Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2008, 12:32 AM   #391
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Whoah. For a Christian (or any other) denomination to recognise that divorce does, on occasion happen, strikes me as very good and realistic idea, frankly. It is certainly more cognisant of reality than the Roman Catholic church's unrealistic and dogmatic position on the issue - and, for that matter on several other issues of sexuality and social policy. For example, I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic church's absurd ban on married priests is partially linked to that church's despicable and disgusting record of sheltering child abusers.

Anyway - as we seem to be in the business of making value judgements on various sects within Christianity - in my opinion, speaking as a committed non-believer, the 'best' (as in, least harmful) form of religion is liberal mainstream Protestantism. The rightwing variants of Protestantism, and the Roman Catholic Church, to me, are equally as harmful as each other, in their different ways.
There is that consistent undercurrent of antisexualism, bad attitudes that spawn child rapists.

But they keep going back to their original playbook and have the gays be the scapegoat.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 01:20 AM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

I'm now going to the gym, good day.

<>


be careful --- there might be gays there who are all trying to get a good, long look at diamond's diamond.



you know we find you irresistible, and we know we'll teach you this learned, voluntary behavior yet.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 01:30 AM   #393
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

The earlier posts in this thread by an (apparent?) polygamist beg the question, and are perhaps a harbinger of things to come. We would be foolish not to think ahead about the ramifications of fundamental core re-definitions.



were you unsatisfied with the consistent, coherent rebuttals of the argument?

an argument can be made for polyamorous relationships, but these are quite distinct arguments from marriage equality.


Quote:
I'm skeptical of this notion that romantic love was not a defining factor for marriage until the 19th century (there's several thousand years of love poetry working against this notion -- though I'd agree that this may have been true for royalty and the social elite, who clearly used marriage as a tool for procuring and consolidating power), but neither a shift from arranged marriage nor interracial marriage didn't redefine marriage at the core -- one man/one woman -- level.
that's an interesting thought, but as an english major, i'd have to argue that much of this love poetry has more to do with Romeo and Juliette-style infatuation than with long, lasting, solidified love that develops between two people who generally view each other as equals and are committed to a harmonious union.

what i am skeptical of is how man/woman is more the "core" of marriage than white/white or jew/jew, or montague/montague in the scheme of things. you might argue that the "traditional" definition of marriage was about creating a safety net for children born of heterosexual unions and a means of taking care of the surfeit of unwanted offspring due to heterosexual sex. that i can understand. but, today, with birth control and any number of other family planning, i fail to see any sort of difference between two voluntarily childless straight people and two gay people, nor do i see any difference between two gay people who want to adopt and two straight people who want to adopt.

you see, technology -- for lack of a better word -- has made pregnancy a nearly totally voluntary condition. people have children out of choice (usually), and often *choose* to do so within the institution of marriage. and many people *choose* never to have children, or they choose to remarry after having children and divorcing.

please tell me, nathan, why a gender difference in marriage matters if a couple chooses never to procreate? or why it matters at all in a modern context?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 02:13 AM   #394
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Re: love as a basis for marriage--it's true that it's impossible to pinpoint any one century as 'the' time when that became a universal standard in our culture. Historians generally rely heavily on sources like spousal litigation records from ecclesiastical courts for information about non-elite marriage in the pre-modern period, and what those sources seem to indicate is a gradual progression from consent (mostly to arranged marriages) as the basis for marriage in the High Middle Ages (11th-13th cen.), to love as the basis for marriage by around the 17th century (except among the wealthy and powerful, who often continued to practice arranged marriage). If you have access to an academic database, it's not difficult to quickly locate a generous handful of scholarly articles on this topic. Love poetry is highly unreliable as historical source material, since it's not intended to accurately portray the practical application of social customs; I'd point to India as a particularly clear-cut example of that--arranged marriage unambiguously was and is the norm there, yet love poetry has just as long a pedigree in their major literary languages as it does in ours, and romantic love, while in practice traditionally seen as self-indulgent-bordering-on-sleazy, is in literature (and for that matter, Bollywood) constantly idealized, as exhilarating emotional states often are in art and literature the world over.

Also, Re: polygamy in Roman-era Judaism and early Christianity--while polygamy wasn't actually banned in Roman law until 212 AD, yes, it definitely wasn't a Greco-Roman custom (though concubinage certainly was); and, yes, this undoubtedly had a strong influence on both Jewish and Christian views of polygamy, both at the time and in subsequent Christian history. The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus noted the practice of polygamy among the Herodian kings and the very wealthy, but seems to treat it almost as a curiosity, despite his awareness of its long history among the Jews; and the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that both the Hillelite Pharisees and the Essenes opposed polygamy, quite possibly largely due to contemporary Roman influence.



I am still really having trouble understanding how the shifts to romantic love as the basis for freely choosing one's spouse, and to equal rights for women, DON'T constitute 'core' redefinitions of marriage. As Irvine just touched on, the 'penis + vagina definition' obviously refers to marriage in its aspect as a means of formally continuing kinship outside bloodlines--but mutual personal fulfillment is just as obviously central to our present definition...as our expectations of choice in spouse, right of the woman to work outside the home, and right to decide whether and when to have children together all clearly show. Unless one's intent is to restrict marriage solely to couples who are A) physically capable of conceiving a child together and B) willing to take some sort of oath of intent to do so, then it really makes no sense to insist on 'penis + vagina' as 'core' to the definition. Granted, if our social reference point were Israel 3000 years ago, then a case could be made that there's no double standard--but only because adult life for almost everyone then meant: you marry the (wo)man your parents choose, conceive and raise numerous children together, and if you don't much like your spouse or your 'job', well, too bad for you; suck it up, you're hardly the only one unhappy. Marriage (and parenting) will never be nonstop bliss, human relationships seldom are; but fortunately for us we live in a time and place where those duties can be freely chosen and shared, and grounded in joy and gratitude for having found each other.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 04:44 AM   #395
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:39 PM
I can have so much fun in this thread, but I realize the volaitilty of the subject so I won't.


