I was watching the Rock the Vote debate tonight and Wesley Clark said something very interesting, and I wondered why no one here had ever brought it up.
I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are against gay marriage (and I know there are a number of you).
Actually, there are two questions.
First, if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
[ November 04, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Yes to both---
If i have children, they would be of my body, and I would love them no matter what.
They're still human, they deserve rights just like any other human.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hey, someone else watched that
I think Dean's candidacy may be effectively over if people watched this tonight. He didn't come across as capable of understanding why his confederate flag remarks were likely to offend blacks, and poor and middle class southern whites.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Paul,
Ugh, tell me about it. I've been a Dean supporter since June and I'm definitely having second thoughts. We'll have to see what happens.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I support gay marriage, but I would say that your questions are loaded questions, and I expect that an opponent of gay marriage would find them irrelevant.
An example:
quote:I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are against man-boy love (and I know there are a number of you).
Actually, there are two questions.
First, if you had a son or daughter who told you he or she was a pedophile, would you still love him or her?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who was a pedophile, would you want him or her to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
My answer to both questions would likely be yes, and it would still be irrelevant to my position on the morality of pedophilia.
The original questions seem to imply that people opposed to gay marriage must love their children less, or have led sheltered lives, or they would not be able to feel as they do.
EDIT to improve analogy.
[ November 04, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Megachirops ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
The original questions also imply that "the same rights as everyone else" includes the right to marry whomever you love. An opponent of gay marriage would say that they clearly do not, and that they would want their child to have the same right as anyone else--to marry an adult of the opposite gender.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Dang, the one debate I didn't watch and Howard Dean finally messes up. I've been waiting for this for too long and now I've missed it.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
what exactly did dean say? is there a transcript anywhere?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Icarus...
I understand the general idea behind your analogy & agree to an extent, except I think using paedophilia as an example is flawed.
Why you ask? Well, I would imagine that the parents of a paedophile would understand the needs for certain restrictions on their child's rights: for example, not being able hold a job that has regular contact with young children (teacher, child care worker etc).
This is obviously to protect people who may be harmed directly by the fact that person is a paedophile.
In the case of gay marriage, it is arguable that no-one gets directly hurt. In the case of a hurt to society in a larger sense, (which some people believe) I think this is quite a different issue than direct hurt to inidvidual victims.
Of course that doesn't negate your point that you can love someone without veiwing all of their actions, or lifestyle as moral. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
ah found it
QUESTION: My question is for Governor Dean.
I recently read a comment that you made where you said that you wanted to be the candidate for guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks. When I read that comment, I was extremely offended.
Could you explain to me how you plan on being sensitive to needs and issues regarding slavery and African-Americans, after making a comment of that nature?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: Sure. Martin Luther King said that it was his dream that the sons of slave holders and the sons of slaves sit down around a table and make common good.
There are 102,000 kids in South Carolina right now with no health insurance. Most of those kids are white. The legislature cut $70 million out of the school system. Most of the kids in the public school system are white. We have had white southern working people voting Republican for 30 years, and they've got nothing to show for it.
They vote for a president who cut 1 percent of this country's taxpayers' taxes by $26,000, which is more than they make. And I think we need to talk to white southern workers about how they vote, because when white people and black people and brown people vote together in this country, that's the only time that we make social progress, and they need to come back to the Democratic Party.
COOPER: Reverend Sharpton, I just want to point out, in the last couple days, earlier last week, you have called some of Governor Dean's positions anti-black. It sounds very close to calling him racist.
SHARPTON: No, I don't think the governor is a racist. I think some of his positions would have hurt us. But I think that doesn't answer, Governor, this young man's question.
(APPLAUSE)
First of all, Martin Luther King said, "Come to the table of brotherhood." You can't bring a Confederate flag to the table of brotherhood.
(APPLAUSE)
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: First, if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
I think a child growing up with two gay parents is pschologically damaging, so I would be against adoption of children of married gay couples.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. If homosexual couples want to get married, I have no problem if it's state recognized, but if they want to be married as Christians, I'm totally against that, and I believe God is too.
That said, my answer to both questions is yes, but with extinuating circumstances.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Wetchik,
Say you have a daughter. You yourself know the joy of raising children, and want her to be able to share that joy in a family of her own. Your daughter, however, is a lesbian -- and she wants to adopt a daughter with her partner. Would you feel your daughter, who you raised, capable of raising a child? Or would you refuse her that joy, and yourself your own joy at being a grandparent? If she did adopt, would you consider your grandchild to be damaged by her home environment? Would you love that grandchild less, or try to provide her psychological help...?
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
quote: , I'm totally against that, and I believe God is too.
Why would God make his children this way if He were against it?
I'm sorry, I'm a neo-pagan. I don't see what the big deal is---two consenting adults who love each other want to be joined as one in the holy state of matrimony.
If they love each other, the children they raise will only see and feel love---I do not think love is damaging to children. Children do not notice sexuality until they are much older.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Marriage isn't a right. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they planned to be married by. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they thought they would be grandparents by. (sorry for the dangling prepositions).
If my son or daughter were in love with someone else's spouse, I would have empathy for them but would not be pleased if they acted out on it. I'm not pleased at the thought of my children overeating or staying up too late or any other destructive behavior. But I know finding their own way (within reason) through these challenges is part of why they came to Earth.
Marriage is a contract with society and the spouse that one will subsume one's sexual impulses to create a family. I'm not saying gay people should just get married and white knuckle it. But labeling something that is not marriage "marriage" to improve everyone's self esteem is like giving everyone an A, regardless of their actual level of preparation to go on in school.
If I were gay, I'm sure I'd wish my primary relationship could be appreciated by society. But then, I wish the government would give me a sweet car and a lifetime supply of cracklin' oat bran.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Would you feel your daughter, who you raised, capable of raising a child?
And here it starts.....
Kasie H: It has nothing to do with a having a lesbian daughter, it has everything to do with the child. The child won't understand why s/he has two moms or dads, and this cause pshcological issues later on.
I just don't think it's fair for the children.
Starla:
quote: I do not think love is damaging to children. Children do not notice sexuality until they are much older.
