View Full Version : North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2012, 07:06
The religious Right has won another victory (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-passes-amendment-1?newsfeed=true).
Voters in North Carolina have approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, according to the Associated Press.
It will become the 30th state to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. With more than half the precincts reporting, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 60% for to 40% against.
Same-sex marriage has been illegal in the state since a law enacted in 1996. The amendment will enshrine the ban in the state constitution. It can now only be amended by another vote by the people.
The amendment declares that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state".
Supporters of Amendment 1 declared a victory for "God's institution" of marriage. "With God's grace we have won at overwhelming victory," Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes For Marriage NC, told supporters.
I am really beginning to despise Christians. I know that I shouldn't. I know that applying such a broad brush draws more on emotion than logic, but I cannot help it. They are the single largest driving force behind hatred, ignorance, and discrimination in this country. There was no chance of a gay marriage bill being passed in North Carolina and the content of this ammendment was essentially already law in the state, but the hatemongers, led by forces as prominent as Billy Graham and as distant as the Vatican, wanted to send a message - they wanted to make it known that gays will always be marginalized in their state.
The hypocrisy is mind blowing. These are the same people who throw a hissy fit every time 'Christmas' is interchanged with 'Holiday'. These are the people who declared a War on Religion when Obama had the audacity to require nominally religious businesses to adhere to the same standards that every other business in the country has to. These are the same people that bleat and whine about 'religious freedom' every chance they get. And yet, they are united in imposing their religious beliefs on the country, denying others the ability to enjoy our supposedly free society in the same way they demand for themselves.
I'm sick of it. Christianity receives far too much deference in this country. If gay people's lifestyles are going to be put on public trial, Christians should face the same treatment. Quite frankly, it is asinine to structure your life around the rants and musings of a small group of backwater rubes wondering around the desert thousands of years ago. Why isn't the hypocrisy, idiocy, and outright insanity that runs rampant in the bible challenged more openly? Why, in 2012, is a book of fairy tales about a god with what appears to be multiple personality disorder still affecting public policy? Religion is incompatible with logic, incompatible with science, and incompatible with modern society. Religion should be on the defense.
I believe it is because rational, intelligent people do not speak out against it for fear of offending Christian sensibilities. In our tolerant society, people are welcome to believe any idiotic drivel they like, and such beliefs are not to be questioned in polite company. Secularism is defined by nonjudgmental accommodation and religion is off limits. The only problem is that religious people do not live by the same standards. They are worried about multiculturalism in Europe, but the same permissive attitude over here allows our own religious element to pursue their vile agenda. A war is being fought against reason, and only one side is fighting.
Here is an example of what the Christians in North Carolina were hearing last Sunday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv99MYDk
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 07:48
Agreed! PJ, I am feeling very angry right now, just as I am sure you are. But remember that this is not a war with only side fighting. This is only one battle which rational, freedom loving, tolerant people have lost.
Remember that earlier this year we routed the legalized bigotry from Maryland. Proposition 8 still looks to be on track to fall, and today's youth are more tolerant of gays and lesbians than previous generations.
The long term future is still looking bright for LGBT citizens and allies because we are still fighting.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 08:00
http://i49.tinypic.com/2lcpamd.jpg
It's just a matter of time on gay marriage :shrug:
I don't agree with your depiction of religion though. Peoples attempts at rational systems of morality fail miserably. Humanity isn't logical or scientific, those are just tools. The too-religious need to value those tools more and and the ideological-atheists need to quit relying on them so much. We all need a bicameral system with a scientific chamber and a non-scientific chamber. It's no good attacking or trying to tear down, you have to replace.
Gay marriage is simply a generational thing and fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
CountArach
05-09-2012, 08:10
The worst part of this? It wasn't even in reaction to anything. It was already illegal but just to make a point these people said "let's make it double illegal!"
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 09:04
I agree wholeheartedly with PJ. Every word.
It's a crying shame. Religious right should stop meddling with other people's affairs.
rory_20_uk
05-09-2012, 09:41
Every dominant religion appears to behave in the same way in enforcing their views on everyone else. Their belief that they are saving others by transiently oppressing them appears to be a pay off that is accepted.
If the Church could concentrate its efforts on catching paedophiles rather than worsening the lives of others that woulc be nice.
~:smoking:
Papewaio
05-09-2012, 09:51
I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married. :smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 12:24
I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married. :smoking:
I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.
It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 12:47
I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.
It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.
Agreed. Look at all the hateful comments from people denouncing hatred. It looks like we're all the same. :shrug:
The worst part of this? It wasn't even in reaction to anything. It was already illegal but just to make a point these people said "let's make it double illegal!"Such laws have a history of being overturned by activist judges. The views of the electorate and the actions of the legislature can, and have been all cast aside by sympathetic judges. This amendment was insurance against that.
As Sasaki said, it's likely just a matter of time before views shift enough to allow same sex marriage laws to be passed- as has already happened in New Hampshire. Pushing the issue in the courts has forced opponents to take steps to protect their views from judicial activism. As a result, in the states that have passed constitutional amendments it will be much more difficult to allow for it when/if opinion shifts.
rory_20_uk
05-09-2012, 12:49
If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.
Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.
~:smoking:
Sorry guys, I voted. Looks like it wasn't enough.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 13:12
I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.
It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.
No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.
In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".
No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.
In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".
That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 13:26
No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.
In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".
Which side are you referring to? The same comment can be applied to both sides. Changing "behave" to "believe" makes it even more true.
That's not anything against you. I'm just glad the world is such a safe, secure, and prosperous world that gay marriage is one of the most pressing issues of the day.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 13:31
If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.
Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.
~:smoking:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.
In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".
How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?
Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.
That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?
Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.
That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.
Perfectly valid point. I don't agree with not allowing gays to marry (anymore) but I can understand the argumentation
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 13:47
That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.
John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...
The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.
John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...
The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.
It's not about religion. Like PVC mentioned, throughout human history marriage was defined as a union between aq man and a woman. While the same-sex relationships are nothing new, a legally recognized same-sex union is a completely new phenomenon that warrants its own definition and regulations. There's absolutely no good reason to shoehorn homosexual unions into traditional marriage.
John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...
The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.
You are arguing with the wrong person, I am not opposed to it. But it doesn't hurt all that much to consider the arguments of who are, they aren't against it because they are monsters, they are against it because they see things differently. PVC is correct in that even in society's where homosexuality was accepted marriage was still between a man and a woman exclusively.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 13:59
It's not about religion. Like PVC mentioned, throughout human history marriage was defined as a union between aq man and a woman. While the same-sex relationships are nothing new, a legally recognized same-sex union is a completely new phenomenon that warrants its own definition and regulations. There's absolutely no good reason to shoehorn homosexual unions into traditional marriage.
Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.
And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?
And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?
Civil unions come to mind.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:04
You are arguing with the wrong person, I am not opposed to it. But it doesn't hurt all that much to consider the arguments of who are, they aren't against it because they are monsters, they are against it because they see things differently. PVC is correct in that even in society's where homosexuality was accepted marriage was still between a man and a woman exclusively.
I know you're not. But quoting multiple posts is a hassle on an iPad, so I left out vladimir and pvc.
They are not monsters, no, they are simply against other peoples freedom, something quite a few humans are. They see things differently, no problem. The problem comes when they want their view to control the actions of others. Gay marriage will not affect them in any way whatsoever, and so they have no valid grounds to deny it to others.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:06
Civil unions come to mind.
A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?
Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.
And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?
If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.
A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?
The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:10
If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.
I may call one a "red house" and another a "green house", but that does not change the fact that I'm talking about two houses.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:11
The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.
And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?
Rhyfelwyr
05-09-2012, 14:12
I am really beginning to despise Christians.
Well thank you.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 14:17
John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...
The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.
It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.
Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.
Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.
Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?
The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.
And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?
You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.
And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?
Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.
And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?
For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.
Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.
Two thoughts: One, "marriage" is a legal condition, as well as a religious concept. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.
Two, there are plenty of hetero couples who either cannot or do not produce their own biological kids. Are they a dead end as well?
gaelic cowboy
05-09-2012, 14:37
Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.
Basically if you want a ceremony in a catholic church it will be no more or recognised by law than one in a pastafarian church.
Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.
Yeah, but that's akin to using the guillotine to address a dandruff problem.
Two thoughts: One, "marriage" is a legal condition, as well as a religious concept. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.
Two, there are plenty of hetero couples who either cannot or do not produce their own biological kids. Are they a dead end as well?
I don't mind defending viewpoints I don't agree with if I understand where it's comming from. It is not my opinion, all is fine with me I don't mind gay marriage at all. Why gays WANT to be married kinda puzzles me though, it's a bit like demanding that everybody calls Horetore's house red when it's obviously green. What's it to me, nothing, but that house is still red no matter how many people say it's green
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:41
It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.
Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.
Thinking that gay marriage is a "fantastical concept" is all good. The problem comes when you wish to apply your own thinking on the lives of those who disagree. Then it turns into a restriction of their liberty. It will not affect you in any way, hence you have no right to interfere with it.
Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?
The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.
Yes, I do wish to enforce my view that ones private life is not the business of anyone else and that one should have full access to freedom when it comes to actions which do not affect anyone other than myself. I'm a hardcore tyrant, I am.
You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.
lol.
gaelic cowboy
05-09-2012, 14:41
Yeah, but that's akin to using the guillotine to address a dandruff problem.
Well the christians have only themselves to blame
they want to deny same sex marraiges the legality of civil unions they way I see it exactly what reason is there to recognise there unions.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 14:42
Two thoughts: One, "marriage" is a legal condition, as well as a religious concept. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.
Two, there are plenty of hetero couples who either cannot or do not produce their own biological kids. Are they a dead end as well?
Yes they are.
Harsh I know, but as an emotional half-man I don't see why I should coddle people.
Here's something to consider - "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "Wife", and in any case what is really at stake here is, "father" and "mother".
We already have this nonsense in the UK where a child can have two "mothers" on their birth certificate, which demonstrates a lunatic view of procreation as an actual process - one which needs to be urgently rethought.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 14:45
Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.
So, we are concerned about the feelings others may have when we use certain words, are we frags?
For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.
Then it will be marriage.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 14:46
I know you're not. But quoting multiple posts is a hassle on an iPad, so I left out vladimir and pvc.
They are not monsters, no, they are simply against other peoples freedom, something quite a few humans are. They see things differently, no problem. The problem comes when they want their view to control the actions of others. Gay marriage will not affect them in any way whatsoever, and so they have no valid grounds to deny it to others.
No problem. It's still good to read your thoughts. :stare:
Well thank you.
Exactly.
Here's something to consider - "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "Wife", and in any case what is really at stake here is, "father" and "mother".
Utter tripe. The idea that two men or two women can't have the same loving, stable, normal relationship that a man and woman can have is beyond ridiculous.
Well the christians have only themselves to blame
they want to deny same sex marraiges the legality of civil unions they way I see it exactly what reason is there to recognise there normal unions either.
Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 14:51
PJ, will make a communist out of you yet!
Completely agree, btw.
That pastor, preacher, or whatever the hell he is, needs to take a chill pill. Or to get slapped across the mouth.
Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful.
Thing is, Christians already did that when they added "in front of God, for better of for worse, till death do us part etc...".
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 14:52
That pastor, preacher, or whatever the hell he is, needs to take a chill pill. Or to get slapped across the mouth.
Again.
Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.
If you're going by the christian religious definition, then sure. I honestly don't give a rat's butt what people want to call it, the issue boils down to the fact that homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. This includes things such as inheritance, estate, medical, insurance, etc laws. It's a very common and oft repeated flat out untruth that any or all of these issues can be remedied with legal instruments. Some federal and quite a few state laws have "trump" clauses that override anything that could be put together with a lawyer. Inheritance laws at one that comes to mind, quite a few states have clauses that state that "blood" or "legal" relatives have so much of a right to a deceased's estate, irrespective of what their wills may say.
