Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/06/04 12:36:39
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
focusedfire wrote: Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?
Please don't change the context of the statement you quoted. I'm talking about your use of "the religious", which is clearly much narrower than your later defense of "it's everyone" claims, not saying that only Christians would be affected by gay marriage.
Ah, no. You don't get to dictate the intent and meaning of how i am using the term and from what contest it is derived. You might be able to bully the impressionable kiddies with your hate speech and propaganda tricks(Yes, propaganda. As in control the language and control the debate/argument/people.) but not me. Really, take that weak as junior debate trash back your freshman year where you learned it.
Peregrine wrote:
focusefire wrote:Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.
I know other groups can be affected, and I don't care. In fact I enjoy the thought of repulsive bigots, whatever their religion may be, being forced to watch as the world changes around them and they are helpless to do anything but pray to their imaginary gods and whine about how persecuted they are.
Thanks for showing your true colours. Of, course, you will probably get what you wish for.....just with the universes usual twisted irony. I mean that we have already established by your own words that you are a religious individual and that you feel that all religious people are hateful bigots.
Time will be the ultimate justice for you and your bigotry.
Peregrine wrote:
A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example.
No, you just don't understand how proof works. And honestly, I've done this debate enough times already, so I'm not going to get dragged into it again. By the standards we apply to everything but religious claims "hell doesn't exist" is indisputable fact, just like "1+1 is not equal to 5". You can argue bad philosophy all you want (which, btw, doesn't impress anyone over about 20 or so), but all you're doing is nitpicking the definition of "proof" and coming up with your own version that is only used to win forum arguments.
Typical, when confronted with the actual facts of how the scientific method works you try to shout it down and cast it as a philosophical statement. Btw, Noticed that you edited out where I explained what proper research methodology is......but go on. The world has to be just how you dictate it to be, regardless of your inability to provide any proof. Will warn you though, your showing and almost fundamentalist level of faith here.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.
No, you just don't bother reading what I said. I specifically said that not all religious people are guilty of it, so don't go whining about bigotry just because I consider hell a morally appalling concept (as should anyone with a functioning sense of morality). You're the only one who seems to think that I'm talking about all religious people, rather than just the ones who threaten their kids with hell if they don't obey.
A) Who determines when such story telling and warnings of punishment go from education and morality building to "torture"? You? .....Just because you might of had a bad experience with a religious person doesn't make them all bad. I mean, would you have the same attitude against another race just because someone of that race did something that you considered hurtful?
B)If you want me to stop thinking that you don't mean to apply your hatred to all religious groups then be more specific and stop using my general term. Go ahead, single out the group that you hate, Tell us what you would do with them if you had the chance. Is it the Christians? You keep trying to turn my general non-offensive blanket term for those with strong religious beliefs into being just about Christians. Go ahead, instead of trying to misuse my term, use your own words......or, "Would that be too revealing?".
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?
Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair.
Well, at least you're honest. Though I really don't know why I'm bothering to have a discussion with someone that thinks that it's ok to go back to the days of "whites only" policies and just hope that the free market will magically fix everything.
Well, one of us has to be. If you feel so strongly about business turning people away due to their ethnicity and culture then why aren't you raging against Nightclubs that don't let people in because they "fit" the clubs atmosphere.?
Let me guess, its only a problem when a white person does it to someone from another race....but it's ok to turn the white boys away from a hip-hop club or a suburbanite middle class-er away from the latest hipster joint.
Businesses discriminate about there clientele all the time. They just cloak it in terms that cover their ass. Terms like "dress code"(Not people without shoes, talking about elitist clubs demanding certain styles of clothes) and "disruptive presence"(Not someone making a nuisance of themselves, just a person viewed as intimidating to the other guests because his/her appearance contrasts so sharply with the normal clientele 0.
I also find it amusing that you think that society would some how instantly revert back to 1950' america without these laws. I think such an assumption is incorrect. We live in a different world , a world where i believe that social media makes such laws redundant. If a business does something that society doesn't like the twitter-sphere lights up about it. This is one of the few redeeming qualities of social media imo. It can be a great tool for supporting/protecting consumers from abuse.