Of course love isn't damaging. That's not what I said.
Of course children notice that their parents are different from other kids' parents, they just don't understand it until later when they start "noticing sexuality when they're much older" as you said yourself.
And you wanted to know what was wrong with this?
quote: I'm sorry, I'm a neo-pagan. I don't see what the big deal is---two consenting adults who love each other want to be joined as one in the holy state of matrimony.
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
quote: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
That can be interpreted in a few ways, but the fact that Paul said it was perverted says it all to me.
That is why I think they should have the same rights in STATE COURTS(same financial rights as heterosexual married couples), but if they want to be married in a Christian church, I believe that is totally and absolutely wrong and against God's wishes.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Why would God make his children this way if He were against it?
Satan tempts them. God does not make imperfect things.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Okay. You seem to be okay with it on the secular or "civil union" side, so I won't argue with you.
However, religiously I am not on the same page. I do not believe in satan,the devil, lucifer, et al. I do not believe in God in the Christian sense.
Your bible quote explains to me why you think it's wrong.
But I don't believe in the bible either.
Okay---what I'm trying to say is I won't touch the religious aspect b/c that won't necessarily effect homosexual couples from getting the basic rights from the government. You agree that on the secular side they should get equal share---and I agree.
I may not agree with your religious ideals (I think they are wrong), but I agree with the other thingy.
Am I making sense??? I think its bedtime... Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Your bible quote explains to me why you think it's wrong.
But I don't believe in the bible either.
That's why I added "I believe" before and after.
You can think I'm wrong, and that's fine, but now you can understand why nearly all Christian churches do not conduct homosexual marriages.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
quote: You can think I'm wrong, and that's fine, but now you can understand why nearly all Christian churches do not conduct homosexual marriages. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, that's what i was trying to say. That's just my opinion though....
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think my Taoist philosophy is more strongly against it than my Christian religion.
It's flaky to say civil unions are okay but church solemnization is not. Advice to Christians who feel that way- really study it out as a matter of faith and if marriage between a man and a woman is authentic truth you will no longer feel defensive or hedge on the subject.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Marriage isn't a right. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they planned to be married by. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they thought they would be grandparents by. (sorry for the dangling prepositions).
No, marriage isn't a right. But if you're going to make it a legal privilege, then you better extend it to every citizen. Or are heterosexuals more equal than homosexuals?
And what's this nonsense about age?
quote:If my son or daughter were in love with someone else's spouse, I would have empathy for them but would not be pleased if they acted out on it.
I doubt anyone would. What does this strange little analogy have to do with either homosexuality or heterosexuality? Your son could fall in love with another man's spouse -- he could fall in love with another woman's spouse. Infidelity between either gender is cheating. Your intellectually dishonest little story has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
quote:I'm not pleased at the thought of my children overeating or staying up too late or any other destructive behavior. But I know finding their own way (within reason) through these challenges is part of why they came to Earth.
And yet again, you compare homosexuality to a "destructive behavior." How, exactly, is it destructive? With the obvious exception of the risk of a broken heart, which is inherent in the game of love to either gender and either sexual orientation.
quote:Marriage is a contract with society and the spouse that one will subsume one's sexual impulses to create a family.
What? Forgive me, I always thought marriage was a contract between a loving, committed, monogamous couple to love and protect each other for the rest of their lives. Which vows, again, make promises to the rest of society?
Also, what the hell does this have to do with homosexual marriage? Because they aren't capable of producing children, they're disqualified from marriage? In that case, let's ban all people with barren women and sperm-deficient men from marriage. If they can't crank out kids, what use are they to the institution of marriage?
Ugh.
quote:I'm not saying gay people should just get married and white knuckle it. But labeling something that is not marriage "marriage" to improve everyone's self esteem is like giving everyone an A, regardless of their actual level of preparation to go on in school.
Again, what? How is, like I said, a contract between a loving, monogamous couple to protect and love each other for the rest of their days not marriage? Which aspects of marriage, exactly, disqualify homosexual marriages from the "real" definition?
quote:If I were gay, I'm sure I'd wish my primary relationship could be appreciated by society. But then, I wish the government would give me a sweet car and a lifetime supply of cracklin' oat bran.
Ugh.
No. Homosexuals aren't looking for your approval. They aren't looking for an "extra" from the government. They're looking for us as a country to stop persecuting them and let them live their lives. Preferably with fewer homophobic murders. Ignorant jackasses like Falwell and other lunatic, bigoted Christians can go ahead and declare homosexuals and liberals the end of society. Fine. Though I'll disapprove, they have the right. What they don't have the right to do is infringe on other people's equality. Exactly how is that different from declaring that all Jews are banned from living in certain parts of the city?
Oh wait, I forgot, we now consider people who discriminate against Jews to be bigots.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would God make his children this way if He were against it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan tempts them. God does not make imperfect things.
Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men?
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
since I'm brain dead and should be sleeping
for Lalo..... thank you for arguing what I do not have the energy to argue.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men?
I'm saying that God does not make anything that is wrong. According to the Christian faith, God created everything perfect, and we messed it all up ourselves because Satan tempted us.
I'm not saying Satan tempts ALL men or women. So to answer your questions respectively: No and Never.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
since I'm brain dead and should be sleeping
for Lalo..... thank you for arguing what I do not have the energy to argue.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
I don't understand why we are at a disagreement here. I'm not saying they shouldn't get equal rights. Where is the issue? The government cannot force a church to do anything (like marry homosexuals). That little clause in the first amendment of the Constitution. No laws can be made in respect to any religion or something like that.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
The second post---i tried to stop it to add in the sleep thing, and i screwed up royally.
Wetchik's reply perked me up to say this, according to the Christian faith (I was a christian, Once upon a time...)
God created everything. Therefore, God created Satan.
God can do no wrong, or make any bad thing. God is also the only God.
Okay, so if these are the cases then A--God did not create Satan, and he is another deity. But that would invalidate God being the only one.
B--God created Satan.
But that would invalidate that God can make no wrong...
goodnite all, Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Look, I have already said what I feel like in earlier threads. It sounds like you have some real frustration with my point of view, so maybe you should email me.