So, we are concerned about the feelings others may have when we use certain words, are we frags?
Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want
That is really the only thing I have against it, why want it if you can have the same rights
If you're going by the christian religious definition, then sure. I honestly don't give a rat's butt what people want to call it, the issue boils down to the fact that homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. This includes things such as inheritance, estate, medical, insurance, etc laws.
This is what I'm calling for. Create the institution of the Civil Union, grant it the same protections and right as a marriage, and call it a day. There's no reason to call it marriage though.
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 15:01
Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want
You're again ignoring that the what marriage is differed from culture to culture and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.
Personally, I don't care if it was called, civil union, legal union, same-sex union or marriage - I care about practical issues but acting like the Christianity has a patent on marriage is wrong.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:02
Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want
That is really the only thing I have against it, why want it if you can have the same rights
Do you by any chance extend your principle to other groups? Like, say, muslims? Should we take care when speaking about muslims, to ensure that we do not use words that might upset a muslims feelings?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:02
Utter tripe. The idea that two men or two women can't have the same loving, stable, normal relationship that a man and woman can have is beyond ridiculous.
Where did I say otherwise?
I said "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "wife" - then pointed to the fact that in the UK we have a system now where someone other than the birth parents can be on the birth certificate, thereby creating the situation where you do not know who your biological parents are.
Can you not see how that might be troublesome in, say, twenty years when all these fatherless children themselves want to procreate.
As someone who comes from a close knit community where many people are related I can tell you that we have enough problems.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:04
You're again ignoring that the what marriage was different in different cultures and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.
Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:06
Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 15:07
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Where did I say otherwise?
I said "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "wife"
You said it right there. I called bollocks.
- then pointed to the fact that in the UK we have a system now where someone other than the birth parents can be on the birth certificate, thereby creating the situation where you do not know who your biological parents are.
So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.
Can you not see how that might be troublesome in, say, twenty years when all these fatherless children themselves want to procreate.
So you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?
You're again ignoring that the what marriage is differed from culture to culture and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.
Personally, I don't care if it was called, civil union, legal union, same-sex union or marriage - I care about practical issues but acting like the Christianity has a patent on marriage is wrong.
You don't care, neither do I. But gay activists do
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:12
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
In the end though, that something is "traditional" is not argument one way or another, it's simply an observation, kinda like what colour something has.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:14
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 15:14
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
Such laws have a history of being overturned by activist judges. The views of the electorate and the actions of the legislature can, and have been all cast aside by sympathetic judges. This amendment was insurance against that.
Contra the notion (http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_20578526/north-carolina-approves-amendment-banning-gay-marriage) that this was primarily a defensive move meant to insulate NC from the depredations of activist judges:
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
gaelic cowboy
05-09-2012, 15:20
Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:22
You said it right there. I called bollocks.
How many bollocks? Two or four.
"Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.
Stop being a bigot and actually read.
I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.
So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.
You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.
The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.
So you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?
There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point about
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:24
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
You two are arguing a pointless dead end.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:27
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
I'll get you started with wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:31
Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.
You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
The problem is that gays instead of demanding to be equal to us demand to be the same as us.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 15:35
I'll get you started with wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
Kudos - you managed to find actual examples - they aren't Muslim or Indian polygamous marriages, though. I note, however, that the examples there bear on family groups so that the marriage of one pair extends the marriage bond through the family. That is still very different to what is currently being proposed in the US and Europe.
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 15:38
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:44
No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.
The argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.
Also, it is of course completely irrelevant in this case, as the case here is a ban on all unions except the marriage between one man and one woman. So, civil unions go out the window.
"Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.
I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing.
Stop being a bigot and actually read.
I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say, :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:.
I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.
No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.
You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.
The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.
I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption
See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.
There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point about
I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 15:45
Contra the notion (http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_20578526/north-carolina-approves-amendment-banning-gay-marriage) that this was primarily a defensive move meant to insulate NC from the depredations of activist judges:
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
Well that's a shame but I'm not surprised.
I'm still a little skeptical without personally diving into the language itself, but I hoped this was more an act of Federalism than a cultural reactionary movement.
Lemur Because the thread is moving so fast.
The argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.
If a word is meaningless I from now on demand that muslims must from now on adress Allah as god, same thing after all. Hey you brought them up it wasn't me. These guys just look at things differently than we do HT, it means something to them. Does it really mean anything to gays or is it just being gay that is important to them, no need to answer that
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
Check this out, under "society and culture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandi_people
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 15:56
If a word is meaningless I from now on demand that muslims must from now on adress Allah as god, same thing after all. Hey you brought them up it wasn't me. These guys just look at things differently than we do HT, it means something to them. Does it really mean anything to gays or is it just being gay that is important to them, no need to answer that
No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
Edit - Homosexuality is a natural occurence. Monogamous relationships in humans are not natural.
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
Me? No, I'm 100% comfortable that I'm heterosexual. I can certainly look at other men and say, "That's one attractive dude.", without having any sexual feelings toward them. Since gay men do feel that way, there really isn't any difference between you or I eyeballing Scarlett Johannsen and having a strong urge to do the motorboat.
Sarmatian
05-09-2012, 16:23
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
And marriage defeats that purpose totally, since we should procreate like rabbits with any female that is willing and even if she is unwilling. Limiting ourselves to one woman and having actually to take care of the child is against our nature. (from male point of view exclusively)
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 16:30
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
What, you mean you haven't tried it?
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 17:04
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
ICantSpellDawg
05-09-2012, 17:18
Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
I feel that LGBT people should have equal rights as any other person. The state must recognise their marriage in the same way it does that of a heterosexual couple. I have nothing against them. I confess I probably wouldn't be comfortable around them, but that's just me, and that's my own problem. Nothing justifies causing them distress just because someone else is uncomfortable about how they live their life, as long as they're not actively causing anyone harm.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 17:26
Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
He's afraid of Black people. That's why he won't openly support it.
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 17:39
A. Who cares what marriage has been historically. It's a part of government benefit distribution. It is subject to change just as any other part of government is. Appeal to tradition is dumb.
B. The fact that there are other views besides the Judeo-Christian living in the US means that enforcing the mainstream christian view of marriage on others is religious intolerance.
Religion should stick to social welfare or get out of my country, because I want the government out of my life.
ICantSpellDawg
05-09-2012, 17:47
A. Who cares what marriage has been historically. It's a part of government benefit distribution. It is subject to change just as any other part of government is. Appeal to tradition is dumb.
B. The fact that there are other views besides the Judeo-Christian living in the US means that enforcing the mainstream christian view of marriage on others is religious intolerance.
Religion should stick to social welfare or get out of my country, because I want the government out of my life.
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.
People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Me too.
Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal. Really, I think all of this is a sideshow. Why is it relevant what culture x did in year y? Certainly in the US, state marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Some people want to change that. That's what the whole debate is about. It's not about love, it's not about rights.
Will my life or marriage change significantly if marriage laws are changed? No, not really. But that in itself isn't a reason to become a pro-gay marriage activist.
A. Who cares what marriage has been historically. It's a part of government benefit distribution. It is subject to change just as any other part of government is. Appeal to tradition is dumb.
B. The fact that there are other views besides the Judeo-Christian living in the US means that enforcing the mainstream christian view of marriage on others is religious intolerance.
Religion should stick to social welfare or get out of my country, because I want the government out of my life.
Ha, yet you believe in global warming
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 18:17
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.LOL UMAD?You are such a ******* disgusting man. "I'M SICK OF THESE DEGENERATES ACTING LIKE THEY ARE THE SAME AS US!"Btw, I am sorry that your dear leader lost at the Second Battle of Hoover Dam. True to Ceasar!
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 18:20
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 18:25
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
It's people like you whom give Christians a bad name. Your faith comes from a dark place in your soul. I am willing to chalk that up to you being a papist, beholden to your king in Rome, with all his pomp.
Or you could just be a depressed ass.
Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly. You on the other hand continue you to try to merge your nhilism with your catholicism claiming the latter validates the former.
LOL UMAD?You are such a ******* disgusting man. "I'M SICK OF THESE DEGENERATES ACTING LIKE THEY ARE THE SAME AS US!"Btw, I am sorry that your dear leader lost at the Second Battle of Hoover Dam. True to Ceasar!
Redicule is normal did you know that
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 18:31
Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly.
That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 18:36
That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.
I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.
I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.
The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 18:45
I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
*shudder* Spelling.
Yes you can, when you realize that society would not exist for long without people who can create children. There should be limits to those benefits but I think it works out for everyone.
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 18:46
Redicule is normal did you know thatNo. Isn't it clear that I am a video game playing hermit? How would I know about such things?Also, before you ask, I think Mr. House was the best choice.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 18:52
*shudder* Spelling.
Yes you can, when you realize that society would not exist for long without people who can create children. There should be limits to those benefits but I think it works out for everyone.
y do u h8 me?
Well of course society would cease if people stopped having children. But the point here is people get these benifits regardless of wether they have children or not. I hate to use and oft repreated arguement but by this logic a sterile straight couple should be stripped of the marrige benefits and those whom wish to remain childless should be put on a clock.
Ironside
05-09-2012, 18:58
Yes you can, when you realize that society would not exist for long without people who can create children. There should be limits to those benefits but I think it works out for everyone.
So whose idea was it to put a lot of rights into marriage that got none to very little to do with children?
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 19:26
So whose idea was it to put a lot of rights into marriage that got none to very little to do with children?
I imagine they got there a lot of different ways. Usually an assembly of people (mostly men) draft laws and regulations regarding such things.
Oh, and no H8. Nothing but manly platonic love.
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.
People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
Thank you for reminding me why I voted against this crap.
That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. [...] people are happy saying such nonsense about it.
It doesn't take a great deal of looking to find balanced (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm), sane (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/andrew-sullivan-why-gay-marriage-is-good-for-america.html) arguments (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/gay_marriage_doesn_t_harm_children_but_the_facts_don_t_seem_to_matter_.html) in favor of allowing gay marriage.
Indeed, if the contra position were so logical, and the pro position so inane, why were the supporters of Prop 8 so epically unable to marshal arguments in favor of their ban (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/02/why_the_proponents_of_a_gay_marriage_ban_will_soon_be_speechless.single.html)? Why did they score endless own-goals when they actually had to produce something?
"Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."
This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' ”
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 19:38
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Children is one aspect, but one would still need to regulate the relationship between the adults. Like who gets to pull the plug, for example.
And of course, there is no way to restrict babies to a lesbian, all we can do is decide whether to make it pleasant or force her to have a one-night stand with a male. As for gay men, quite a few come out of the closet after they've had children, and so they will have to care for children in their gay relationship.
Edit: also, epic lol @ the "morality can't exist without god"-argument above. Made my day, honest!
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2012, 19:47
Me too.
Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-last-time-north-carolina-amended-their-constit).
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/NC_constitution.jpg
Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 19:51
North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.
Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 19:55
North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.
This is the same state that elected Jesse Helms
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 19:57
This is the same state that elected Jesse Helms
Who?
Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..
My bad, should have been 96, depending on the months, which are not recorded in an easy-to-find location. So somewhere in the 95—96 range. Can we just say "the better part of a century" and leave it at that?
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 20:01
My bad, should have been 96, depending on the months, which are not recorded in an easy-to-find location. So somewhere in the 95—96 range. Can we just say "the better part of a century" and leave it at that?
Haha, most certainly!
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 20:06
FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-last-time-north-carolina-amended-their-constit).
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/NC_constitution.jpg
Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.