Basically, let society and free enterprise handle the problem. If someone won't sell to you, there will be someone else who only sees the colour green(or rainbow monopoly money with the $100 bills.
Now, lets play the, "Would you discriminate?", game.
Lets say you own an atheist themed nightclub and a group of people from a certain faith showed up with their holy books/texts in hand and sat down in your club. They order pay their two drink minimum and order sodas. They then stay to themselves while conversing and comparing notes. Your regular clients get upset. What do you do?
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:While I am glad to see that your hatred of the Christians hasn't pushed you to this point, there are other groups willing to go after various religious groups just for this reason. When the NAACP does something like this, you can bet that the Anti-religious groups will start filings such lawsuits en mass.
So because some people can file ridiculous lawsuits we should refuse to do anything that could possibly provoke one? That's absolutely insane.
Also, I notice how we've gone from "get sued because your store is closed on the wrong day" to "get sued because your clinic, which provides important medical services and receives government funding to provide those services, does a poor job of providing them". Do you actually have any examples of private businesses that don't have government ties (which often come with obligations attached) facing lawsuits simply because they are closed on religious holidays? Or is the idea that gay marriage means getting sued for taking holidays off just a ridiculous slippery slope argument?
Not just some people, the NAACP. A group that has been one of the leaders in the fight against discrimination. Where they go, many others will follow. And it doesn't matter if you think the lawsuit is ridiculous. Filing harassing law suits is an age old tactic usede to bully businesses into caving versus bearing the legal costs.
Also, there was a time when filing a lawsuit against the cigarette companies was considered ridiculous because warnings had been on the packages for about 25-30 years. People were properly warned about the hazards and the companies followed the laws. All it takes is one judge that wants to make history.
Also, correction, The clinic in question was a dental clinic. A bit different from the medical clinic yours misrepresenting it to be. If it is a dental emergency then they can go to the christian or atheist dentist on Saturdays. Also realize that you don't know what for of governmental money the clinic took. Is it payments for working on county prisoners? Working on officers? We don't have those details and it shouldn't matter. Unless you want to imminent domain peoples days off
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Go..back..and..re-read..the..end..of..what..you..quoted. This subject was a reply to another poster about how state ratified same-sex marriage would interact with current anti-discrimination laws in a way that would force private individuals and businesses to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Your inability to see how these interact and relate comes across like you are "compartmentalizing". You might want to work on that.
Sigh.
Nothing. To. Do. With. Gay. Marriage. Gay marriage is 100% official and equal to every other marriage? No change. Gay marriage is completely banned? No change. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and I don't know why you think it is a relevant example.
Ah, think I see the problem. Your earlier lack of understanding about scientific principals is at play here. I am arguing a case of cause and effect. It says as much in what you quoted.
Same Sex "marriage" creates the problem due to its interaction with many current anti-discrimination laws.
My point is that with no same sex marriage there would have been no need for a cake to celebrate such, No cake means the baker/bakery doesn't get asked to support something that she/they believe is against her/their religious beliefs. Thus no lawsuit that amounts to you believe different so you should be punished.
And that's what gets me. For people screaming about intolerance, you and others with your position seem to have very little tolerance your selves. The Bakery wasn't rude nor did they engage in any form of homophobic speech. They just said it wasn't something they could support.
Of course, with some of your comments in other threads, I understand that you probably don't believe in or support the concept free choice
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:It would seem that it would be under the state and federal rules.
So do you have those rules, or are you just assuming that the church is right?
From what information I can glean it was a case of Defeasible Fees. But that the city claimed that they could enforce the zoning that came from paying the fees after they stopped paying, even though the history in these cases have been pretty clear that once payments stop the property and its uses revert entirely back to the owner.
For Sebster:
Spoiler:
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote: By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.
Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.
The religious get to live their lives as they please, same as everyone else. But the second they start to try and use their morality to tell other people how to live their lives, they get told no, same as everyone else.