Maybe you could look up some of the old homosexuality threads. I posted as "Nick" member # 4311
quote: But that would invalidate that God can make no wrong...
Wrong.
Satan was an angel, and made perfect at first, just like Adam and Eve.
Satan rebelled and chose his own path. And he tempted Adam and Eve to do the same thing. That's what free will is.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
By the way, devout Christians, let's list all the parts in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, okay?
1) Leviticus. Leviticus claims that men should not lie with men. However, Leviticus was also banned by the Council of Jerusalem for being so unbelievably crazy. All Christians who use this book to oh-so-righteously legislate against homosexuals, I insist, no, I DEMAND that you remain consistent and true to the rest of the laws in this book. Which means, yes, you are also banned from sowing fields with different seeds, wearing clothes sewn of different fibers, and cutting your hair.
2) Paul. Paul, in a tiny, one-sentence blurb, lifts the quote from Leviticus and sends it in a letter. He doesn't do this anywhere else -- however, if Christians are pious enough to listen to Paul while disregarding the source of this bigoted belief, please, remain true to the rest of Paul's teachings. You may be interested in Paul's more mysogynistic beliefs as well.
quote:As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
quote:A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)
There are plenty of apologists out there for Paul. Many say he's outdated; many say he's just trying to conform the standard of the era and not push too many buttons; many say he didn't really mean it. Whatever. If you're going to take this one, tiny blurb about homosexuality seriously (especially considering its source), I insist you be as devout and pious about every aspect of the Bible.
Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And nobody even try to use the Sodom story as some bizarre justification of persecution against homosexuals. Or else I run the serious risk of growing more irritated with you.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Very good point. But let us look at the culture of the Corinthians. Women were not allowed to confront men in that culture and Paul had to compromise to avoid division instead of unity in the Church.
With the Timothy verse, again you have to consider what Paul had to deal with when it came to Ephesian culture.
quote: Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that.
Who am I discriminating against? I'm no hypocrite, and I think you're kind of being over-sensitive and rude toward me and my beliefs. Why don't you take a few breaths before coming back?
[ November 05, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm saying that God does not make anything that is wrong. According to the Christian faith, God created everything perfect, and we messed it all up ourselves because Satan tempted us.
Wow. I don't think I've ever been tempted to laugh and be insulted at the same time before.
Fine. God doesn't make things that are wrong. Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"? Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person.
Man. If Heaven's made up of people who think like this, I can't wait to get to Hell.
quote:I'm not saying Satan tempts ALL men or women. So to answer your questions respectively: No and Never.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would God make his children this way if He were against it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan tempts them. God does not make imperfect things.
So Satan hasn't tempted you to become homosexual. Why not? Didn't you just say Satan tempts God's children? How exactly would you know homosexuality to be a temptation if you, yourself, had not been tempted to experience the joys of homosexual sex?
I'm having trouble understanding how homosexuality can be a temptation. A relationship with a man, for me, would be just like a relationship with a woman. The only really noticable difference would be the sex, and it's certainly not a temptation to me. I'm wondering Nick, why exactly do you consider anal sex to be such a great temptation?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Pooka, I disagree that the difference between legal civil unions and church solemnizations is only splitting hairs. After all, a Christian minister would probably decline to marry, say, a Buddhist couple, but that doesn't mean the minister should push for Buddhist ceremonies to be illegal. I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence.
Now, if you're talking about gay adoption, that does add another dimension to this whole issue...and it's a grey area for me. I'm really not sure what to think yet. I strongly disagree with the "joys of parenthood" argument, though. Raising children isn't something you should do for your own fulfilment or for the experience. This is a person, not a toy or a pet.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And as once last addendum, I mean no disrespect to homosexuals by citing my interest in anal sex. I'm also uninterested in fat or ugly women -- this does not mean that I support legislation to keep fat or ugly women from marrying those they love, either.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
lalo
"Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that"
Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"?
Assumption alert!
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS ARE MADE WRONG! I ARGUED AGAINST IT!
Don't you get that? Maybe you should hold back some of your emotions and get a little more rational before attacking me personally. So far I'm: 1. A bigot 2. Predudiced Are you going to unjustifiably continue this list?
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
Thank you.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence.
If you look back on the thread, I said the exact same thing as Shigosei did here Lalo.
I will not say another word to you until you calm down, stop insulting me, and rationally answer this question:
What did I say that offends you?
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Nevermind. I know you won't answer my question anyway.
quote: Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person.
You want to go through it? Fine.
What makes their love less qualified? I never said it wasn't. Their love is brotherly love and sinful lust in my mind, and you can criticize all you want, but what other mind can I use?
Homosexuality is a sin in my belief. Why is that offensive to you? Since you were blatant about what you thought of me, let me ask you something: If you think so low of me, then why are you putting so much effort into arguing with me? I thought my opinions were just "biases based on popular predujices"?
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS WERE INFERIOR! It really seems as if you want to imply I believe that so you can try and make me out to be a scumbag and you can increase your feeling of solidarity of being "on the side of righteousness".
Here are a few suggestions: First: Get off your high horse and stop judging other people. Second: Stop making assumptions. Third: Try to stop insulting people who have differing opinions. I know it's a touch subject but man, you're being a bit over-the-top.
quote: The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice
Am I prejudiced, or are you paranoid against homosexual prejudice? I'd argue the latter.
[ November 05, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Very good point. But let us look at the culture of the Corinthians. Women were not allowed to confront men in that culture and Paul had to compromise to avoid division instead of unity in the Church.
Heh! So now you're saying we should interpret the Bible's obvious bigotries in a modern light, rather than rely on the outdated prejudices of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe?
And hell, if you'll support a revising of the modern interpretation of the New Testament, surely you'll agree that Leviticus is far too insane to believe? Especially since it was vetoed by the Council of Jerusalem?
Or, of course, you can stop cutting your hair.
quote:Now, if you're talking about gay adoption, that does add another dimension to this whole issue...and it's a grey area for me. I'm really not sure what to think yet. I strongly disagree with the "joys of parenthood" argument, though. Raising children isn't something you should do for your own fulfilment or for the experience. This is a person, not a toy or a pet.