Now THAT's good research.
I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.
Who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms
He was a real class act, read the list of what he did. The 16 hour fillibuster to avoid recognizing MLK Jr is one of my favorites.
For the record, NC is a very nice place to live, depending on where you are. It's actually got a lot of displaced northerners around where I live, so it doesn't feel like the south, which it technically is. It's also not too far north where you're getting into the capital heartlands and the cost of living goes through the damn roof, but you have to get past the redneck hell that is Virginia first.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 20:51
It doesn't take a great deal of looking to find balanced (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm), sane (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/andrew-sullivan-why-gay-marriage-is-good-for-america.html) arguments (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/gay_marriage_doesn_t_harm_children_but_the_facts_don_t_seem_to_matter_.html) in favor of allowing gay marriage.
These are terrible
Indeed, if the contra position were so logical, and the pro position so inane,
most people...a chance to push for or against... saying such nonsense about it.
...
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
If we aren't going to test heterosexuals for fertility for simplicities sake, as Xiahou suggests, then it makes no sense to have a...what would it be, an "adoption attitude test"?...for homosexuals. We should just not concern ourselves with the fact that people are going to get married who aren't going to have kids, and that people are going to get married and divorced a year later...not concern ourselves legally anyway, as a society we should stop talking up marriage as such an ultimate ceremony of love. The religious right should go back to attacking hollywood and celebrity culture.
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 20:54
Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.
The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 20:55
Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926.html
Vladimir
05-09-2012, 20:55
'bout time.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 21:01
Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926.html
He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?
a completely inoffensive name
05-09-2012, 21:04
He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?
The millions of evangelical blacks who turn out in high numbers to prevent same sex marriage.
The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.
I am absolutely not that conservative, but a lot of people still are. People will want to make a point out of it, both sides
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 21:12
Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.
ಠ_ಠ
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 21:24
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
It's big legal difference - in Muslim countries your marriages, however many they may be, are seperate. Marriage is still concieved in the same way as in the West, and as I said the Western prohibition again Polygamy is Roman, not Christian.
what is being proposed here is a legal chage, therefore what should be considered is legel precedent.
Not emotions.
I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing.
Legally, it isn't. A husband has a wife - not a husband, and a wife has husband - not a wife. That is currently a legal fact in the large part of the world. Further, you do not have a business "wife", you have a business "partner".
It is very clear that the three words are not interchangable, they have different historical connotations and contemporary meanings. Replacing husband and wife with "partner" in legal documents changes chose documents - it removes the gender-identification of the parties, and it removes the requirement that they have a sexual relationship.
I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say, :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:.
Maybe you should try reading what I write. Simply telling me I am a bigot because I oppose Gay marriage is basically being a bigot.
No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.
I don't hate anyone, except that bastard whoes marrying the girl I have complicated and unresolved feelings about.
I don't believe that marriage can exist without the capability to procreate.
I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption
See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.
In the UK the original certificate is retained, and an "adoption" certificate is issued - the birth parents go on one, the legal guardians on the second. When you adopt someone you supplant the birth parents and they cease to have a legal claim.
That way, you know who the biological parents are.
I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.
The original reason for marriage was to establish a legal bond between a father and his children - that is why adoption causes such potential problems, and that is why I consider Gay marriage to be nonsensical.
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
There is a simple answer to this question. The Lesbian couple used a Sperm doner, therefore only one of the women in the couple is the child's mother - the father is the sperm doner. That should be reflected on the Birth Certificate.
If the other woman in the relationship wants to be the child's other legal guardian she should adopt it - but unlike a heterosexual marriage she should not be assumed to be a parent, because that is not physically possible.
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.
I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.
The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should
If I were a priest, I would happily perform a formal binding cermemony between two men or two women to recognise their relationship within the community. However, I would not call it marriage because a marriage involves one man, one woman, and the hope of children in the future.
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.
In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.
I don't believe that marriage can exist without the capability to procreate. [...] In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.
Interesting. Two friends of mine, a man and a woman, are married. She is infertile due to some bad plumbing complicated by bad doctoring when she was young. My friend knew this when he married her.
They have adopted two children (just this year -- we're all very happy for them). What's your take on the validity of (a) their marriage, and (b) their suitability as adoptive parents?
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2012, 21:35
A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.
In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.
Is adoption infidelity as well? What is the matromonial paradigm? Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions?
Lemur: beat me to it...
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 21:36
and I beat both of you to it
What the hell
Is everyone ignoring me?
and I beat both of you to it
What the hell
Is everyone ignoring me?
Who are you? How the hell did you get in here?
Nah, the "straight but infertile couple" thing is an old argument, and one that is not being satisfactorily answered. I just happen to know a couple who actually live it out, so I thought I would ground it a little. It's all fun and games to talk about abstractions, but when you can look at real people, some of that glib ideology fades. Anyway.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 21:41
what is being proposed here is a legal chage, therefore what should be considered is legel precedent.
Not emotions.
...
A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.
In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.
But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 21:44
Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.
Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.
But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?
People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.
Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.
I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 22:01
Interesting. Two friends of mine, a man and a woman, are married. She is infertile due to some bad plumbing complicated by bad doctoring when she was young. My friend knew this when he married her.
They have adopted two children (just this year -- we're all very happy for them). What's your take on the validity of (a) their marriage, and (b) their suitability as adoptive parents?
My take on their marriage is that it was unfortunate, and I am sorry that it was not fortunate. My take on them is adoptive parents is that I can't really comment, knowing nothing about their relationship.
In so far as the legal situation goes though, it shouldn't be any harder for them to adopt whether they can have their own children or not. I happen to think adoption is awsome, and preferable to any of the modern jiggery-pokery doctors perform, better emotionally for child and adult. If I had a wife and I was infertile I would we should adopt, and if she couldn't accept that I would tell her she needed another man.
Is adoption infidelity as well? What is the matromonial paradigm? Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions?
@Lemur (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=4288): beat me to it...
No of course it isn't.
That child is already here, you aren't creating it. Artifical insemination is exactly the same as having sex with a man when he's gagged and covered in a sheet with a hole for his little man.
The paradigm is man + woman = baby, ergo man + woman = marriage because we want the family untis staying together, rather than forming new more complex units. It's inefficient, it leads to children growing up without parents and that is bad for society.
But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?
The Pro-Gay marriage argument always starts, "but if two people love each other..."
This is not something I am concerned with. If I got a girl pregnant I would offer to marry her, if she said no I would say we could get divorced intwo years if she didn't like me, but in the mean time and afterwards she and the child would be protected by the full force of the law and they would always know who their father was. If she still said no I would assume the child was not mine, because what I'm offering her is a much better deal legally and financially than state-enforced child support allows for.
She'd get more in the divorce, and I would make sure both she and the child were as well provided for as I could manage.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 22:09
People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.
Yes, we aren't going to test them to see whether they are are going to have children or not. But people shouldn't get married if they aren't going to have children, or they should at least adjust the wedding vow accordingly: "in sickness and in health, through good times and bad, for better or poorer, till death do us part, or until we really just don't like each other anymore and aren't happy at all"--because if that last bit is true and there are no kids, people do break up, they should break up, and it's not really marriage. There should be some other route to getting some of the legal benefits. Our system is kind of a mess because it's based on assumptions that don't really hold in modern society. We aren't stuck in a certain conception of marriage just because people need to have hospital visitation rights.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 22:09
People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.
Married couples who do not intend to have children are still very much the minority, and those that do not intend to have children are basically taking advantage the benefits designed to encourage marriage for procreation (the tax breaks especially).
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 22:12
That child is already here, you aren't creating it. Artifical insemination is exactly the same as having sex with a man when he's gagged and covered in a sheet with a hole for his little man.
:boxedin:
The paradigm is man + woman = baby, ergo man + woman = marriage because we want the family untis staying together, rather than forming new more complex units. It's inefficient, it leads to children growing up without parents and that is bad for society.
So I don't get why adopted children don't make it a marriage, we still want the family unit to stay together.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 22:13
I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.
I'm pretty sure he gets it too.
The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.
@PVC: one of the first pro-gay arguments in this thread(mine), had nothing to do with "love", it was about personal freedom and that the state or society has no business poking in other peoples priate lives.
Also, the paragraph after the sentence about pro-gay arguments reveals a rather skewed view on what relationships are about, and what people in general think about the relations between people. To put it mildly, you voice the opinion of an extremely small minority, one I would have to assume only consists of yourself.
When this is contrasted with your calls for tradition, nature, etc, it gets weird. I can understand arguments like the ones you have made coming from someone in the majority, but not from a sexual minority, which you are.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 22:15
I'm pretty sure he gets it too.
The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.
What about their actual parents, though?
This is an issue - there was even a Hollywood film about it already.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 22:16
Artifical insemination is exactly the same as having sex with a man when he's gagged and covered in a sheet with a hole for his little man.
Now it's a party
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 22:19
:boxedin:
So I don't get why adopted children don't make it a marriage, we still want the family unit to stay together.
Simple, with adopted children the family has broken down - the point of marriage is to keep the biologically family together because children generally do best with their biological parents - it's also about linking a father and his children without the need for expensive forensice investigation. However, once the father has sodded off that's already failed, hasn't it? In that case, assuming the mother had the werewithal to nail him down to begin with the marriage is the permenant hook she has in him, because even if they get divorced she's entitled to support.
So there's no particular reason for the adoptive parents to marry; granted there's no reason they shouldn't be married but in the vast majority of cases where the couple are infertile they only find out after trying to have natural children.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 22:25
"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.
So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.
Simple, with adopted children the family has broken down - the point of marriage is to keep the biologically family together because children generally do best with their biological parents - it's also about linking a father and his children without the need for expensive forensice investigation. However, once the father has sodded off that's already failed, hasn't it? In that case, assuming the mother had the werewithal to nail him down to begin with the marriage is the permenant hook she has in him, because even if they get divorced she's entitled to support.
So there's no particular reason for the adoptive parents to marry; granted there's no reason they shouldn't be married but in the vast majority of cases where the couple are infertile they only find out after trying to have natural children.
I think if parents adopt a kid, and the father sodds off, the mother is still entitled to support. Adoption is a commitment to treat the kids like they are biologically your own, and society should treat it as such.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 22:43
"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.
I haven't seen it - but the dact it got made is a point in itself. If I were a child with two dads/moms I'd want to know where the other part of me came from, especially as a boy with two moms you'd want to know stuff, like am I going to got bald?
So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.
If you want clear and simple I propse the following:
1. Abolish legal marriage.
2. Allow consenting adults to contract whatever "marriage like" arrangements with whatever gender/number of consenting adults they wish.
3. Abbolish annulment, you contract one of these agreements you either stay together or get a full divorce because defining what is an isn't a conjugal act is a legal nightmare. I had this argument with a Gay man earlier in the wekk, he proposed a list of legally consumating sex-acts, I can't see that working.
As far as I am personally concerned the only logical courses of action are to keep marriage between one man and one woman, or to completely liberalise it.
If we can't proscribe the geneder of the person you marry we can't proscribe anything else about your legal arrangements and I call foul on anyone who supports Gay marriage, dissagrees with this point, then calls me a bigot.
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2012, 22:45
Well thank you.
I'm sorry. As I said, I was reacting out of emotion and deliberately using a broad brush.
It just seems to me that religion has become a sanctuary for ignorance and hatred in this country, and it wasn't always that way. Nowhere else would the kind of vile rhetoric that I posted in the OP be openly spoken and accepted. (And I could post pages and pages of Christian leaders saying awful things about gay people.) Nowhere else would intelligent design be given any credibility. Nowhere else would abstinence only education, pro-bully anti-bully legislation, censoring teachers, and all the other base stupidity these people push in the education system get any traction.