Not really, Their rights are constantly being challenged and infringed upon. Admittedly, such infringements normally come from public school and private business policies trying to avoid lawsuits by appeasing the crusading Atheists....still, there is enough for those of us that aren't overly religious to have some empathy.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.
Nope, not a 'no true scotsman' argument. Just a simple fething acceptance of reality that there has never been a purely religious marriage, that had no legal meaning re children, inheritance etc. Never happened. So claiming that marriage is religious is a very silly fiction.
Before I give answers that prove the falseness of your claim, how about we set the goal posts firmly. You have a tendency to try and move them when someone comes up with a good rebuttal.
What do you mean by purely religious? I just want to know if you will claim that my examples don't count because they fail to fulfill the governmental secular definitions of legal. 'Cause that would be a perfect example of a True Scottsman argument. If you are arguing that they in order for it to be a purely religious marriage then you can't bring in secular law as an argument against.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.
Gibberish. The relationship between a parent and a child is intensely close and personal, and yet government is involved because of course it is, because child welfare is an essential duty of the state, as is childcare and so on.
Similarly, it is an essential part of government to determine inheritance and define where household assets and private assets begin and end (because determining property rights are a key part of government). And so, yeah, obviously government is going to be involved in marriage, just as they always have been.
This is a basic thing that can't be argued.
A)Not even close to a relevant argument, Government involvement in the parent-child relationship is an "after the fact" regulatory measure to protect the rights of those to little or young to defend themselves. The parents didn't have to go get a license to have the kid. Now if this was about Chinese population regulation laws there might be a connection, but their laws were a matter of economic necessity and are now being eased a bit.. But, as the current discussion goes your off by a few thousand miles.
B)Inheritance does not equal marriage. I don't understand why you continue to conflate the two. The governments involvemnt has nothing to do with the "union" and everything to do with properties and taxes. I also refuse to accept your assertion that the government has always been involved in marriage. It is a patently false claim. The governments have usually been involved in the business aspect of when two people join property and finances, they couldn't careless about the personal and intimate reasons why two people are uniting. The tradition of how people wed proves this. People would marry in a religious ceremony and then file the paperwork as to who got what for which separately.
C)Apparently, this basic thing can be argued because your asserted facts are erroneous and subsequent summation is flawed by the such assumption.
sebster wrote:
Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick.
Really? You want to start listing all the instances in which a couple married by a government authorised agent had that marriage refused by one or more churches, and government then backed down on that marriage? I mean, I'll take one example. Because god-damn you just claimed some crazy nonsense.
Really, guess your not big on your European history. Huh?
Remember the Reformation period, where Catholics refused to acknowledge Protestant marriages and the Protestants doing the same on Catholic ones?
You can argue that the churches "never" had authority over the act of marriage until your blue in the face, but it won't change European history......especially English history.
Quick question, What is the almost unanimously agreed upon reason for the creation of the Anglican church by Henry VIII?
Yep, He was married by the catholic church and they wouldn't give him an annulment.
So, Did he just make a law that allowed him to get an annulment and then re-wed without any religious meddling? I mean, he was king after all.
No? You mean to say that he went to all the trouble to found an entire new religion in order to do such.
Point being, that if Henry VIII had to found a new religion just to get the legal room to do his wife shuffle then I would maybe back off the "church have never had the
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.
These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..
I don't think there's much practicality in your suggestion, to be honest. The idea of couples sitting down to negotiate domestic union contracts, and then returning to the negotiating table every so often after that sounds like something from a really bad 60s sci-fi novel, back when it seemed like a certain portion of sci-fi forgot that people acted like people, not as weird robot things that would act however your utopia needed them to.
I mean, I agree that aid to married couples in helping them life as a single household is essential, but you can do that simply by subsidizing or mandating couples counseling before marriage. That's what happens here in Oz, and because my wife and I got a Catholic marriage then a Catholic counseling service was used, and it was a really positive and useful experience. Other churches have their own services, and there's non-denominational services as well as that.
While I am glad to see that there is some common ground between us concerning young couples needing better preparation for marriage, I can't help but note that you have a very euro-centric post-Victorian romantic view on the concept of marriage.
