|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#21 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:46 PM
|
Quote:
but mine cannot ever be? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
ever be what? A civil marriage? If the laws change/endorse a new definition of marriage - then you will have that.
If you are referring to a "spiritual" act, then I fall in line with Barack Obama when he states that "God is in the mix" during this "union between a man and a woman." |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
Quote:
My definition is superior to yours, AEON, because it is. It doesn't hide behind Jesus, it includes people who love each other, and it answered the damn question. Unlike yours. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
Quote:
You are so lazy!! You never really give him a real answer. You just quote Obama all the time. Man up and admit to him and the rest of us that you really do think he is somehow inferior. Maybe we'd all have a little more respect for you if you'd just admit it. Sheesh. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:46 PM
|
Quote:
are you surprised, then, when people call the position you've advocated a bigoted one? that because you cannot defend your position in a secular manner, you have to resort to notions of "God" and what may or may have not been said -- itself very shaky theology, as you have pointed out in response to Melon's posts -- and so you are using that which cannot be logically challenged "God says it's so" in order to defend a position that cannot be logically sustained. and subsequently, since bigotry itself defies logic, how can we not arrive at the conclusion that your position is bigoted, most likely because it is rooted in your own professed ignorance? you have no secular argument, AEON, nor have you tried to make one. doesn't this underscore the fundamental weakness of your position? shouldn't your own experience, your own critical faculties, your own assessment of what's real here and now trump whatever fundamentalist abstractions you're able to concoct when in the company of people who wish to believe the same thing you do? aren't we correct when we say that religion is (as ever) being used as the vehicle by which to justify that which by any other name we would call discrimination and bigotry? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 08:46 PM
|
So, two people who both profess to have absolutely no belief in God - flat out deny his existence - are ok, because you believe God enters the room anyway. But two people who may even have a strong belief in God are out simply because they're the same gender.
Do you not see how irrational that is, Aeon? |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:46 PM
|
Quote:
my guess -- and AEON can speak for himself -- is that whether or not those two people choose to believe in God, he is still there. still, doesn't it seem creepy that there's some sort of metaphysical threesome going on? i would like to know the answer to this -- yes, it is true that the union of a man and a woman could possibly (but not always) result in the creation of a new human being from the two parties. i can get that. i can see how that could be considered spiritual. but, then, don't we have to put all non-procreative sex, or any sex outside the bond of marriage, on the same level as homosexual sex? because if we don't do that, then we have to say that no matter who's doing it or what it's for, two 15 year old kids fucking in the woods is more spiritual than two lesbians who've been together for 20 years doing it on their wedding night in Northampton, MA. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:46 PM
|
Don't you mean civil union night?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
Quote:
It's exhausting, if no one is really willing to answer questions and come up with an intelligent reason then I'm out... ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | ||||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 10:46 PM
|
Quote:
SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE: CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS Quote:
But the main reason I'm bringing up this page is that "liberal Christian theologians" would argue that there is evidence of positive same-sex relations, not entirely cognate with modern homosexuality (as, again, it is as futile as seeking Plato's approval for representative democracy over a millennium before it existed), but in keeping with Ancient Near East custom. In the case of David and Jonathan, you can argue all day as to whether the relationship was sexual or not, but I believe that's the wrong preoccupation. There is no doubt that substantial love between the two men is present. Quote:
Indeed, there is an argument that David and Jonathan's relationship was "homosocial"--that is, a same-sex relationship with a strong emotional bond, but not of a sexual nature--but one researcher who has advocated this stance, Martti Nissinen, ultimately concluded: Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | ||
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,449
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
I really don't want to elaborate much on this topic
![]() I did vote 'no' on the Maine question, but I'm still unconvinced by either side. The posts that financeguy made pretty much sum up my position: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 10:46 PM
|
Well, it goes without saying that I agree that religious texts should have no bearing whatsoever on law, although I do believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, as concluded in "Loving v. Virginia" in 1967, which vacated laws against interracial marriage.
I must admit that, from an intellectual perspective, I have a particular interest in history, philosophy, and theology, and so I guess it is quite easy for me to fall into one of those traps, even if it has only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand! |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,449
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
^ The detail you put into your posts is appreciated.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:46 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:46 AM
|
I'm not really interested in jumping back into this discussion -- I'm of two minds on this issue -- but if we're going to be intellectually honest, your application of "Loving v. Virginia" is incorrect (or at the very least, beyond the definition of the case), since its decision was solely constrained to the racial issue, as debated and ruled two years later by "Baker v. Nelson"'s decision when applied to this specific issue.
__________________ |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) | FallingStar | PLEBA Archive | 147 | 07-28-2003 03:01 PM |
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) | CMM | Interference Gatherings | 80 | 04-14-2003 10:02 PM |
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. | Johnny Swallow | Lemonade Stand Archive | 8 | 03-07-2003 04:53 PM |
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) | sulawesigirl4 | Lemonade Stand Archive | 61 | 01-05-2003 03:29 PM |
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto | WildHonee | PLEBA Archive | 9 | 11-02-2001 07:36 PM |