The absurdities that Christians believe on face value would be laughed out of any fifth grade science class under any other name. These people believe that some Jew two thousand years ago, born from a woman who was essentially raped by their god, rose from the dead and walked around, based on nothing but a consistently contradictory book that sanctions slavery among other things. And these are the people that have appointed themselves the moral arbiters of our society? These are the people who feel confident in judging the worth of other people's lifestyles? People are being denied a sensible, logical extension of civil liberties based on a book of fairy tales.
Why? Why is Christianity given a special dispensation for idiocy? IMO, it is because most of us who do not accept such notions have family or friends that are Christian and do not want to offend. It is just not polite. I remember when I was being taught in Catholic high school by otherwise sane, rational adults that that nasty little wafer and that cheap wine were the body and blood of Christ, not a representation of them, but actual flesh and blood. It seemed so incredibly batshit crazy and so easily disproven, but I kept my mouth shut because I did not want to make anyone uncomfortable. The problem is that Christians have no problem offending. If they want to hold others up in judgment, they should be taken to task for their own views that make far less sense than people acting on a naturally occurring homosexual orientation.
HoreTore
05-09-2012, 22:48
...and that is what is meant by gay marriage.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 22:54
As far as I am personally concerned the only logical courses of action are to keep marriage between one man and one woman, or to completely liberalise it.
If we can't proscribe the geneder of the person you marry we can't proscribe anything else about your legal arrangements and I call foul on anyone who supports Gay marriage, dissagrees with this point, then calls me a bigot.
:shrug: I think it's easy enough to just change it to "marriage between one man/woman and one man/woman". Conceptually it's very easy, and as long as we understand why were are doing it (aka, we don't think it's because "tradition is stupid, religion is stupid" etc) it will just stick like that. Arguing for polygamy would be a totally different logic.
@PJ: I think that's just a narrow focus, there's plenty of terrible non-christian examples of the things you mention. If christian views of evolution would get laughed out of a 5th grade classroom, the average atheists would get laughed out of an 8th grade classroom (or should). You can see it in this thread if you want. And I don't think most religious people in modern societies believe in the literal truth of that stuff you mention. Non christians accept christians because they like them as people true, but also because they don't believe in myths about rational scientific explanations for the human experience.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 22:58
Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian
The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.
The basic humanist princpals that so many one here claim to espouse are just Christianity with sort of a libertine twist brought on by the modern comforts of Western life.
See: HoreTore
Kralizec
05-09-2012, 23:01
I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.
I realise that you're on the "pro-gay" side here Beskar, but really, this is a pointless position to take. The statutory institution of marriage is simply not going to dissappear, not now, not in a hundred years. It's used so often, with so many rights and legal consequenses attached to it, and so utterly ingrained in society that I simply don't see it dissappearing.
I suppose you could re-name the institution as "civil union". Or you could create a new institution with that name that has exactly the same consequenses as marriage but is meant for homosexual couples. Personally I'm more concerned with results than with semantics, so both of these would be okay with me. Apparently the people of North Carolina don't care about semantics either, and simply don't want homosexual couples to have any recognition whatsoever.
Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.
Yes they are.
People say (and suggest, apparently) the darndest things, don't they?
In any case, since we're talking about the US, forcing a particular church to hold a ceremony when they don't want to would violate the freedom of assembly bit in the first amendment. It might be constitutionally viable for the government to revoke a churches' marriage licence in such a case- I don't know enough about their legal system to be sure, but I'm guessing not.
Oh, and the "historically, marriage means..." or "the dictionary says..." arguments are rubish as far as I'm concerned. Legal terminology follows its own logic that doesn't always sync with reality. See for example legal fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction). As stated before (in response to Beskar) I don't particulary care about semantics, but in that vein I don't understand why other people make such a huge deal out of it.
rory_20_uk
05-09-2012, 23:05
Agnosticism is the logical conclusion. Nothing we do provides any concrete evidence for or against a God. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But then sketchy allegories aren't evidence of presence.
Christianity shaped and was shaped by the environment it found itself in. Coptic Christianity is very different to Lutherianism, or indeed to what was practised shortly after Jesus's death - which itself varied if anything more widely than versions do now.
~:smoking:
Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian
The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.
I also probably couldn´t hold my own in a discussion about Lord of the Rings with someone who reads it obsessionally......both are still just people who know a book really well.
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2012, 23:19
@PJ: I think that's just a narrow focus, there's plenty of terrible non-christian examples of the things you mention. If christian views of evolution would get laughed out of a 5th grade classroom, the average atheists would get laughed out of an 8th grade classroom (or should). You can see it in this thread if you want. And I don't think most religious people in modern societies believe in the literal truth of that stuff you mention. Non christians accept christians because they like them as people true, but also because they don't believe in myths about rational scientific explanations for the human experience.
As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.
My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 23:23
I also probably couldn´t hold my own in a discussion about Lord of the Rings with someone who reads it obsessionally......both are still just people who know a book really well.
But then why would I trust your opinion on Lord of the Rings to be more valid than avid readers?
Regardless of wether there is the christian conception of God, the fact remains on the ground, Christendom has provided the parameters for our morality and continues to do so. Many people who claim that they reject christianity (usually claiming humanism) really only permit luxries or decadance that people in the past could not afford to.
"That book" is the foundation of Western thought. Even our pre-exsisting scholarly works are translated and interpeted within a christian frame. Everything that came after it is colored by it, including Lord Of The Rings.
For me the higher power bit is really irrelavant.
As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.
I think there is something to be said for rising depression rates and the sense of a lack of purpose in the Western world. A lack of a God does not beget anything other than just that.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2012, 23:31
As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.
So this christian pastor tells parents to smack their kid if he wears a dress, and some progressive parents in canada or something talk about how they are raising a "genderless" child. People raise their kids badly sometimes, people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons. No reason to paint with a broad brush.
My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.
Yes but play the fiery ball not the fiery man.
People who have the psychology to be devout passionate christians aren't suddenly going to model secularists if christianity dies out. They will turn to cults and political mass movements.
The contradictions of the bible are unimportant, and so is the supernatural thinking. Wrong focus. Plenty of people ditch those and become atheists with no real improvement. I was given history books in high school ( a liberal place generally) that were far worse than any intelligent design. Science has put forth many nonsensical theories. At least christianity is a known quantity with basically good principles. I'll cut it here because I'm kind of rambling.
Strike For The South
05-09-2012, 23:35
Exactly.
Having a religon really means nothing in and of itself. Having a high relgiosity does. There are numbers to prove it.
Married couples who do not intend to have children are still very much the minority, and those that do not intend to have children are basically taking advantage the benefits designed to encourage marriage for procreation (the tax breaks especially).
You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 23:54
I'm sorry. As I said, I was reacting out of emotion and deliberately using a broad brush.
It just seems to me that religion has become a sanctuary for ignorance and hatred in this country, and it wasn't always that way. Nowhere else would the kind of vile rhetoric that I posted in the OP be openly spoken and accepted. (And I could post pages and pages of Christian leaders saying awful things about gay people.) Nowhere else would intelligent design be given any credibility. Nowhere else would abstinence only education, pro-bully anti-bully legislation, censoring teachers, and all the other base stupidity these people push in the education system get any traction.
The absurdities that Christians believe on face value would be laughed out of any fifth grade science class under any other name. These people believe that some Jew two thousand years ago, born from a woman who was essentially raped by their god, rose from the dead and walked around, based on nothing but a consistently contradictory book that sanctions slavery among other things. And these are the people that have appointed themselves the moral arbiters of our society? These are the people who feel confident in judging the worth of other people's lifestyles? People are being denied a sensible, logical extension of civil liberties based on a book of fairy tales.
Why? Why is Christianity given a special dispensation for idiocy? IMO, it is because most of us who do not accept such notions have family or friends that are Christian and do not want to offend. It is just not polite. I remember when I was being taught in Catholic high school by otherwise sane, rational adults that that nasty little wafer and that cheap wine were the body and blood of Christ, not a representation of them, but actual flesh and blood. It seemed so incredibly batshit crazy and so easily disproven, but I kept my mouth shut because I did not want to make anyone uncomfortable. The problem is that Christians have no problem offending. If they want to hold others up in judgment, they should be taken to task for their own views that make far less sense than people acting on a naturally occurring homosexual orientation.
The Bible is not a "book", it is usually bound up in a single codex but it remains a collection of writings organised into what we call "books", or production units. Pointing out the fact that these books contradict each other in their details is somewhat petty, and certainly not a useful observation given that it has caused litterally no problem for gneration after generation of theologians.
A Christian, or indeed Jewish or Muslim worldview includes more than what can be sensed phyiscally, which includes by intruments, so arguing that these "fairytales" are "unscientific" is also a non starter since they do not claim to be that.
I should like to hear a sensible or logical argument for extending the right to marry to homosexuals - so far all the arguments either boil down to either further restricting the franchise to exclude certain heterosexuals, or to fully liberalising it.
:shrug: I think it's easy enough to just change it to "marriage between one man/woman and one man/woman". Conceptually it's very easy, and as long as we understand why were are doing it (aka, we don't think it's because "tradition is stupid, religion is stupid" etc) it will just stick like that. Arguing for polygamy would be a totally different logic.
There are Polygamous/Ployamorous groupings in many Western countries, including homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The current proposition, that we should extend it to homosexuals because they form loving and stable relationships. That same argument can be applied to the variety of other relationships consenting adults enter into.
You cannot say that two men can marry, but not three men and one woman. The only reason it is a pairing currently is the same historical reason for it being a man and a woman, procreation. I consider it profoundly unjust, indeed prejudiced, to advocate homosexual marriage and then demand that only couples wed. There is no practical justifcation and it is purely a prejudice inherrited from our forebears that you can onyl love one person at a time. Have I not been lambasted in this very thread merely because people assumed I don't believe Gay people can have loving relationships?
Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian
The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.
The basic humanist princpals that so many one here claim to espouse are just Christianity with sort of a libertine twist brought on by the modern comforts of Western life.
See: HoreTore
I came to this conclusion some time ago, no can who uses words like "good" or "evil" or indeed "should" in anything other than a predictive context can call himself an atheist.
Any arbitary division requires an arbiter. If there is an actual line between good and evil then that is because someone put the line there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-09-2012, 23:56
You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.
No, but as the population is increasing more people are obviously having children than not, ergo deliberately childless couples are a minority, being less than 50% of the married population.
You know as a Christian male that is not afraid to bring that forward in front of face to face groups, I want to bring something up that happens quite a bit in these "Arguments". First off you shouldn't be attacking the Christians on this except for the word "marriage". The real culprit is the legal system and government. As a Christian I "beleive" that gay unions are immoral. However, since I don't want to be judged lest I judge others, I'm fine with gay unions. Please don't use the word "marriage". If homosexuals would concentrate on overturning the LEGAL shortcomings of unions versus marriage, they would have some surprising allies on their side.
I agree that anyone that is willing to spend their life with another is entitled to some benefits of the union. Healthcare, abilities to make decisions for their loved ones, tax benefits I'm all for. The injustice isn't Christians see us as evil, it is that those that are in power are unwilling to see the justice and neccesity of doing away with the "legal" term for marriage. I beleive that each couple that wants to get married be consuled and then once that has happened, a license to marry is given. Those that do this in a Church are given a "marriage" license, those that do it by other legal means have a "union" or "bonding" or whatever name you like license. Means the same, with attached rights and benefits as we currently have for marriage. Just doesn't throw the Christian meaning of "Marriage" up into everyones face.
As for those that despise the lunatic ravings of a madmen in the desert 2000 years ago, sorry Civilization is borne upon his back. If you would rather not have him in the picture, then you should look upon those religons in the East that espouse other ideas. As for anyone from the middle east to the US this is your reality. and if you are an antichrist then you are only hurting what has aloud you to have your temper tantrums.