What I am getting at is that before the Victorian notion of romance took hold, marriages were negotiated as I describe. The business detail were hammered out and once everything was agreed upon then the couple had the ceremony that they wanted/could afford/was traditional. They separated the law from the ceremony. This style of marriage and the practice of arranged marriages is still going strong in many parts of the world. There has even been a fair bit of research that suggests that couples from arranged marriages are might be happier than passion/romance based ones.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".
Which is Leviticus, and you should be familiar with the biblical argument that means Leviticus is no longer law. If you aren't, you really need to go and read Apostles, go read about Peter right now.
Anyhow, in terms of clobber verses about slavery, there's plenty.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom."
I've read the book several times cover to cover and did a bit of studying on it because there were questions that the book brings up. Not being particularly religious myself and having an analytical approach to the overall story arc is very liberating and enlightening......though most Christians would find my views blasphemous at best.
You see, I find it interesting that you direct me to "apostles". A subsequent compilation of the works of the very fallible individuals that followed the one now erroneously know as Jesus*. When reading the bible(especially the New Testament) as a story, some glaring contradictions pop up.
These contradictions seem to stem from an attempt by Paul's creation(The man-made physical church) to co-opt the non-materialistic spiritual movement, that Jesus* started, into a powerful political organization. Seriously, If you highlight Jesus's quoted statements of how to minister in the"Gospels" and then read Paul's teachings you should note that Paul contradicts almost every direction that Jesus had given.
These contradictions, and that the fact that Paul started off as a Roman paid persecutor of the Christians who was put out of work at the death of Jesus*, is why I view him as one of the false anti-christs/prophets that Jesus warned would soon come and to be wary of.
I mean, I love the part where Paul gets Pink-Eye and just sits around for a few days until someone comes by and washes his eyes "in Jesus's name". I laughed hard at that miracle and how stupidly trusting the apostles were.
tldr; point is that the part that you are referencing about Peter is from a post Jesus time frame where Paul manages to assume the mantle of leadership. A time that lead to contradicting where "Jesus" said "I have not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it." and" To Love the Lord and kepp his Commandments"
It is ironic that almost everything that people criticize Christians and Christ for are actually the teaching of someone Jesus never met. If you take just the Gospels that contain the teachings of "Jesus" it is a decent philosophy of cooperation and love. Very similar to the teachings of Gandhi and Buddha in that you are to treat your neighbors as you wish to be treated. If the New testament just stopped at the Gospels I might have been tempted towards Christianity......If it wasn't for the whole awkward my ancestors crucified him thing.
Note* Jesus is a latin word/name that was translated somewhere between his death and the councel of Nicea, but try and tell the average Christian that his name was actually "Yeshua" and that Christ isn't a name but a translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah". So the real name was Yeshua ben Yosef ivrim Messiah(Yeshua son of Yosef the Messiah).
As to the slaves thing, Big difference in saying "you may" and "you shall". Difference between simple permission to engage in the realities of the time and a commandment that makes is a must do
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".
This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.
Actually, the exact same reason that Christianity is not a list of rules is why that particular verse can't be accepted at face value. Go and read the Apostles. Read about Peter's vision, understand that while his vision was literally just about food, afterwards he reacted by inviting a Roman in to his home. Because the line "You must stop calling unclean what God has made clean" is an extraordinary powerful, great line.
And Peter got it. He understood that it meant he doesn't get to chase some false purity anymore, he doesn't get to moralise and place himself above others. When he awoke from his vision he welcome Cornelius, the gentile, the roman, in to his home.
But of course, Peter is a Saint so he understood the truth of things in a way that others don't. Most of the people who followed were just regular folk, and they missed the point rather terribly. Those regular folk figured that story just meant that now they were allowed to eat bacon and shrimp, but to carry on shunning people. Even when it meant they were calling unclean those people that God had made clean.
It's a shame that all Christians can't be as great as Peter.