I will post a few items for clarifacations sake.

The reason for the post of the horse movie was to make a point that their are actually some people who called for the death of the horse involved in the deaths of the 3 zoo-men who died of perforated colons.

I thought that would be wrong, the horse wasn't at fault for the men who engaged the horse in these actions and for the knee jerkers in this thread to extrapolate that I was implying that gay sex and beastialty were equivilent; well you've been had again and you're wrong once again.

The men are dead which is sad, and I'm sure the horse has moved on with his life.

Two consenting adults engaging in sexual activities falls within their civil rights, however it still can't be called marriage even if they're in a LTR, because marriage by it's definition involves people of opposite genders, period. Accept that truth and the gay community can move forward more quickly reaping the benefits of the hetrosexual community.

If you dont:

You'll have a better chance of convincing me a zebra is a horse, a condo is a house, or a Vespa a motorcycle. You can argue all day long about how they each are the same, but they're different, and some have better benefits than one another, but none of the 3 examples are exactly equivilent to eachother.

Feel free to wake me up when either of the above examples become truth.

Oh an as an aside the scripture is silent if Jesus was married or not. It's interesting that Mary M was the first one to witness his ressurecton, and Jesus had many women who loved him. Most Jewish men in the 1st century were married, and many practiced polygamy.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 05:18 AM   #396
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Justifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual concept isn't an answer, it is a hollow appeal to tradition. Just because marriage has been exclusively heterosexual does not mean it shouldn't be a homosexual institution too.

Marriage is a contract that guarantees recognition of a relationship under the law and is a commitment between partners. It is not inexorably bound to procreation (and even if that were the case that argument is hollow in the face of lesbian mothers, children from previous marriages and gay adoption). All the arguments against seem rooted in bigotry; and it is systematic, when the argument that its unnatural fails it turns to homosexuality being harmful which turns to homosexual relationships not being a good environment for children which turns to children being at risk of being bullied for having same-sex parents. The consistent backpeddling from justifying sodomy laws supporting state discrimination by the anti-gay element contrasts to the more consistent principles of equality by supporters of gay rights.

The state has no role moralising over peoples consensual partners; it is illegal for the government to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and that principle does extend to marriage. Just because it offends your concept of what marriage means is not a reason to keep it illegal, equal treatment under the law demands it.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 08:58 AM   #397
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Justifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual concept isn't an answer, it is a hollow appeal to tradition. Just because marriage has been exclusively heterosexual does not mean it shouldn't be a homosexual institution too.

Marriage is a contract that guarantees recognition of a relationship under the law and is a commitment between partners.
Male and femal partners, oh selective one.

Im not oppose to homosexual unionizing and I've made that patently clear thru out the discussion.

And for you, my progressive minded athetist I promise never to infer or argue that a cromagmon man is equivilent to or greater than a neandrathal-no matter how similar their traits and habits.

Now am I a caveman basher/hater?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 09:18 AM   #398
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Neanderthals had bigger brains; the justification still isn't there, the burden of proof is on those opposed to gay marriage, and it doesn't matter if you support their right to have sex or civil unions because it is still unequal to the rights afforded to heterosexuals.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:02 AM   #399
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
because it is still unequal to the rights afforded to heterosexuals.
how so?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:07 AM   #400
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Because partners in a civil union are not married, it is a separate but equal solution that exists to protect some peoples religiously based concept of marriage; but in the laws of a secular state that religious concept isn't enforced upon everybody.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:18 AM   #401
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Because partners in a civil union are not married, it is a separate but equal solution that exists to protect some peoples religiously based concept of marriage; but in the laws of a secular state that religious concept isn't enforced upon everybody.
Wrong.

That's not what I'm proposing or much of progressive conservative movement.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:25 AM   #402
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
What are you proposing?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:58 AM   #403
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:39 PM

i suggest you reread the thread.

(it really comes down to nothing more than a discussion about semantics).



<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 11:13 AM   #404
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
I want clarification, do you support or oppose gays and lesbians being allowed to enter into marriage contracts. It is more than just semantics.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 02:57 PM   #405
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:39 AM
There are no legitimate non-religious reasons



but there is plenty of this stuff:

Quote:
Protestors Picket Local Church

POSTED: 11:22 pm EDT April 24, 2008

REDFORD, Mich. -- Some Redford community members are planning to protest outside of the Covenant Community Church Sunday because of controversial message written on a sign outside the church.

"God can save homosexuals from their sin," the sign reads for all to see as people drive down Beech Daly Road, near 5 Mile Road.

A Redford woman said she was offended by the message because the church is openly placing judgment on the people.

"If they want to preach whatever they want to preach behind the doors of the church-- that's fine with me, but to bring it out and put it in public like that for everyone to see – it's unfair to the rest of the community," said Courtney Antuna with her girlfriend by her side.

The pastor of the church, Rev. Cole Westwood told Local 4 that the sign represents that it's always best to have a loving mother and father.

Westwood said the message comes from "Scripture, 1Corinthians 6:9-11, and it's a message of hope."

Protesters said they will rally in front of the church every Sunday until the sign comes down. However, Sunday may be the first and last day of protest because Westwood said they often change the sign and they plan to change the message Monday.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)



9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com