Papewaio
05-10-2012, 00:12
Greek logic and thought predate the bible...
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2012, 00:15
I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.
The Bible is not the legal but moral base for the Western world. From about the 3rd Century to the 9th Century Greek logic and thought were marginalize if remembered at all. The only thing that we still cling to the Greek on would be medicine and the ideas of democracy. Most of our laws come from the Roman Empire and this was held togather by early Roman church and the incorporation of the Germanic ideas on equality no less.
Strike For The South
05-10-2012, 00:24
I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.
Who is coming to that conclusion?
Greek logic and thought predate the bible...
No where near as important as the bible. A fair bit important but not the cornerstone
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 00:26
I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.
Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.
Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.
Strike For The South
05-10-2012, 00:28
Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.
Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.
Want to eat ice cream? Get some ice cream.
Kralizec
05-10-2012, 00:30
No where near as important as the bible. A fair bit important but not the cornerstone
Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?
Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?
Strike For The South
05-10-2012, 00:33
Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?
Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?
I haven't figured that part out yet. I AM ONLY A CHILD
I go to school
I work
I try to get the pretty girls to look at me
There is only so much time for musing!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 00:34
Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?
Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?
C.S. Lewis' answer to A was "Grace", that God will give you something you don't deserve because he loves you, and humans are called to echo this.
The correct answer to B is "nothing", In believe. The only important part of Christianity is that God loves all his children equally, completely and wihtout reservation - all the rest is just window dressing which is completely shawn of meaning without that central truth.
You want to take something useful from Christianity? Either love God or do what the Muslims did and keep some Christians around to do their thing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 00:36
Want to eat ice cream? Get some ice cream.
Puny Troll.
Mine was better. ~;p
The Stranger
05-10-2012, 00:40
As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.
My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.
that is such a non argument... the most horrible acts in history of mankind were committed in the secularised 20th century and with no religious motive. yet ofcourse that was politics, or a freak of nature bladiblabla... people have been killed in the name of reason as well as in the name of god.
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2012, 00:42
Who is coming to that conclusion?
The argument that is everything is ok as long as we don't call it marriage means that in practice we will have two institutions. One for the heteros and one for the homos. The marriage and the union. You are making a separate but equal case here when you want a change in terminology. This is why the LGBT movement is specifically arguing for marriage, they don't want to potentially suffer under the law for decades like blacks did before things are corrected again.
The evangelical movement is anything but rational here. The sad joke about this whole NC affair is that there was no threat to NC about same sex marriage legalized. The evangelicals took their hate one step further where they could and decided that a statute wasn't enough, it had to be written into the State Constitution. If even the LGBT movement and it's allies were to switch gears and win over middle america by dropping the case for marriage and simply argue for equal civil union that confer the same benefits, how long would it until the Southern Baptists (because lets be honest, they seem to be the most egregious violators here), managed to work the system into their own Jim Crow version targeting LGBT. The inequality won't stop unless you rout out the Christians completely and utterly in government on this issue. Such is the benefit of a Christian nation.
Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.
Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.
Dumb argument. Same as the one you threw at me about your depression. One has a test that doesn't reject based on arbitrary factors, if you pass the test, you pass the test. No one asked me if I was gay when they gave me my provisional. And the DMV wouldn't reject me based on those grounds because I have shown to be a good test taker err driver. Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 01:02
Dumb argument. Same as the one you threw at me about your depression. One has a test that doesn't reject based on arbitrary factors, if you pass the test, you pass the test. No one asked me if I was gay when they gave me my provisional. And the DMV wouldn't reject me based on those grounds because I have shown to be a good test taker err driver. Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.
It's not about "being" Gay, it's about what you want to do. Marriage discriminates in terms of who you can contract the marriage with, but it doesn't dicriminate between people. All people are allowed to contract the same kind of marriage - some Gay people even do this in order to have children together.
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2012, 01:11
It's not about "being" Gay, it's about what you want to do. Marriage discriminates in terms of who you can contract the marriage with, but it doesn't dicriminate between people. All people are allowed to contract the same kind of marriage - some Gay people even do this in order to have children together.
Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.
The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 01:18
Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.
The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.
If my definition of marriage is actually obsolete, then marriage is obsolete. In which case, I'm right and the only just thing is to abolish it by completely liberalising it.
What's wrong with that? Why just two people in a "marriage"?
So I'm sorry to break it to you, but your argument is not logically consistant.
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2012, 01:24
If my definition of marriage is actually obsolete, then marriage is obsolete. In which case, I'm right and the only just thing is to abolish it by completely liberalising it.
What's wrong with that? Why just two people in a "marriage"?
So I'm sorry to break it to you, but your argument is not logically consistant.
A. Nice false dichotomy.
But more importantly
B. If I could I would deconstruct marriage. The benefits of marriage should be given to any two or three or whatever people who file the paperwork with the gov.
Look. Ideally, I am a libertarian about this. Religious "Marriages" should be something that churches provide at their discretion everyone who actually wants their partnership to be recognized by the government fills out the same confusingly titled paperwork and are labelled the same as "Married".
But this isn't the world that any of us are going to live in. It's too big a change. The best thing to do is to start the deconstruction of this monstrosity of judeo-christian privilege by making gay partnerships equal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 01:30
A. Nice false dichotomy.
But more importantly
B. If I could I would deconstruct marriage. The benefits of marriage should be given to any two or three or whatever people who file the paperwork with the gov.
Look. Ideally, I am a libertarian about this. Religious "Marriages" should be something that churches provide at their discretion everyone who actually wants their partnership to be recognized by the government fills out the same confusingly titled paperwork and are labelled the same as "Married".
But this isn't the world that any of us are going to live in. It's too big a change. The best thing to do is to start the deconstruction of this monstrosity of judeo-christian privilege by making gay partnerships equal.
Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?
No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.
It's much more wrong than the current situation. It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.
Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.
I prefer your clever trolls though.
Montmorency
05-10-2012, 01:34
It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.
So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2012, 01:46
Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?
No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.
But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.
Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.
I prefer your clever trolls though.
I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.
Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.
Papewaio
05-10-2012, 01:58
No where near as important as the bible. A fair bit important but not the cornerstone
Except just like the pagan rituals that were incorporated post the editorial process of the bible so were myths and legend incorporated from the mix available.
Obviously the old testament is the base of this perfume. Throw in some of the other beliefs of the Roman empire such as an anointed one with 12 disciples and a traitor (story format predates Jesus). Etc
Then look at the philosophical traditions of the Church and it never operated in a vacuum. All thought, philosophy and logic did not spring new from that institution. They were widely read scholars too and used idea systems that predate Christain thought.
In the end it is a product of its environment and it used Hebrew, Greek and Roman thought systems to perceive itself. The bible is not the wellspring it is a leaf on the water flows from tributaries that feed into a much bigger environment.
Love thy neighbour is just one form of the golden rule which is found in many other thought systems that predate the bible.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 02:01
So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?
More honest at least, more consistant. Anglicanism was the state religion, only letting Anglicans hold office was a political decsion about loyalty - letting in Methodists and Baptists but not Catholics was pure prejudice.
But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.
I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.
Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.
We banned slavery in one go.
The point is, allowing homosexual couples to marry and not other intimate grouping is no less prejudiced, you're just letting homosexuals into the prejudiced group. You are extending sexual prejudice by perpetuating the in-out group model of sexual morality.
This is one of the biggest criticisms of the Gay movement since the 1990's, it has become illiberal and essentially as bad as the Conservative movements it critiques.
Best start working on the Islamist then, I hear that in some parts of the world they kill homosexuals. Where is the hue and cry for justice from the LGBT comunity on the NBC or BBC or FOX news channels for that matter. As I stated earlier the more you push against something ingrained in Western society the more push back you have. To blantantly say "That can't work" for pushing the idea of unions that contain all the elements of"marriage" shows how it isn't about "rights" it's about abolishing judeo-christian "beliefs". Again, I ask where is the uproar over the death of homosxuals in the middle east? Seems marriage can be trival when you have to worry about that?
The LGBT community has one thing right, if they love their partner then they should have the same rights as what a traditional "marriage" entails. But you need to be fighting it at the legal level not the church level. I would rightly blame the politicians for using this as a stump talk. It should be how to "include" not "exclude". But then the radicals on both sides wouldn't like that would they?
Papewaio except that in the bible it also doesn't turn around and say, if you don't give me what is mine I have the right to kill you, OR upon the end of your life you may become a bug because you didn't live your life right. The love thy neighbor line is more than that. The actual verse is they are two "rules" if you will that would cover the myriad laws of the jewish torah in compacts made with the Lord. Jesus said the first to to love your Lord God with all your soul, and mind, and strength and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Now so me where in ANY OTHER RELIGON that is what is being spoken. Please, don't go down the rabbit hole, I won't quote Anton LaVey or other "mystics" please refrain from your attempts at Jesus of Nazareth.
Your definition of marriage is obsolete.Ok, and you think it should be redefined. That's fine- just be honest about what you want to do.
The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce.
And 50% of statistics are made up (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm).
It's not about "being" Gay, it's about what you want to do. Marriage discriminates in terms of who you can contract the marriage with, but it doesn't dicriminate between people. All people are allowed to contract the same kind of marriage - some Gay people even do this in order to have children together. This is where the "civil rights" argument falls apart for homosexual marriage. On one hand, it what race you were born with, on the other, it's what gender you prefer to have sex with. There's no equivalence.
Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.
CountArach
05-10-2012, 02:40
Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.
In all likelihood, yes. Remember that both sides of politics hate him for the healthcare bill, but this announcement will at least draw back in a lot of his core voters who can perceive some sort of movement on an issue that is immensely important to them. It also means that he could have a mandate for it in his second term, when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2012, 03:27
I'm sorry. As I said, I was reacting out of emotion and deliberately using a broad brush.
It just seems to me that religion has become a sanctuary for ignorance and hatred in this country, and it wasn't always that way. Nowhere else would the kind of vile rhetoric that I posted in the OP be openly spoken and accepted. (And I could post pages and pages of Christian leaders saying awful things about gay people.) Nowhere else would intelligent design be given any credibility. Nowhere else would abstinence only education, pro-bully anti-bully legislation, censoring teachers, and all the other base stupidity these people push in the education system get any traction.
The absurdities that Christians believe on face value would be laughed out of any fifth grade science class under any other name. These people believe that some Jew two thousand years ago, born from a woman who was essentially raped by their god, rose from the dead and walked around, based on nothing but a consistently contradictory book that sanctions slavery among other things. And these are the people that have appointed themselves the moral arbiters of our society? These are the people who feel confident in judging the worth of other people's lifestyles? People are being denied a sensible, logical extension of civil liberties based on a book of fairy tales.
Why? Why is Christianity given a special dispensation for idiocy? IMO, it is because most of us who do not accept such notions have family or friends that are Christian and do not want to offend. It is just not polite. I remember when I was being taught in Catholic high school by otherwise sane, rational adults that that nasty little wafer and that cheap wine were the body and blood of Christ, not a representation of them, but actual flesh and blood. It seemed so incredibly batshit crazy and so easily disproven, but I kept my mouth shut because I did not want to make anyone uncomfortable. The problem is that Christians have no problem offending. If they want to hold others up in judgment, they should be taken to task for their own views that make far less sense than people acting on a naturally occurring homosexual orientation.
Keep it rolling. A president in favor of gay marriage and backers who attack Christianity and hate Christians (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141364-North-Carolina-Passes-Amendment-Banning-Same-sex-Unions&p=2053447639&viewfull=1#post2053447639) because of a vote in a far away state can't be a bad thing in November.