Peter was an idiot, as the story goes, he is proof that Jesus and God had a sense of humour. There is one point where Peter screws up yet again and "Jesus" consoles him by saying "Peter, You are my rock". When read as a whole, the morale that could be taken from "Jesus's" counsel is that while Peter is dumb as a rock, a rock does have the virtue of stability. Basically, it is what it is and that Peter was what he was.
Again, it is interesting that you quote from a section of Paul rather than from one of "Jesus's" quotes. The difference is night and day when you focus on "Jesus's" actual teachings versus Paul's contradictions.
But hey, to each their own. I found the book to be an interesting story with some points of wisdom and a moral of how in idea is pure but once you try to build a man made structure around it the idea gets corrupted. Others find it to be the word of god verbatim(despite it having been translated) and others will hate the book for even existing. We each have our own interpretation and idea that should be respected.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship.
Giving in to bigots is never the smart move. Especially when the bigots are losing. Then it is both the dumb move, and the pissweak move.
Sooo, in essence, your statement could also be read as-......" Now the Various opposition groups have gotten their legal act together and have start to push back against these intrusions by the secularists they would be crazy to offer compromise". Especially when the pendulum of American politics is starting to swing back their way.
You see, I am old enough to have seen the country swing several times and each time it goes back the opposite way a little harder. I attribute this to the extremists on each side trying to shove hard enough to break the system while it is weighted in their sides favour. Thing is if they can't get it stuck in their favour then the backlash is horrible to behold. I am as against the idealized McArthy-esque fascist mindset as I am against an Orwellian(1984) fascist mindset. Any future that mandates that we all march to the same drum beat is not a good one imo. I'd much prefer that we started acting with the maturity of our fore fathers and learned to compromise. Compromise takes care of the vast majority, slows the pendulum swing and stops the shoving match before anyone gets hurt to badly.
For everyone that doesn't want to read through massive walls of Text. Simply this:
Sebster contends that Marriage has never been the sole purview of the religious. My counter is that in the case of the Christians there is one very strong bit of evidence from European history that argues otherwise. The reformation period.
More accurately the initial reason for the Creation of the Anglican Church/Church of England. It was Henry VIII that wanted to annul his marriage and remarry yet again in order to try and produce a male heir. Seems easy. Right? I mean he was the King after all. Between him and Parliament it should be done in a couple days.
Nope, He had to petition the Catholic Church and when they said no, He went and created a whole religion. If Marriage was "never the sole purview of the Church, "Then why did Henry VIII create a new religion just in order to divorce and remarry?".
Now yes, things have changed over time in some areas but not so much in religious beliefs. My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/04 12:59:06
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09
If they are too stupid to live, why make them?
In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!
Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know)
2014/06/04 13:32:54
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
That's a pretty specific anectdotal example, given from a place and time where Church and State were much more intertwined than they are in present and past periods of Western civilization.
I don't think that anyone would contend that for people that are compelled or volunteer to be part of this or that given religious intitution, that there aren't rules about marriage within those institutions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote: My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
As the old saying goes, respect is earned, not given away. If marriage was defined by a particular institution as between an adult and a child (present and past examples are plentiful), should we respect those beliefs, too? Of course not, and legally, we do not (at least in the US).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/04 13:37:40
2014/06/04 14:29:11
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
For everyone that doesn't want to read through massive walls of Text. Simply this:
Sebster contends that Marriage has never been the sole purview of the religious. My counter is that in the case of the Christians there is one very strong bit of evidence from European history that argues otherwise. The reformation period.
More accurately the initial reason for the Creation of the Anglican Church/Church of England. It was Henry VIII that wanted to annul his marriage and remarry yet again in order to try and produce a male heir. Seems easy. Right? I mean he was the King after all. Between him and Parliament it should be done in a couple days.
Nope, He had to petition the Catholic Church and when they said no, He went and created a whole religion. If Marriage was "never the sole purview of the Church, "Then why did Henry VIII create a new religion just in order to divorce and remarry?".