Shigosei, I'll have to agree with you on this. But while I agree the "joys of parenthood" argument isn't a strong enough case for adoption on its own, I have to add that's it's not good enough for heterosexual couples, either.
quote:Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
Um. You're missing the point, dude. Homosexuality has no comparison with adultery or theft, both of which harm a third party. But like you said, if you're devout enough to believe one verse in one book, believe all the verses in that book.
Start getting rid of your scissors, dude. It's time for you to go the grunge route and never cut your hair again.
And ugh. Please don't use that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. It's been refuted so many times here at Hatrack...
Since I'm rather eager to get on to Nick's comments, I'll just respond with a simple "hate the Christianity, love the Christian."
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption alert!
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS ARE MADE WRONG! I ARGUED AGAINST IT!
Don't you get that? Maybe you should hold back some of your emotions and get a little more rational before attacking me personally. So far I'm: 1. A bigot 2. Predudiced Are you going to unjustifiably continue this list?
Gee, Nick. How could I possibly assume that you believe homosexuals are wrong just by your statement that Satan effectively creates homosexuals, because God cannot make anything "wrong" and thus did not create homosexuality? Didn't you just say that homosexuality is a temptation made by the Devil to corrupt once-heterosexuals?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look back on the thread, I said the exact same thing as Shigosei did here Lalo.
I will not say another word to you until you calm down, stop insulting me, and rationally answer this question:
What did I say that offends you?
Haven't I answered this question in every post I've made thus far? You've repeatedly asserted that homosexuality is just a temptation made by Satan to weaker and lesser men, that God really meant for us all to be heterosexual, and that homosexuality is -- despite your abundant lack of any proof or reasoning -- a sin.
Nick, why don't you do me the courtesy I do you and address every question I pose to you? I'm sure you'll have a better idea of why I'm offended if you, y'know, read my arguments.
quote:Nevermind. I know you won't answer my question anyway.
Uh. What's this, Nick? Haven't I taken time out of my busy schedule to answer every question you've posed me? How dare you insult me by questioning my integrity? Especially when I've taken such great pains to answer your questions and point out your many logical fallacies. You should be thanking me (or at least offering a semi-coherent, logical debate), not muttering under your breath that I don't do exactly what I've been doing for the past hour or two.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to go through it? Fine.
What makes their love less qualified? I never said it wasn't. Their love is brotherly love and sinful lust in my mind, and you can criticize all you want, but what other mind can I use?
Tell me, Nick, how exactly is romantic love the equivalent of brotherly love? I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your siblings, but my own relationship with my brother has no sexual overtones or longing for a lifelong, romantic relationship.
As for sinful, what on earth are you talking about? I've already repeatedly refuted every possible aspect of this bizarre and useless adjective. You can't justify it through Scripture, science, or reason -- would you please explain to me exactly how and why you're still abusing this word despite any proof or reason behind its usage?
quote:Homosexuality is a sin in my belief. Why is that offensive to you? Since you were blatant about what you thought of me, let me ask you something: If you think so low of me, then why are you putting so much effort into arguing with me? I thought my opinions were just "biases based on popular predujices"?
I think your beliefs are a big part of what's wrong with America, and a small part of the biased majority that's suppressing equality for all. I would be equally offended if you were to repeat such statements about Mexicans or blacks -- even if I would be less worried. Thankfully, while bigotry against colored people is still fairly prevalent, it's not touted as proudly as anti-homosexual prejudice is.
And look at you, going again with the homosexuality-is-a-sin argument without any support or logic behind it.
quote:I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS WERE INFERIOR! It really seems as if you want to imply I believe that so you can try and make me out to be a scumbag and you can increase your feeling of solidarity of being "on the side of righteousness".
Oh. Homosexuals are men weak enough to be tempted and molded by Satan -- but they're not "inferior." Heh. Christ.
Sure, blacks are the result of the Mark of Cain, which shows their inherently sinful nature -- but I don't think they're "inferior."
And heh, good lord. This is quite possibly the first time in any of these arguments that I've ever been accused of being on the side of the self-righteous. If you're feeling like a scumbag, Nick, maybe you should consider why. You have yet to justify any of the beliefs you've stated in this thread, regardless of the immense harm they can and have and do cause a great many people. This shows incredible irresponsibility on your part, to hold hurtful beliefs without even the simple ability to back them up; your subsequent insistence on believing in homosexuals' relationship with Satan and their inherently sinful nature only compounds your irresponsibility with denial, creating a concoction dangerously close to prejudice. Please back up your views, or change them. Until you can do that, I'm afraid I'll remain very unimpressed with your unconvincing and offensive belief system.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Do me a favor, Lalo.
Stop trashing Leviticus. Please.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Why? Have I made a mistake? Do you not agree with the Council of Jerusalem that it should be excluded from the Bible? Do you agree that cutting your hair is a sin?
Or what?
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
"Um. You're missing the point, dude. Homosexuality has no comparison with adultery or theft, both of which harm a third party. But like you said, if you're devout enough to believe one verse in one book, believe all the verses in that book.
Start getting rid of your scissors, dude. It's time for you to go the grunge route and never cut your hair again.
And ugh. Please don't use that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. It's been refuted so many times here at Hatrack...
Since I'm rather eager to get on to Nick's comments, I'll just respond with a simple "hate the Christianity, love the Christian."
With all due respect - I think you are missing the point. Any act that is against the will of the Lord is a sin. Therefore, THERE IS no difference between homosexuality and adultery, theft, lie, etc. These all are sinful actions!
I do believe in all that is writen in the Book - why do you want to go and question my integrity?
Allow me last comment - I believe there is no need to cuss. Or, are you so offended by people who have different oppinions?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm an Orthodox Jew.
But since I'm not a Nazarite, I do cut my hair.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
So, back to the debate mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Do you think Dean has just shot himself in the foot? Or was he just trying to be inclusive of everyone--tolerate the intolerant, so to speak. Speaking of which, if you believe in tolerance, does that extend to the intolerant?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I don't think Dean should have said what he did, but I don't think he has shot himself in the foot. People have overlooked many worse things from politicians. This one won't recieve much press coverage.