You can call me a Nihilist all you'd like. There is either a "plan" to the Universe or there is not. I balance both ideas in good measure. If there is a plan, you can seek answers to what it might be and the sources you use should have a logical consistency - or a consistency in line with that plan. If not, you can do whatever you'd like and push whatever issue sounds good at the moment, but it's all smoke and mirrors and just keeps you feeling like you're going somewhere when there is nowhere to go. I'm pretty sure that none of you would disagree with the "to be or not to be" possibilities, so what am I missing?
I have books and tradition which, I believe, shine a light onto meaning and purpose. You laugh at that meaning and purpose and posit others, derived from Hollywood celebrities and the popular culture of the age. I believe in this dynamic struggle.
Shaming people of faith is useless because you shame them with empty morality. I'm not attempting to shame you, I'm trying to make you see that the accepted ideas of "progress" in this vein are illusory. Some ideas are consistent with my own morality; freedom from theocracy, freedom to determine the laws that govern you, freedom from tyranny around the world, elimination of slavery, reduction of drug laws, some correction for majority rule, etc. Others are nonsense and seem absurd to my morality; veganism, gay marriage, gun control, etc.
I'm actually not a **** disgusting man, "I cant see my name" (BTW, I've been flagged for less). I like to oppose ideas which I see as wrongheaded. I won't be shamed into ending my opposition to what I believe is bad policy. I'll compromise, but you guys have no interest in compromising in any real way. It's all or nothing and I won't give in to you. You are free to argue your case and may continue influencing others, but I don't believe you will be successful in the long term because I believe this is a bad push. I am also free to oppose you, that's because we live in a free society.
NC just made it more difficult for court actions to subvert the established law. You can't blame them on procedure.
BTW, Obama still doesn't believe marriage is a "civil right" and neither do I.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2012, 03:50
The contradictions of the bible are unimportant, and so is the supernatural thinking. Wrong focus. Plenty of people ditch those and become atheists with no real improvement. I was given history books in high school ( a liberal place generally) that were far worse than any intelligent design. Science has put forth many nonsensical theories. At least christianity is a known quantity with basically good principles. I'll cut it here because I'm kind of rambling.
Wrong focus? That is exactly where the focus should be. Christian intolerance of homosexuality stems directly from a few passages in the bible. Any time someone expounds on the immorality of homosexuality or the 'fact' that traditional marriage is the only one sanctioned by god (and that is the rationale behind opposition to gay marriage, whether the opponents choose to cower behind semantics or not), it should be immediately noted that they also believe a myriad of other crazy things. The problem is that Christian teaching receives way too much undeserved credibility. If you begin to view the story of Jesus as a first effort at zombie fan fiction instead of the sacred words of a very random and contradictory god, it becomes much more difficult to take anything in the bible seriously.
Best start working on the Islamist then, I hear that in some parts of the world they kill homosexuals. Where is the hue and cry for justice from the LGBT comunity on the NBC or BBC or FOX news channels for that matter. As I stated earlier the more you push against something ingrained in Western society the more push back you have. To blantantly say "That can't work" for pushing the idea of unions that contain all the elements of"marriage" shows how it isn't about "rights" it's about abolishing judeo-christian "beliefs". Again, I ask where is the uproar over the death of homosxuals in the middle east? Seems marriage can be trival when you have to worry about that?
You do realize that the LGBT community and human rights activists speak out all the time about the persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East, right?
In any event, could this effort in diversion be more obvious? 'Why should American gays complain, at least we don't stone them?' I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for the United States than I do for Saudi Arabia.
The LGBT community has one thing right, if they love their partner then they should have the same rights as what a traditional "marriage" entails. But you need to be fighting it at the legal level not the church level. I would rightly blame the politicians for using this as a stump talk. It should be how to "include" not "exclude". But then the radicals on both sides wouldn't like that would they?
Your understanding couldn't be more twisted. The gay marriage movement has nothing at all to do with the church or changing religious practices. No one is trying to force religious institutions to do... anything. On the other hand, the religious Right preaches anti-gay hatred from the pulpit. They are approaching the issue strictly from the 'church level' and, as usual, cannot seem to comprehend the separation of church and state.
My point was that you don't hear about these in our daily news cycle. The LGBT movement is so caught up in trying to make what is a legal matter into the bogeyman of Judeo-Christian principles that the bigger picture isn't there. Most true Christians as myself have no problem with the status of union between people. It is the LGBT community that won't step down the Rhetoric and actually work to the betterment of all LGBT's. That was my point about the middle east. You should hold Saudia Arabia to the same standard as you keep decrying religion, religion and it is the Islamic law that states to stone them, won't find it in the bible. You sir are the one who has it twisted. Try to make your arguement on the basis of law and forego the religious element. Then you will find a large middle ground of secular and christian people who have cause with you. If you need to see how it would work in a few yeas rather than the way things are going now, look to Dr. King and how blacks and whites religious and secular came togather to remove a vile stain on america's history.
Those against them shout the same things heard now. We need to tear down the societal fabric of Western civilization because we want our share(meaning the largest share) right now and we get to decide how it will look and function and be. This is why a state like NC doesn't want to see this in their state. I don't agree with the way they went about it but then maybe the LGBT can take some of that blame, seems there is enough to go around. At least this brings out the Christian bashers. Allows me to d othe Lord's work that way:yes:
ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2012, 04:47
Us Christians believe in a number of crazy things. Most of our religion is predicated on crazy things that require faith. There are enough passages in the bible to suggest that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Church. You are arguing against the Christian religion to say "do away with the crazy stuff". You are fine with doing that, but don't be surprised when Christians dismiss you as just being anti-Christian. You are by your own admission. God knows that burning bushes and talking through them to people in the wilderness is crazy, but so is a the idea that there is a God who cares about what we do to one another. I like the crazier aspects of my faith, especially the ones about transubstantiation and the Virgin Birth. Or how about the one where Jesus rises from the dead, or tells people that he will come to give them eternal life on the last day, or the one where he tells everyone that he is the son of God and no one will get to heaven except through him. I'm pretty sure that I'm ok with the idea that he may not be in favor of gay marriage. That is one of the least crazy things in the Bible.
You offer emptiness and there is no convincing reason, from a religious or secular perspective, to be in favor of equalizing homosexual relationships with heterosexual marital relationships. But maybe that's just me, or arguably 50% of the population of the United States.
I'm off to bed, to dream of amending state constitutions to ban recognition of same-sex marriages as special relationships, equal to male female marriage and above all other types of relationships.
"An argument made by philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)Hilary Putnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam), among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)
We come to an impasse, therefore, we settle with a duel and history moves on without one of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
I love canned wikilosophy
Crazed Rabbit
05-10-2012, 05:57
Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.
I thought it was because Biden pulled a biden a couple days back.
CR
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2012, 06:55
I'm pretty sure that I'm ok with the idea that he may not be in favor of gay marriage.
Based on... what? I'm just curious. If it's Leviticus, do you live by all the social codes proscribed in that text? If it is from the writings of Paul, do you also support slavery and the oppression of women?
Papewaio
05-10-2012, 07:16
Papewaio except that in the bible it also doesn't turn around and say, if you don't give me what is mine I have the right to kill you, OR upon the end of your life you may become a bug because you didn't live your life right. The love thy neighbor line is more than that. The actual verse is they are two "rules" if you will that would cover the myriad laws of the jewish torah in compacts made with the Lord. Jesus said the first to to love your Lord God with all your soul, and mind, and strength and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Now so me where in ANY OTHER RELIGON that is what is being spoken. Please, don't go down the rabbit hole, I won't quote Anton LaVey or other "mystics" please refrain from your attempts at Jesus of Nazareth.
My argument is that the bible is not the root of all western thought. Even in the bible it refers to the root being Hebrew tradition. Add in most of the Churches beliefs were based on Greek views of the universe and Earths central place in it. The bible was not the orginal reference point for western philosophy.
As for punishment there are a few passages in it. Even Jesus agrees that one can stone others, as long as you are free of sin oneself which kind of rules out everyone. So OT with the NT patch so that an aging God mellows out when his hippy son takes over the business. Main tenants are that you can do more wih less. You summarize the ten commandments into love and obey your god, love thy neighbor. It covers more ground and has less loop holes.
Does not however make it the font of western philosophy. It makes it the cliff notes for the OT, a much easier summary that is easier to follow and understand and open to all not just a select chosen few.
gaelic cowboy
05-10-2012, 10:27
It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.
I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.
ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2012, 12:06
I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.
Here is a man who can be reasoned with.
With regard to slavery, do I believe that the idea of slavery - as it existed the time - contravene's God's law/natural law? No. The Bible writes about regulating relationships between slave and master, Paul calls on slaves to be treated as "brothers" by their master. Do I believe that slavery as we were practicing it was, as a race based institution, an affront to natural law? Yes. Just because the Bible allows something doesn't mean it favors it - but when it specifically condemns something, as a believer my obligation to condemn that thing is greater than my obligation to fit in with popular culture.
The Bible has reference to a specific abolition of slavery as part of God's will too, as you may recall. Just because something exists as it did in the Bible doesn't meant that we cannot deviate from a practice, we have free will and choice in how we live our lives and I think our system works better without slavery, but you may suggest that global working conditions are no better than slavery, so we have a long way to go.
But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.
My understanding of Natural Law comes partly from my faith, partly from my perceived innate human characteristics, but I have numerous arguments for and against something when I think about it long enough.
In summary, abolishing the civil institution of marriage is not against my Religion, but recognizing homosexual unions as equal to male/female marriage is, and it flies in the face of the things that I believe about natural order. There is an option that establishes civil fairness that is agreeable to me and winnable to you, but you don't push that one because it would be harder to convince people to give up tax breaks than it would be to confuse them about their Religion. That is a cynical move if I've ever heard one.
Sarmatian
05-10-2012, 14:19
Agnosticism is the logical conclusion. Nothing we do provides any concrete evidence for or against a God. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But then sketchy allegories aren't evidence of presence.
~:smoking:
Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.
I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.
The Stranger
05-10-2012, 14:46
Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.
I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.
ehm well you cant. you cant prove that it exists and you cant prove that it doesnt so you ignore it...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 15:10
Wrong focus? That is exactly where the focus should be. Christian intolerance of homosexuality stems directly from a few passages in the bible. Any time someone expounds on the immorality of homosexuality or the 'fact' that traditional marriage is the only one sanctioned by god (and that is the rationale behind opposition to gay marriage, whether the opponents choose to cower behind semantics or not), it should be immediately noted that they also believe a myriad of other crazy things. The problem is that Christian teaching receives way too much undeserved credibility. If you begin to view the story of Jesus as a first effort at zombie fan fiction instead of the sacred words of a very random and contradictory god, it becomes much more difficult to take anything in the bible seriously.
Have you read the Church fathers or later theologians? Wyclif, Luther, Calvin? Pope John Pail II?
The Bible is a foundational document of Christianity, but Christian doctrine is so much more - contrary to what Strike said it has always incorporated Aristotlien and Platonic logic, literary criticism, Judaic and Eastern mystical traditions...
A little Augustine for you
When I was writing about things I began with the warning that attention should be paid solely to the fact that they existed, and not to anything besides themselves that they might signify. Now that I am discussing signs, I must say conversely, that attention should not be paid to the fact that they exist, but rather to the fact that they are signs, or, in other words, that they signify.
Those modern philosophers are gabbing on without realising it has been done by Aristotle, or Augustine, or Epicurus, or Protagoras, or Boethius, or Thomas Aquinas.