Now yes, things have changed over time in some areas but not so much in religious beliefs. My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
In case you missed it earlier:
In the 12th and 13th Century, the common man didn't have to really do ANYTHING to show he was married within the Church. It simply didnt exist. What started happening was that various nobles, starting with kings, queens and emperor types would contact the local priest, bishop or archbishop to have a ceremony done so that God would look upon them favorably, and show the masses that God approved of their marriage (and by extension, their rule) Gradually, this washed down to the lesser nobles, and eventually the commoner could do this as well. It didn't take long for the Church to realize they had a good racket going on, and began "charging" for the privilege of a wedding ceremony in the church.
It was also about this time that Religion and The Church began to change it's views on divorce... Prior to this time a man could divorce his wife if she failed to provide any offspring. The Church came out with declarations that, basically so long as the couple could consumate their relationship, there was no divorce (unless of course, the wife slept with another man.... but the man can sleep with whomever he damn well pleases)
Yeah, we can nitpick very specific instances within Western culture where religion gained more domination of aspects of life like marriage, but Seb, and others are correct in saying that it has NEVER been the SOLE purview of the Church (especially where Western culture is concerned)
2014/06/04 15:44:57
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
KelseyC wrote: It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.
IMO, from a heterosexual male's point of view you, the reason I am not attracted to transexuals isn't simply because it's a "fetish". It's the fact i'm heterosexual.
I don't view the post-op orifice to be the same as a vagina. I get that you might identify it as being the same thing, but it's not to me and a pretty large segment of heterosexual males. I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect people to think of it as being the same thing tbh.
KelseyC wrote: I think marriage is sort of silly itself, kind of dumb to limit who can and can't get married by sexual orientation. Makes no sense.
Indeed. It shouldn't be regulated and people should be able to call it whatever they want.
2014/06/04 15:51:49
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
KelseyC wrote: It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.
IMO, from a heterosexual male's point of view you, the reason I am not attracted to transexuals isn't simply because it's a "fetish". It's the fact i'm heterosexual.
I don't view the post-op orifice to be the same as a vagina. I get that you might identify it as being the same thing, but it's not to me and a pretty large segment of heterosexual males. I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect people to think of it as being the same thing tbh.
I think you misunderstood. I know that there are some people who just aren't interested in any way at all. There are some who consider themselves hetero but are attracted for sexual reasons and would never date a trans woman (the debate of being attracted to a trans women being homo or hetero is probably best saved for another thread though). So with already the majority of men seemingly in one of those two categories it is super difficult to find someone who isn't. I never said I think people should think a surgically constructed vagina should be considered to be real to everyone.
To somewhat try to stay on topic; I also think it is a bit silly that marriage has tax type benefits these days, maybe it isn't even about the fact a couple can say they are married, they just want to have the same tax benefits everyone else can have by getting married.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/04 15:57:28
2014/06/04 18:42:19
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
KelseyC wrote: I think you misunderstood. I know that there are some people who just aren't interested in any way at all. There are some who consider themselves hetero but are attracted for sexual reasons and would never date a trans woman (the debate of being attracted to a trans women being homo or hetero is probably best saved for another thread though). So with already the majority of men seemingly in one of those two categories it is super difficult to find someone who isn't. I never said I think people should think a surgically constructed vagina should be considered to be real to everyone.
Yeah I completely misunderstood. I completely get how it could be very difficult to find someone to date but at least the internet exists now. I actually do have a friend that came out about a year ago saying that he was attracted to and would only date transexual women. Given that he's a black man it was very risky for him socially. He's happy now though.
KelseyC wrote: ITo somewhat try to stay on topic; I also think it is a bit silly that marriage has tax type benefits these days, maybe it isn't even about the fact a couple can say they are married, they just want to have the same tax benefits everyone else can have by getting married.
haha.. I was actually blasted for saying this a few pages back.
There is obviously 2 different issues. The social aspect and the legal.
Most people are mixing the two..
Purely from a legal standpoint I don't think the states should be able to regulate marriage. Whether it's the person you are banging or your BFF, you should be able to freely give people the same rights as if you were married and be able to call it whatever you want.