Besides, with that many candidates most people won't know which one said it.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Prolix, I believe he did shoot himself in the foot for the long run in the campaign. As we see the primaries run in Northern and Western states, it won't make much of a difference, but once you start moving to the Southern states, Dean's comments will be dredged up again and it will hurt him, because it will put him at odds with both black and white Southerners, people whose states he would need to get the candidacy.
I don't think he said it intending what impact it would have, but that comes from, most likely, a lack of knowledge of what the debate over the Confederate flag is about.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I live in South Carolina, The latest polls put Dean in a distant third here. If that is indicative of the rest of the region, he was already losing the south.
The main problem here is that Dean's candidacy has been hurting the democrats all along. He has alienated far too many people. I really believe that the only reasons he is in the lead in some states is because there isn't really anyone else to vote for. So if it's Bush or Dean, many people will take Dean because he isn't Bush, not because of anything he has done.
I can't prove it, but I believe that Dean is causing more harm than good for the total election effort. Whether he wins the nomination or not, he has done a good job of splitting much of the democratic party.
--ApostleRadio
Feel free to discount as much of that post as is neccessary, as it was written from a southern voter point of view. That's the only point of view I can write at the moment. I cannot say what the feelings in northern or western states towards Dean are, because I am not there and haven't paid as much attention to those polls.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually Wetchik has been far more reasonable than most Christians who consider homosexuality a sin in that he would permit (if not condone) civil unions and government recognition of gay unions. While total acceptance would be peachy, this is still considerably more than homosexuals have now. Why not take that and be glad of it? Or do you honestly think you can post the right words to a forum to make a person refute their religion?
I honestly do not think that Wetchik believes homosexuals to be inferior. Just from what he's said here, it's obvious that in his eyes all humans have sinned, and committing homosexual acts is just one of those sins.
The fact that I don't agree with any of his beliefs doesn't change my opinion that he's been remarkably patient in this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Yes.
quote:if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
I would not want him/her to be able to adopt, or have a state approved marriage.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
quote: First, if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Yes
quote: Second, if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
Same rights, yes. But marriage isn't a right.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
What is a "right" (in the US context)? Is there a commonly agreed-on definition and/or a legal definition?
*not trying to stir the pot, but truly interested
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think the Bill of Rights is a good start. . .
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There's a list, but is there a definition?
(i.e., an explication instead of just an enumeration <--- honest puzzling-through-this question)
[ November 05, 2003, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I think people have been arguing about the definitions for a bit over 200 years now.
So it depends on who you ask.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Agreed, Apostle. But that word is at the crux of so many comments on this thread -- it bears so much weight as the pivot of the argument -- that I'd really, really like to know what it explicitly means to those who've used it, mainly so that I can understand their arguments.
(Pleas, please, pretty please, y'all? I promise not to contend the point, just very curious.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My personal definition? A "right" in this case is something that is due a person or group and enforced by law. I don't believe in divine rights, inherent rights, rights by tradition, natural rights, or any other right that isn't backed up by law and reason. Mostly reason.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
There's a great book about what is a right and a priviledge in American society. It's called "Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community." It's a bit of a difficult read, but really made a lot of these issues clear to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
GS, can you sum up? Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
In someone else's words (from Amazon)
Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community is:
quote:This account of basic moral rights concerns whether they are necessary, to what kind of being they can be ascribed, their nature, and to whom they extend. Lomansky contends that rights are a kind of shorthand category for well-entrenched moral intuitions, principles, and standards whose aim is to support individualism as of paramount moral significance. The category is useful, he thinks, even though we lack a fully adequate theory generating these rights. They derive from a person's identity as a purposive agent, but must be sensitive also to ends that are not his exclusively. Intended primarily for professional philosophers, the book includes interesting discussions of welfare liberalism and of the (alleged) rights of children, fetuses, animals, etc. Robert Hoffman, Philosophy Department, York College, CUNY
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Government should not be involved in marriage in any way.
Or by making divorce laws, or custody laws, or going after dead-beat parents, or having anything to do with wills or inheritance. Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
[ November 05, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
Of course the government needs to oversee many of these things, but it should not be involved in defining what marriage is, or changing people's rights based on whether or not they are married.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Robspierre:
Divorce laws are part of the marriage laws. Custody, inheritance, alimony, testifying in court - those all have to do with marriage laws. If the government has nothing to do with marriage, then it has nothing to do with all of those other things either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
They should only care when money is involved, in other words. . .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Was that directed to me? No, government involvement isn't/shouldn't be restricted to money situations. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Rob and I disagree ideologically; maybe we can come to an understaning monetarily?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, that wasn't directed at you, Kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh. Okay. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
These two statements are not equivalent. It’s one thing to eliminate the marriage tax penalty or the various financial benefits available to married couples. This is a fairly simple policy matter and the pros and cons are readily apparent in a debate.
However, marriage has far reaching consequences beyond the obvious “benefits”.
If a person dies without a will, shouldn’t the spouse have a superior to claim to the estate than anyone else?
If a person cannot express their wishes with regard to medical care, shouldn’t the spouse’s statements about the ?
If a person becomes incapable of caring for himself, shouldn’t the spouse be at or near the top of the line in becoming guardian.
All of these questions presuppose that a spouse is identifiable as such. The point is the law uses marriage as a bright-line rule in many of these issues. The exceptions (such as an abusive spouse being denied guardianship of his wife) are fairly easy to define. Without a legally recognized institution called “marriage”, the courts would have to make extensive findings of facts in to determine if a person’s significant other is “significant “enough to grant the S.O. next of kin status. This is highly inefficient and potentially dangerous to justice.
I realize you didn’t call for the end of marriage as a legally recognized institution, but once the law recognizes marriage, it must “forbid[] a certain type of marriage.” For example, consider the communal marriage of 100 men to 100 women. Without making any moral judgment as to the desirability of such an arrangement, it’s pretty easy to see that including it in the legal definition of marriage would make the term “marriage” legally useless.
In this case, the law has four choices: 1) Prohibit people from living in mass communal marriage, 2) Allow it and consider them legal marriages in all respects, or 3) Allow it and do not consider them legal marriages, 4) allow them, consider them legal marriages, but only apply some of the legal principles of marriage to them.