If you want to talk about taking people seriously, look at the "Zombie Jesus" claim - it's based on a cult film director's perversion of Zombie lore. Jesus is not a "Zombie" he is, if you want to get technical, a Divine Revenant - a dead body whose soul has returned and has been animated and made to live through the power of God in contravention of natural law. It isn't a common trope, but I think you see it occasionally in Greek myths. Far more common is the spirit occupying a dead body, but Jesus' body is alive, he eats and drinks and his flesh remains uncorrupted.
His wounds remain not because he is dead, he isn't, but because they are a sign that he was dead. The Bible is quite explicit about this, his body is living.
Your understanding couldn't be more twisted. The gay marriage movement has nothing at all to do with the church or changing religious practices. No one is trying to force religious institutions to do... anything. On the other hand, the religious Right preaches anti-gay hatred from the pulpit. They are approaching the issue strictly from the 'church level' and, as usual, cannot seem to comprehend the separation of church and state.
Come now PJ - a large part of the Gay-marriage lobby are Gay Christians who want to have Church weddings. The European Court of Human Rights, in a review of proposed changes to marriage law in the UK said that if Civil Marriage was extended to Gay people it would be illegal for Churches to refuse to perform their weddings.
It is also currently illegal to have any religious content in a Civil Wedding in the UK - no hymms, no Bible readings, so that Gay couples who want a religious wedding must do so in a Church.
What is at stake here is the definition of marriage, not just the legal institution. If it were just the legal institution then they would be happy with "Civil Partnership" in most cases.
Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.
I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.
ehm well you cant. you cant prove that it exists and you cant prove that it doesnt so you ignore it...
You are applying the scientific method outside science - that's why it doesn't make sense. The scientific method deals exclusively with the phyisical world and the natural Laws - religion is not abou the natural world, and when it interacts with the natural world it explicitely violates natural Law.
Strike For The South
05-10-2012, 15:36
I protest your postulation
I said it incorperated those things colored by a christian lens
THIS IS WHY NO ONE LOVES YOU, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH
One of the principles of our western legal systems is equal treatment or, put "negative", non discrimination.
If there exists a certain legal framework for couples to chose for if they decide to go live together, then that legal framework should be accessible for all couples, gay or straight. Even if that legal framework is called "mariage". If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation. It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. But I, for one, fail to see what can justify such discrimination. The arguments against gay mariage are usually religiously inspired, sometims people refer to history, culture, tradition, which is all utterly irrelevant. Of course, that's valid for the legal framework, the mariage for the law.
The legal mariage should be seen strictly seperated from religious mariage. It should be like this: everybody is allowed to marry for a civil servant. That's your legal union/mariage. After you're married before the law, the same couple can marry again, for the church/religion of their choice. When it comes to the religious mariage, the rules of the religion must be respected, since religion is not the state's business; it's a private affair. So, a gay couple should be allowed to marry for the law, mariage concluded by a civil servant, but not before let's say their local Catholic priest. Relgious mariage should carry no legal weight whatsoever. This means that if you marry for God, but don't go to the civil servant first, you'll be married for God, but without any legal consequence: for the law, you're not married then.
Agnosticism is the logical conclusion. Nothing we do provides any concrete evidence for or against a God.
Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?
Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind :wink: Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.
Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind :wink: Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.
Seems a little harsh on our brother and sister agnostics. Allow me to step in for them:
Is it so "cowardly" to assert that questions of supreme beings (or lack thereof) are unknowable? Is not the assertion that you know the existence (or absence) of an unimaginably powerful and vast intelligence that does (or does not) guide the universe a bit hubristic? Is the admission of "I don't know" truly the cowardly act, or is the assertion of ultimate truth sans evidence a form of insanity?
The Stranger
05-10-2012, 16:58
Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?
the burden of proof lies solely with the scientist... I never understood why any christian (or insert deity) who truly belies would try to defend his faith on scientific terms...
Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.
Yup, and apparently the timing was not planned. Maybe it's good to have a VP who says things when he isn't supposed to (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/10/how-president-obama-in-six-days-decided-to-come-out-for-gay-marriage.html)?
The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.
The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 18:33
I protest your postulation
I said it incorperated those things colored by a christian lens
THIS IS WHY NO ONE LOVES YOU, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH
~:mecry:
I'm sooooory!
One of the principles of our western legal systems is equal treatment or, put "negative", non discrimination.
If there exists a certain legal framework for couples to chose for if they decide to go live together, then that legal framework should be accessible for all couples, gay or straight. Even if that legal framework is called "mariage". If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation. It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. But I, for one, fail to see what can justify such discrimination. The arguments against gay mariage are usually religiously inspired, sometims people refer to history, culture, tradition, which is all utterly irrelevant. Of course, that's valid for the legal framework, the mariage for the law.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy this. You are arguing that couples are discriminated against, but that's surely bizare because the law doesn't recnise "couples" at all, what it recognises is sexual couplings, and it allows all individuals to engage in those couplings on exactly the same basis. There may be valid arguments for allowing Gay marriage but the discrimination argument doesn't really hold water - it includes far to many nebulous concepts, indeed didn't the ECHR recently determine that not allowing a Gay couple to marry was not discrimination?
Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?
Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.
I have always felt that atheists are trying to convince themselves by converting others to their views.
Seems a little harsh on our brother and sister agnostics. Allow me to step in for them:
Is it so "cowardly" to assert that questions of supreme beings (or lack thereof) are unknowable? Is not the assertion that you know the existence (or absence) of an unimaginably powerful and vast intelligence that does (or does not) guide the universe a bit hubristic? Is the admission of "I don't know" truly the cowardly act, or is the assertion of ultimate truth sans evidence a form of insanity?
That depends - I'm both an agnostic and an Christian. I believe my uncertainty is a reflection of my own human frailty, not evidence that God might not exist.
Ironside
05-10-2012, 19:35
And 50% of statistics are made up (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm).
That's a good one. Now, going with the much better divorces/1000 marriages, Sweden is notably more faithful than the US. ~;p
My point was that you don't hear about these in our daily news cycle. The LGBT movement is so caught up in trying to make what is a legal matter into the bogeyman of Judeo-Christian principles that the bigger picture isn't there. Most true Christians as myself have no problem with the status of union between people. It is the LGBT community that won't step down the Rhetoric and actually work to the betterment of all LGBT's.
For curiousity, how much of the most aggressive rethoric is actually coming from the LGBT community and not from those "false" Christians?
For example, anyone sing "hen" (a gender neutral personal pronoun) on for example forum posters are feminazis who are trying to destroy all forms of gender and replace all use of han (he) and hon (she) with a single pronoun.
Yet even the most aggressive gender neutral user are keeping this as a secret agenda, since they've never suggested it.
ajaxfetish
05-10-2012, 20:07
Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8)
Sorry about that :shame:
We banned slavery in one go.
I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 20:16
Sorry about that :shame:
I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.
Ajax
Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?
Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.
House Armed Services vote bans gay marriage on military bases (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/226583-house-lawmakers-ban-gay-marriage-on-military-bases-in-defense-bill)
On the same day that President Obama threw the weight of the White House in support of gay marriage, defense lawmakers in the House banned the practice from taking place on U.S. military bases.
Members of the House Armed Services committee voted to include the measure by Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) into the panel's version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill late Wednesday night.
The measure, which prevents "marriage or marriage-like ceremonies" between same-sex couples from taking place at American military bases, was approved by a 37 to 24 vote along party lines.
Republican panel members also approved language to protect military personnel from reprisals for expressing "their moral principles and religious beliefs... concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality."
That amendment, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was approved by a straight party-line vote of 36 to 25.
ajaxfetish
05-10-2012, 23:13
Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?
Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.
I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 23:23
I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.
Ajax
In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.
If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.
From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.
Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.
I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?
I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.
gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects.
Sounds like someone has read him some Edmund Burke (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/). Which is a good thing.
Papewaio
05-10-2012, 23:48
So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.
It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc
Love outranks Faith and Belief.
So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.
Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?
=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-10-2012, 23:52
So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.
It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc
Love outranks Faith and Belief.
So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.
Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?
=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.
All sex is a sin, because it is partley selfish.
Meh.
The Bible says that God permits ex within marriage solely because it produces children, so your argument holds no water.
Love of God is considered superior to all other forms of love, Faith is an expression of Godly Love, so that bit doesn't hold up either.
Papewaio
05-11-2012, 00:49
Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?
I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.
I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.
I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.
Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.
ajaxfetish
05-11-2012, 01:01
In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.
If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.
From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.
Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.
I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?
I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.
Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.
Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process. If their lifestyles and communities build to the level of pervasiveness and acceptance that homosexuality has, then things will gradually change for them, too. In the meantime, I suspect that nothing can be done for them. Something can be done for gays, and in many places, it is being done. I expect the rest of the country will eventually catch up, but NC for one is working hard to stay behind the times. Will the recognition of homosexual unions result in a perfect world where everyone is treated equally and we all can dance and sing together without any care? No. Will it result in a better world? I think so.
Sounds like someone has read him some Edmund Burke. Which is a good thing.
Actually, I must confess my ignorance of the man, though perhaps I should be reading up on him. Thanks for the link.
Ajax
PanzerJaeger
05-11-2012, 01:45
But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.
Does the bible actually (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D) say that?
Have you read the Church fathers or later theologians? Wyclif, Luther, Calvin? Pope John Pail II?
Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?
Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit. I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation. Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.
It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.
So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.
It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc
Love outranks Faith and Belief.
So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.
Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?
=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.Uh-huh. And, therefore, it's also a sin to force people to steal things. You're entrapping them by not willingly giving them whatever they want beforehand. :rolleyes:
ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2012, 05:41
Does the bible actually (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_“abomination”) say that?
Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?
Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit. I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation. Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.
It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.
The faith views homosexuality as abomination. You need to root out Christianity or edit the Bible to change that. You can wish that it said something different all you'd like, but it is crystal clear on the issue. Gay activity doesn't need the consent of Christianity it be allowed to exist legally. Certain types of relationships require the consent of the governed to be recognized as special. This is what we are talking about. You can ridicule the absurdities of the Bible all you'd like, but most Christians are trying to live their lives more in accordance with scripture rather than abandoning the parts that TV tells them are stupid. I don't disagree with scriptures interpretation of homosexuality personally, an neither did most people for most of history. If people are changing their minds on that, let them, but I'm not, and therefore why would I allow an unspecial relationship to receive my consent to be considered special? Your logic is flawed. You require me to passively ignore or positively affirm something which is abomination and I won't do it. Let people live the way they'd like and meet their maker with it on their conscience, I'm not going to hunt them down or bully them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinions on their actions because people, whose opinions I don't highly value, shame me to.
People who dress up like stuffed animals or have sex with toasters may feel compelled to do it in their private lives and I don't think that it should cause them to be fired unless it negatively affects their job, but the activity is ludicrous. If people want to do weird stuff to themselves or one another, make them close the blinds and don't send in the vice police. Just because we let things happen because they, arguably, don't hurt anyone else doesn't mean we are required to celebrate it. You are barking up the wrong tree with this one and I hope that you change targets to a more worthy cause.
"archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago"
I, for one, find it refreshing to see that you've picked sides and look forward to your descent into all-encompassing PC rhetoric.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-11-2012, 06:21
Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.
The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.
If 50% of promises were broken it wouldn't change the definition of promise. People should change their minds about what marriage is. They have to adapt to modern society.
If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation.
Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.
It's wrong to assume that the opposition to gay marriage is just bigotry, which is what these arguments boil down to.
It's perfectly reasonable to say "marriage law is about families, and we extend it to some couples who aren't going to have children only because there's no test for whether they will, and the often have accidental children anyway" and "the justification for marriage laws is that both parents have special obligations to their biological children, so adopting parents don't count". You can't have the attitude that since you don't see why someone would believe that reasoning, then their real reason must just be bigotry. It's also reasonable to oppose changing the law on grounds that it will lead to further changes.