2014/06/04 21:28:29
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
focusedfire wrote: My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
So you believe that the KKK's beliefs should be respected just as much as anyone who isn't a racist?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/06/04 21:51:17
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
focusedfire wrote: I mean that we have already established by your own words that you are a religious individual and that you feel that all religious people are hateful bigots.
Wow. Are you really so bad at reading that you sincerely think I called all religious people hateful bigots, or are you just dishonestly making that claim with the knowledge that nobody is going to go back and read the previous pages of discussion to discover that you're lying?
And just to be clear, as if I haven't been clear enough already, some religious people support gay marriage. Claiming I think all religious people are hateful bigots is absolutely insane when you stop to think for a moment and realize that there are religious groups, even Christian churches, that are happily marrying gay couples and fighting for their rights.
A) Who determines when such story telling and warnings of punishment go from education and morality building to "torture"? You?
Shocking revelation: when I'm talking about my personal opinion yes, I am the one who determines when it crosses that line. And please don't quote "torture" as if I said it, because I didn't.
B)If you want me to stop thinking that you don't mean to apply your hatred to all religious groups then be more specific and stop using my general term. Go ahead, single out the group that you hate, Tell us what you would do with them if you had the chance. Is it the Christians? You keep trying to turn my general non-offensive blanket term for those with strong religious beliefs into being just about Christians. Go ahead, instead of trying to misuse my term, use your own words......or, "Would that be too revealing?".
No, I'm not going to let you turn "anti-gay religious people" into "Christians" just so that you can portray me as some kind of anti-Christian bigot. Nor will repeating "you hate all religious people" a million more times make it any less of a lie. Please stop trying to misrepresent my position like this, it's incredibly dishonest.
Well, one of us has to be. If you feel so strongly about business turning people away due to their ethnicity and culture then why aren't you raging against Nightclubs that don't let people in because they "fit" the clubs atmosphere.?
Sigh. So because I don't give a long list of every single thing that is wrong with society I must be ok with those things? By your ridiculous argument here if I had mentioned the nightclub issue you just would have found something else I didn't specifically criticize.
Let me guess, its only a problem when a white person does it to someone from another race
Do I need to explain basic concepts like privilege and power, and why it is in fact worse when a privileged group is discriminating against a less-privileged group?
I also find it amusing that you think that society would some how instantly revert back to 1950' america without these laws. I think such an assumption is incorrect.
I think you also have a very sheltered life if you don't think that there are places where a business posting a "no black/gay/etc people allowed" sign would get praise from all of their customers and the only outrage would be anonymous people on the internet who have never even been to the town.
Basically, let society and free enterprise handle the problem. If someone won't sell to you, there will be someone else who only sees the colour green(or rainbow monopoly money with the $100 bills.
Yeah, that worked really well in the 1950s, the free market fixed that whole "whites only" problem as open-minded businesses made more money than the racists and drove them out of business. This is why we didn't have to have government intervention to fix the problem.
Now, lets play the, "Would you discriminate?", game.
Lets say you own an atheist themed nightclub and a group of people from a certain faith showed up with their holy books/texts in hand and sat down in your club. They order pay their two drink minimum and order sodas. They then stay to themselves while conversing and comparing notes. Your regular clients get upset. What do you do?
I tell the regular clients to STFU and stop bothering me? Not that I can really imagine this happening in the first place.
I am arguing a case of cause and effect.
I know you are. And, as I've pointed out, your argument is a terrible one. The fact that I don't think you've established any connection between the effect and its supposed cause doesn't mean that I just don't understand your argument
My point is that with no same sex marriage there would have been no need for a cake to celebrate such, No cake means the baker/bakery doesn't get asked to support something that she/they believe is against her/their religious beliefs. Thus no lawsuit that amounts to you believe different so you should be punished.
Err, lol? Do you really believe that if gay marriage isn't legally recognized all those couples aren't going to have any celebration at all? Here's a hint for you: gay couples have been having marriage ceremonies (complete with cakes/flowers/etc) for a long time, they just haven't been given legal recognition. This case would have happened exactly as it did even if gay marriage was explicitly banned by the state constitution.