1) is the most offensive to personal liberty. 2) would require radical (and maybe impossible) redefinition of the legal doctrines that rely on marriage. 3) is liberty-friendly and prevents having to revisit legal doctrine and preserves its usefulness in legal determinations. 4) simply implements either 2 or 3 under another name, or makes “marriage” a non-binary determination requiring the same type of legal adjustments as 2).
Clearly I’ve chosen an outrageous example – one that is not intended to provide an analogy or comparison to homosexual marriage in any way. I don’t think the question of legally recognizing homosexual marriage brings these issues into play at all. But the point is that the law must forbid certain types of marriage if it intends to legally recognize marriage at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
What about civil marriages, not performed by any church? Are you saying the government should have no role in this either? In other words, marriage should cease to e a legally recognizedentity altogether?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Someone on Slate argued just that.
Considering one of the arguments used to counter the idea of gay marriage is that it will cheapen marriage altogether, this supposedly liberal essay seems to play right into that argument.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If you think Kinsley is anywhere near the mainstream, even mainstream liberal, with this particular idea, then you probably believe that liberals really are the Boogeyman incarnate.
I'm sure some libertarian has proposed similar ideas; libertarians are often associated with the right. In other words, cherry picking an opinion of someone, who is writing at least partially tongue-in-cheek (his main rationale for his "privatizing marriage" appears to be because he's sick of all the debating and arguing about it), especially since no liberal here has argued it (rather, it is a poster most would identify as right-wing), is specious.
That said, I think that people are irrational about this subject. Irrational, in the sense that marriage, in a legal, non-religious sense, is recognized by the federal government, AND, more importantly, conveys on those entering the state of marriage certain rights and obligations, which, when looked at in toto, show to be advantageous... Not in a strictly fiduciary sense, but more in a civil liberties sense. Marriage allows both parties extreme amounts of power in the other's life, as a de facto right, meaning an essentially unassailable/unchallengeable legal power. Let's face it, no matter what your opinion is on the derivation of rights are (God, the Constitution, physical power, societal consent), pragmatically rights affect us all only insofar as they provide legal power, notably by protecting an action of an individual from legal cupability. Religious marriage is something that each church is free to give as they desire/are commanded. If a gay Mormon (or Jew, or Bahai) wants to be married in a church justified way, it is not within the government's power to compel the church to cave in.
In this light, I think it is interesting to note that the Constitution has one amendment appealled... And that was an amendment that curtailed civil rights by decree. Every other amendment that has any ruling on civil liberties has broadened citizens civil liberties. Marriage is a civil liberty, because citizens are allowed to, but not compelled, to enter into it. Therefore I think any freedom loving patriot* ought to support broadening the qualifications for legal marriage.
-Bok
(*) I just wanted to be able to draw on patriotic ferver once, in an argument. Plus, I think it's defendable.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
To bring up a point Lalo made and elaborate on it...
In most of the actions that are considered "sinful" by the Bible, like those mentioned in the 10 Commandments...thievery, adultery, lying, murder, etc...there's a clear third party who is being harmed. There is you, the sinner, and Some Other Guy whom you decided to hurt. Some actions which in the far past have been considered "sinful," like the oft quoted "cutting of the hair" and others, have been thrown away in modern times because obviously, cutting your hair doesn't do any harm to anyone. I've never met anyone, in person or on this forum, who has given me a valid way homosexuality "harms" another. I'm not even talking about adoption here, that's another basket of eggs altogether...I'm talking about the act itself.
Explain to me how it is harmful, in *any* way, and I'll actually listen to arguments as to how it's therefore a sin.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My thoughts:
If you limit marriage to the union between a man and a woman only, so as to prop up the conservative, and possibly moderate Judeo/Christian view of marriage, what happens if the church I am a member of performs a wedding between a man and another man?
Is this church breaking our new law? Can or should we arrest the minister and throw them in jail?
Will it go to the Supreme Court, where the law will be overturned as flagrantly ignoreing the Freedom of Religion clause?
If, worse, we have a constitutional ammendment created to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and my church performs the wedding, do we take this to the Supreme Court to decide which Ammendment holds sway, Freedom of Religion or Marriage Definition?
The whole Gay Marriage argument is not what people fear it is.
It is not an attempt for religious believers to push their views on an uncomfortable larger public.
Its a drastic defense of conservative christians who fear their Christianity is under seige by liberals. They fear that Sinners are seeking to infiltrate and destroy Christianity in general. They are resorting to secular law as an, any port in a storm-defense. If they make Homosexuality illegal, or recognize homosexuality as legally unacceptable behavior, then they can keep homosexuals from their Christianity.
Then there are the Wovles in Shepherd's Clothing, the Ceasar's in Temple Robes, the politicians behind the pulpit, on TV, and eternally running for office who abuse this movement to get votes and power and the applause of their congregations.
The people I know who want to get married do not do so for the benefits, or for the legal rights. They do so for they are seeking God's loving blessing on their lives and their relationship. (this too has been taken up by the Gay equivelant of the Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing and been abused for votes and backing.)
Many argue that you cannot get God to approve such a relationship, so condemned in the bible, none the less bless it.
That is their beliefs, and I won't argue them.
However, it is the beliefs of many that you can, that God's love is not bound by rules and laws written 20 centuries ago.
I won't argue those either.
What I will argue is for one of the basic tenets of this country is the freedom of each person to decide their own spiritual way. I greatly object to anyone, even those I agree with, demanding that their view should be the law for all.
(Edited to change a "your" to a "their". Unless you have told us, I don't have a clue what your beliefs really are.)
[ November 05, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: And heh, good lord. This is quite possibly the first time in any of these arguments that I've ever been accused of being on the side of the self-righteous. If you're feeling like a scumbag, Nick, maybe you should consider why. You have yet to justify any of the beliefs you've stated in this thread, regardless of the immense harm they can and have and do cause a great many people.
I don't feel like a scumbag. Another assumption on your part. I have justified my beliefs. Just becuse you don't believe in my justifications (Bible verses), that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that I'm a scumbag, it means that YOU think I'm wrong. It means that YOU think I'm a scumbag. And that's fine. But, your opinion isn't shared by everybody. Not many people think I'm a scumbag.