You would just end up thinking that 60% of north carolinians are bigots, depressing. But not true by a long shot.
There are Polygamous/Ployamorous groupings in many Western countries, including homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The current proposition, that we should extend it to homosexuals because they form loving and stable relationships.
That's why we have to make sure the justification is not "because homosexuals can form loving and stable relationships". Anyway, I'm pretty skeptical about those polygamous relationships. The only evidence that such a relationship is stable would be enough of them lasting a life time. And if you want loving and stable, I think what we call love is a bit more obsessively focused on one person than those people acknowledge.
Crazed Rabbit
05-11-2012, 06:23
Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.
Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.
Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.
I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.
I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.
CR
HoreTore
05-11-2012, 08:02
An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?
There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.
Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.
Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.
I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.
I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.
CR
No, atheism is simply not believing anything. There is no god to not believe in.
HoreTore
05-11-2012, 08:24
No, atheism is simply not believing anything. There is no god to not believe in.
It's hard for religious people to accept that people are atheists, just like it's hard for an atheist to comprehend how someone can believe in the existance of a higher being.
When religous people try to explain atheism, they do so within their own set of terms, and generally try to describe it as some form of faith.
Ican't understand how someone can believe in a god, so I simply have to accept the fact that some people do. Religious people should do the same, and just accept that some people do not believe in anything. It seems like an impossible task for us to understand how the other thinks, so we shiuld just leave it at that.
It's hard for religious people to accept that people are atheists, just like it's hard for an atheist to comprehend how someone can believe in the existance of a higher being.
When religous people try to explain atheism, they do so within their own set of terms, and generally try to describe it as some form of faith.
Ican't understand how someone can believe in a god, so I simply have to accept the fact that some people do. Religious people should do the same, and just accept that some people do not believe in anything. It seems like an impossible task for us to understand how the other thinks, so we shiuld just leave it at that.
That would be the wisest thing to do but trolling the religious is outragiously fun
HoreTore
05-11-2012, 08:45
That would be the wisest thing to do but trolling the religious is outragiously fun
Of course.
I had a 30-minute discussion with two milfs from Jehovas Witnesses last week, from communism to the scientific model. Great fun!
Of course.
I had a 30-minute discussion with two milfs from Jehovas Witnesses last week, from communism to the scientific model. Great fun!
Asking them for a receipt for the message of christ never gets old either
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-11-2012, 10:58
Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?
Yes, masturbation was a bigger sin, still that does not mean that sex generally is not a sin.
I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.
I don't happen to dissagree with you, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sin in there.
I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.
I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.
Ever read the 7 Deadly Sins? They are all virtues in moderation. If you see Sin as an integral part of life, you accept it as part of the tapestry of existence. As to the childless couple, I refer you to Genesis.
Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that - if you mean the theory of £emergant properties" then I would counter that it's about as likely as a God-given soul.
Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.
There aren't as many Polyamorous couples however: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/20/newt-gingrich-open-marriage-polyamory
There are people. The Marquis of Bath has "wifelets", but he had to marry one of them to legitimise his heir, I can't imagine the others appreciated that.
Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process.
Ajax
Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.
Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?
Pretty recently - John and Luke tend to dissagree. In John and Matthew the disciples are called in a different order. Is that the sort of thing you were getting at?
Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit.
Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.
I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation.
I know you don't understand it - it isn't about the precise words, it's about the ideas they express, and its about the living Christian community which has existed uninterupted since the beginning. It doesn't matter if the words are exact and inscribed on gold tablets, human being will still misinterpret them.
Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.
I don't want to ban it, you want to create it; this is not a case of prohibiting something. I've already said I have no problem with a ceremony, even a religious one - but that doesn't make it a marriage.
It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.
Unless the Sheepherders were right. The fact is, if it was right then it's right now.
ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2012, 11:26
You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 12:14
An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?
There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.
lol...
when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?
ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2012, 12:23
lol... you are insane?
when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?
8=====> Horetore
Good one, L'Étranger.
But seriously, We still believe in lots of things with no scientific proof. That's why we call those things beliefs, vs just plain factual knowledge. Both are healthy to have in good measure when tempered with one another. Like the belief that you'll get better when you have serious end stage cancer, or the belief that people and "souls" are more than just complex sets of cell stimuli resulting in words and actions. Belief in the face of reality is a technology which we were either given by God or developed on our own (with the blueprints from God, I might add of course lol xoxo). Either way I view belief as positive things. Call it unchecked optimism if you'd like, either way it can fly in the face of reason.
My faith has helped me become less hostile and hate filled towards lots of different people/beliefs. Wrath is destructive and a sin. That doesn't mean that I just bleed out of my mangina when a puppy howls, but it does mean that I try to live and let live. It does not allow me to be complicit in the celebration of vice and this is what you are asking. You may not need my consent in order to hit the magic number of support, but I can assure you that I will not give it.
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 12:41
the belief comes before the knowledge anyway and even though some argue that this belief can be justified (troublesome concept) in retrospect, it can't be justified in advance without getting yourself tangled up in a neverending circle (which is basically Foundationalism and is widely accepted to be epistemologically untenable.) somewhere there has to be that first belief that justifies the next and this first one cant be justified (to keep it simple).
lol...
when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?
There was no scientific proof for quarks, Horetore is absolutely right here. Believing is assuming something exists. That is not science it's faith. Do with it what you want.
PanzerJaeger
05-11-2012, 12:53
The faith views homosexuality as abomination.
But did the Israelites? Did Paul (http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_did_jesus_say_about_homosexuality.html)? What about Jesus?
I know my words mean little to you, but you should be wary of Catholic doctrine. Even at its best, it has been written and conceived by humans with human frailties and human biases of the times. Even the Catholic church recognizes it, and they get together every couple hundred years and arbitrarily change it up. Remember, when the church takes a position on something regarding homosexuality, that position is not grounded in the words of Christ.
I don't disagree with scriptures interpretation of homosexuality personally, an neither did most people for most of history. If people are changing their minds on that, let them, but I'm not, and therefore why would I allow an unspecial relationship to receive my consent to be considered special? Your logic is flawed. You require me to passively ignore or positively affirm something which is abomination and I won't do it. Let people live the way they'd like and meet their maker with it on their conscience, I'm not going to hunt them down or bully them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinions on their actions because people, whose opinions I don't highly value, shame me to.
I do not require anything of you. I once expected that Christians would adhere to the traditional boundaries between church and state, but that was a long time ago. At this point, I'm just expressing my frustration with reality. There is something very un-American about the Vatican, Billy Graham, and the Mormon church coming together to pass constitutional amendments to keep a minority disenfranchised - or really anything at all. It is creepy and just not the role that religion should play in civil society.
People who dress up like stuffed animals or have sex with toasters may feel compelled to do it in their private lives and I don't think that it should cause them to be fired unless it negatively affects their job, but the activity is ludicrous. If people want to do weird stuff to themselves or one another, make them close the blinds and don't send in the vice police. Just because we let things happen because they, arguably, don't hurt anyone else doesn't mean we are required to celebrate it. You are barking up the wrong tree with this one and I hope that you change targets to a more worthy cause.
A lot of things Christians believe and do could objectively be described as weird and ludicrous. I do not know how any Christian with any knowledge at all about the early years of the religion could be so secure in his normalcy. It wasn't all that long ago that Christians were be fed to the lions as cultists. I think a little perspective is in order. Homosexuality has been naturally occurring in humans long before Christianity came into existence.
I, for one, find it refreshing to see that you've picked sides and look forward to your descent into all-encompassing PC rhetoric.
My side was chosen for me. The reaction to the normalization of homosexuality across the spectrum of Christian denominations has been illuminating. I once thought that Christianity was about love, but it is clear that it is all about hate, ignorance, and fear of the unknown.
You're morality comes from somewhere
Human empathy?
Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.
Understood.
ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2012, 13:03
Human empathy?
brilliant
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 13:08
There was no scientific proof for quarks, Horetore is absolutely right here. Believing is assuming something exists. That is not science it's faith. Do with it what you want.
what does this comment even have to do with what has been said...?
according to HoreTores logic if there is no scientific proof for it something does not exist... thats the implication of his comment:
there is no scientific proof of god, thus god does not exist.
belief in this case has nothing to do with it. (although believing can obviously also mean believing that something does not exist... and so we are nothing further.)
anyway i find it funny that this entire heated discussion is being held with vocabulary that nobody even agrees upon and with many concepts which do not have a satisfying definition that can stand up against "reasonable" critique.
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 13:09
sry dbl post
what does this comment even have to do with what has been said...?
according to HoreTores logic if there is no scientific proof for it something does not exist... thats the implication of his comment:
there is no scientific proof of god, thus god does not exist.
belief in this case has nothing to do with it. (although believing can obviously also mean believing that something does not exist... and so we are nothing further.)
Well everything really as your logic is flawed. If you reverse the argument there is nothing left for you
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 13:19
what...? you have to be less cryptic because you have lost me now.
I dont see how my logic is flawed because it is not my logic, it is horetore's logic and im merely pointing out the wider implications of his logic.
what...? you have to be less cryptic because you have lost me now.
I dont see how my logic is flawed because it is not my logic, it is horetore's logic and im merely pointing out the wider implications of his logic.
Which is absolutely awesome of you to do, and now I am going to open up a beer
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 13:25
Fragony, I'm sorry but you are being absolutely pointless today. Enjoy your beer :)
:O isnt it a bit early for beer?
Fragony, I'm sorry but you are being absolutely pointless today. Enjoy your beer :)
Classical mistake, you can't just decide that I'm being pointless, it really has to be true that I am pointless. Otherwise it is not real.
The Stranger
05-11-2012, 13:48
I can, I am a subjectivist. XD anyway, in my opinion, this is going nowhere, so I'll leave it at this.
Sir Moody
05-11-2012, 14:00
something relevant to the original thread that should hopefully give some hope for future sanity...
The last time North Carolina amended its consitutions on marriage It was to ban interracial marriage.
https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3rm4jpVeU1ql6jblo1_400.jpg
edit - damn someone beat me to it I see... knew I shouldnt have skipped a few pages in the thread :yes:
I can, I am a subjectivist. XD anyway, in my opinion, this is going nowhere, so I'll leave it at this.
Adieu
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-11-2012, 14:45
something relevant to the original thread that should hopefully give some hope for future sanity...
The last time North Carolina amended its consitutions on marriage It was to ban interracial marriage.
https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3rm4jpVeU1ql6jblo1_400.jpg
edit - damn someone beat me to it I see... knew I shouldnt have skipped a few pages in the thread :yes:
Except - oh never mind!
What's the point anyway?
Sasaki Kojiro
05-11-2012, 15:39
Except - oh never mind!
What's the point anyway?
It's the kind of non-argument that is really just people showing what side they are on. That's also why most political humor is unfunny to people who don't have an interest in doing that.
human empathy?
Why should I respect other peoples feelings just because I understand them? And if I also have a natural urge to spurn outsiders, empathy will have led me to observe that others people do as well.
Sir Moody
05-11-2012, 16:10
It's the kind of non-argument that is really just people showing what side they are on. That's also why most political humor is unfunny to people who don't have an interest in doing that.
Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-11-2012, 16:20
Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?
Your sexual preference are not the same as your race. One is a matter of outward appearence - the other is a mattert of how you choose to act. I say choose because despite your preferences your actions are choices.
Your example doesn't compute - especially in places where homosexual couples have access to all the same rights as heterosexuals, but the contract has a different name, like in the UK.
Sir Moody
05-11-2012, 16:33
Agreed but we aren't talking the UK - the UK pretty much HAS Gay Marriage in all but name - the US doesn't and more specifically its North Carolina that has banned it
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.