the discussion was going nowhere, had there been one. This series of one-sided comments and evasions can't pass for that. I'd like to apologize if you didn't like my tone, and for you to step in this way, I assume you didn't. The magister may've stated his belief, and I assume he has, but if you look closely you'll find that's not the way it's put. Anyone could state their feelings, no skin off my nose. Look again, though, and you'll find something more insidious than that.
Yes, that commenter hides behind question marks, the way a chess player may open with a pawn. In this game. accusations move side to side. retrenchments move diagonally; diversions and evasions move wherever he'd like. As often, I think, the magister hides behind his “questions” to avoid seeing any immediate consequences of his position. You've said that I'm bringing ideas into the discussion. Yeah, the direct implications of his statements.
In case you got the wrong impression, this is not a first encounter. All in good fun, though. He doesn't throw firecrackers like that into the room without expecting a result.
Thank you Spar, ......now ,@AdelleChattre-"Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!..."
Thanks for the response and understanding.
Yeah, that's definitely a fair point (and one I do not disagree with). If you are commenting on a discussion forum, you need to be ready to discuss your views. The fact that this discussion is, as you said, "not a first encounter" removes the concern I had initially.
Spar, I'm not too familiar with magister, but Adelle has been here for a while now. she rarely comments, but civil rights, specifically gay rights appears to be something of her 'pet issue' and when there is an article regarding gay rights, you can count on her commenting on it. Everyone has pet issues that they are more passionate about.
Also, I don't really know the history between them on this issue. That said, I don't like the tone from either of them in this discussion/argument. If I were their parent, I would physically separate them to insure that this doesn't continue.