And that's what gets me. For people screaming about intolerance, you and others with your position seem to have very little tolerance your selves. The Bakery wasn't rude nor did they engage in any form of homophobic speech. They just said it wasn't something they could support.
And violated state anti-discrimination laws. Seriously, this isn't complicated. State law says you can't refuse service based on sexual orientation. The bakery refused service based on sexual orientation, and proudly admits that they did it. Pointing out that this is an incredibly straightforward case that shouldn't last more than five minutes in court isn't even close to "screaming about intolerance".
From what information I can glean it was a case of Defeasible Fees. But that the city claimed that they could enforce the zoning that came from paying the fees after they stopped paying, even though the history in these cases have been pretty clear that once payments stop the property and its uses revert entirely back to the owner.
So now we've gone from "gay couples are going to sue anyone who doesn't give them a religious marriage ceremony in their church" to "the church and the town disagree about the correct interpretation of zoning laws for a piece of property that happened to be owned by the church". I take it you're going to abandon your slippery slope argument that this will somehow lead to churches being abused in any meaningful way?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/04 21:53:34
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/06/04 22:18:04
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Wow. 20 pages already and not lock yet. Anyone ban yet?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/06/04 22:21:54
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
I'd just like to point out a couple of reasons Henry 8 took control of the church in England other than religion: the immense wealth of the church became his to fund his wars with France, build himself palaces and buy food to feed his belly, and to ezpand his power.
Oh, wait, power and money ARE religious reasons...
The rest of your post has about as many flaws in it in pretty much every point you make.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am against SSM because at the wedding reception i will cause a fight, if i say; " i want to dance with the bride" (<-).
Well religious people of certain faith have to be against it because it is in the bible.
That is an interesting question- for those of you in relationships that don't fit the standard nomenclature, what will you and our significant other call yourselves on your wedding day? Is it 2 grooms, 2 brides, does one person play the other role, or are there some other terms you'd like applied?
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
2014/06/05 12:26:19
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Now here's an interesting question. If two women marry, does that mean their Dad's don't have to pay for it?
I hidden additional bright side!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/06/05 12:37:08
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Peregrine wrote: So you believe that the KKK's beliefs should be respected just as much as anyone who isn't a racist?
You are misrepresenting his use of "respect". I don't think he means it as a personal "I admire" type of meaning. I think he means legally. With regard to the law, it should be treated the same as any other fringe idea. Gay marriage was a fringe idea for decades too. If you silence the fringe elements in your society, you are an oppressor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Now here's an interesting question. If two women marry, does that mean their Dad's don't have to pay for it?
I hidden additional bright side!
...
<slap>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/05 12:37:34
2014/06/05 13:34:03
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
That is an interesting question- for those of you in relationships that don't fit the standard nomenclature, what will you and our significant other call yourselves on your wedding day? Is it 2 grooms, 2 brides, does one person play the other role, or are there some other terms you'd like applied?
Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
2014/06/05 14:22:35
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
Are you trying to say stereotypical?
I've seen the masculine lesbians with feminine lesbians almost excusively. I've also seen two masculine lesbians together. Never seen 2 feminine lesbians.
2014/06/05 15:41:05
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
Are you trying to say stereotypical?
I've seen the masculine lesbians with feminine lesbians almost excusively. I've also seen two masculine lesbians together. Never seen 2 feminine lesbians.
Basically yeah... It probably doesn't help ANY at all that the vast majority of lesbians that I personally know are also rugby players ... and by using the term "ideal" i was trying to say the "porno lesbian" without saying "porno lesbian"
2014/06/05 16:31:07
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Frazzled wrote: Now here's an interesting question. If two women marry, does that mean their Dad's don't have to pay for it?
I hidden additional bright side!
Nope... BOTH Dads pitch in!
That's one extravagant PAWTY!
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/06/05 17:10:57
Subject: Re:Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
Seems we've covered all the bases , but fret not I'm sure we can find something else to yell at each other about soon.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09 