You won't bend. You couldn't possibly think: "Maybe Nick believes what he is saying, and maybe it's just my opinion that he's a bigot".
I have explained as much as I care to.
You obviously have too many issues against my belief for any rational discussion to continue.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Explain to me how it is harmful, in *any* way, and I'll actually listen to arguments as to how it's therefore a sin.
I can see what point you're trying to make, but it only works if you sucessfully define what a sin is, and what determines an act sinful. You didn't do that, and therefore, you point is moot.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I'll do that for her, if you wish.
She was saying that to for something to be a "sin", it ought to have negative repercussions, such as hurting other people or oneself. She was also saying that she's never heard a viable explanation for putting homosexuality, a trait that millions quite happily live with every single day, into that category.
[ November 05, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: And ugh. Please don't use that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. It's been refuted so many times here at Hatrack...
Lalo: When exactly was that?
quote: She was saying that to for something to be a "sin", it ought to have negative repercussions, such as hurting other people or oneself.
I understand that, but that still doesn't define what a sin is in Christianity.
quote: Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
Theologically, that's one way of looking at what sin means.
EDIT: condensing 3 posts into one and thanks to Lissande for correcting a mistake about who-said-what.
[ November 05, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm with Dan Raven on this, 100%.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
So what, for you, is the difference between loving another man and cutting your hair? Are they not both deliberately acting against the "known will of God"?
... I can't believe I'm posting right now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
At least you're not arguing with me. Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: I greatly object to anyone, even those I agree with, demanding that their view should be the law for all.
Of course. But if homosexuals say that their actions are not against what God meant for them and started a church that allowed homosexual marriage, they would have to disregard some of the Bible. Or they would have to greatly change the most well-believed interpretations to fit their uses.
I'm not speaking for all Christians, obvioulsy. dkw can explain much better than I can about how much differently the Bible can be interpreted. I'm just sharing the most widely-believed interpretation (which I believe myself).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you're going to give examples of other things forbidden by the Bible, the hair-cutting one doesn't work. The only people forbidden to cut their hair are those who choose the (TEMPORARY) status of nazirite, not the populace at large.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: So what, for you, is the difference between loving another man and cutting your hair? Are they not both deliberately acting against the "known will of God"?
... I can't believe I'm posting right now.
Some would say that the translation of Leviticus (the book that says not to cut your hair) is not the best. Some would argue that it's obscure at best. I try not to use verses from that book to prove anything, so I can quite easily say that I believe that cutting my hair is not against "the will of God."
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
*streaks through thread*
(...w, it was lalo saying LTSHTS had been refuted, not tzadik, is that who you meant?...)
*streaks out*
[ November 05, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
To clarify:
I'm not calling you a bigot. I am well aware of how mainline Christianity views homosexuality, and I know you aren't against it just willy nilly. That doesn't change the fact that my rights are being infringed...
(Aside: you guys who continually argue that marriage is not a right should reexamine your thoughts in that regard. How would you react, Doug, if you and your fiancee, male and female, were denied marriage benefits because you didn't agree with the local religion? Would you be offended at that point and demand your right to be married? Or would you accept that it was not the will of the community that you be wed and just move on? I think you're taking this "right" for granted because it IS readily available to you and your partner with no restrictions whatsoever.)
...and millions of lives are affected by Christianity's active campaign to keep homosexuals from being equal in partner benefits.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And, btw, Lalo is right that the LTSHTS has been refuted MANY times on Hatrack. Whether or not you would side with any of the refutations is up to you, of course, but I myself have written a few, as has Bob Scopatz, Lalo, and others. I recommend Bob's the most, because he's smarter than all of us combined.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: That doesn't change the fact that my rights are being infringed...
How exactly? Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I'm in agreement with Nick. I don't think the government should disallow same sex marriages. Although I believe it is a sin, I can't see a concrete way in which it harms society enough to justify denying it to monogamous gay couples. This is one of those areas where I can't force my beliefs on others. I think it is wrong because I see it as a sin, but many others don't.
I do not, however, believe that churches should be demonized for claiming that it is a sin and refusing to accept it.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: And, btw, Lalo is right that the LTSHTS has been refuted MANY times on Hatrack. Whether or not you would side with any of the refutations is up to you, of course, but I myself have written a few, as has Bob Scopatz, Lalo, and others.
If a "refutation" has to be believed to be in fact a "refutation", it was never a refutation in the first place. To refute somebody is to bring facts into light to show them without a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong. Nobody had done that yet to my knowledge, and I have been here a little while. Not that long, but a little while.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
How?
Wetchik, I would one day like to own a home with a life-long partner of mine and I would like to file a joint tax return with him and I would like to be able to put him on my health insurance plan and I would like to be able to see him when he's in the hospital, and I would like to be able to show the rest of the world that a homosexual is a type of human being rather than a sexual deviant.
I don't need acceptance from the Church community, or the community at large really, but I need them to keep their judgments to themselves.
I would also be happy to live in a society where a homosexual kid doesn't have to be afraid to be himself in order to get through life to adulthood, as I was. I think that if we had homosexual marriages it would go a long way towards making America a safer place for homosexuals, mentally speaking.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wetchik, I was not using "the Law" in regards to Church law. I was referring to Secular Law. So that those people who do not believe in the Bible are not restricted to laws based solely on biblical teachings.
Or people who believe different interpretations of the Bible are not restricted, legally, into following rules that come, solely from the more common interpretations.
If there are other reasons for these rules and limitations, then fine. I am only referring to laws and limitations that come from specific religious interpretations.
I have no problems with your beliefs. You believe that the act of homosexuality is a sin and can not be condoned with the blessings of marriage.
Fine. I admire you for standing up for your faith, and doing it in a logical way.
There are some Christian denominations (the Episcopal church for example) and some more liberal members of many denominations who disagree.
I am no expert on biblical studies so I will leave that to the experts.
Our constitution says that such disagreements and religious debates are to be held in forums such as this, and not summarily ruled on by the government.
PS, the Haircutting thing has some holes in its logic. May I suggest you switch to Eating a Cheeseburger? That is forbidden for Beef and Milk Products are not to be served and eaten together.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Wetchik, I would one day like to own a home with a life-long partner of mine and I would like to file a joint tax return with him and I would like to be able to put him on my health insurance plan and I would like to be able to see him when he's in the hospital, and I would like to be able to show the rest of the world that a homosexual is a type of human being rather than a sexual deviant.
I'm not against civil unions Caleb. They would provide all the things you said above. I'm just saying I believe that it's against God's will for homosexuals to be binded by the Christian Church.
What will marriage in a church give you that a civil union won't?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well let's ease off the semantics for a bit.
To "refute" something does not necessarily mean to disprove with facts. It often does involve facts, but the verb "to refute" something means "to deny the accuracy or truth of" that something, which could be just argument or just facts.
Furthermore, the Hatrackian refutations of LTSHTS often DO involve facts. It's the interpretation of all this facts and arguing that matters, and that's what I was saying was up to you.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Dan:
quote: There are some Christian denominations (the Episcopal church for example) and some more liberal members of many denominations who disagree.
True. I disagree with their belief, but I know they exist.
quote: That is forbidden for Beef and Milk Products are not to be served and eaten together.
Where did you get that?
quote: Fine. I admire you for standing up for your faith, and doing it in a logical way.
Thank you, and I admire you for trying to argue with one as as stubborn as myself. Lalo doesn't feel that I have been logical at all.
quote: Well let's ease off the semantics for a bit.
To "refute" something does not necessarily mean to disprove with facts. It often does involve facts, but the verb "to refute" something means "to deny the accuracy or truth of" that something, which could be just argument or just facts. Caleb: Furthermore, the Hatrackian refutations of LTSHTS often DO involve facts. It's the interpretation of all this facts and arguing that matters, and that's what I was saying was up to you.
OOOOHHHH! *lightbulb goes off in noggin*
[ November 05, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The dietary food laws. Basically, one of the Kosher laws.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't see the point in granting "civil unions" if they are the same thing as a marriage. Just call it a marriage.
That doesn't mean denominations who believe it is wrong have to perform the ceremony in their church or validate it in any way.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
It's not often that we get to see Lissande streak through a thread.
My main problem with civil unions, at least as they are interpreted in Vermont, is that it doesn't extend to heterosexual couples who don't want to get married. If that were the case, I would seriously consider getting a Civil Union with my girlfreind, which would better represent our relationship.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: The dietary food laws. Basically, one of the Kosher laws.
People of the Jewish faith follow Kosher laws, not Christians. Christ explained it in the New Testament I believe. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
<---not interested in getting married in a church.
I said that Christianity was actively trying to keep homosexuals from being equal in partner benefits, and it is. I also said that my rights were being infringed by this state, and they are.
*Civil Unions are only available in Vermont and are not recognized throughout the country*
You asked me how my rights were being infringed. Since I live in Kansas City Missouri and not in Vermont, I gave you a list of various things.
But something else I should have mentioned is DIGNITY. I do not depend on the Bible to call myself a decent human being--and I suppose no one can, since the Bible's pretty clear on how crappy we humans are--and it offends me that the law of our country would do so.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Where does dignity come from? Can you get dignity from other people?
In asking for dignity from the outside, you are asking for a nod and an aknowledgement. That requires the opinion of other people.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Well, at the moment. But I thought you were arguing that your rights would still be infringed if civil unions were available in all states.
Why would you not have dignity if homosexual unions were allowed?
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: In asking for dignity from the outside, you are asking for a nod and an aknowledgement. That requires the opinion of other people.
That's a very good point. Why would you want the good opinions of those who condemn you and your actions?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Um, no no and no.
lol
No, I don't have anything against civil unions, but I'm curious to know what part of my posts led you to believe that.
And Katharina, the dignity I'm talking about does come from outside. It comes from outside the CHURCH. It says "You are a valued member of the community, and even if millions of people disagree with your sex life, you have as much of a right to a happy life as THEY do".
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
*streaks back*
1) There's also a pretty hefty chunk of Luke (Acts, Peter, dream) and Paul (meat, idols) devoted to that topic. Cheeseburgers are ok. (I mean, they're gross; who would put disgusting American cheese on a perfectly good hamburger? But it's permissible...)
2) *raises eyebrows* It almost looks like WP might be rolling his eyes at my (perfectly decorous, though undeniably and hypnotically attractive) streaking in this thread. This apparent lack of respect disturbs me. *zap*
*decorously streaks out*
[ November 05, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What church are you referring to? There isn't one monolithic church to which everyone who disagrees with you belongs. What church?
You mean the government? The one that has nothing to do with what the people it governs believes? So much for of the people, by the people, for the people...
In a democracy, there is always a balance between overbearing majority rule and pandering to special interests groups. In saying you want acknowledgment from the government - outside the people who sustain it - you're demanding a nod to your special interest defying the wishes of majority.
Sometimes that's warranted (the oft-invoked civil rights chapter), but not always.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Yes, this is one of those sometimes. You hit the nail on the head.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope, it isn't. It's a sin, and you're asking for that to be justified and approved.
And now we see where the discussion grinds to a screeching halt...
[ November 05, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
It needs no justification or approval, just like anything other natural human behaviour that hurts no one. It needs only the freedom to be and act according to choice, just like everything else in a free society. Obtaining that freedom would require an acknolwedgment of that freedom.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Kat,
Does the fact that the government allows businesses to stay open on the Sabbath imply that the government--and therfore the people--are justifying and approving of sin?
[ November 05, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The government, yes.
The people, no-- as long as they choose not to shop on the sabbath, and take what action they can to keep the sabbath day holy.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And you would, of course, consider it a right to work on Sunday, if you wanted to?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Government offices are closed on Sunday.
I don't vote for state-sponsored gambling, either.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But, when it comes to deciding things on the BASIS of whether-or-not it's a sin, THEN the government shouldn't be making those decisions.
Good Lord! Do you have any idea how many times my beloved and I have broken the laws of Georgia in the privacy of our marriage bed?
That's nobody's business. It may be sin, though I doubt most people would think so (since we are not the same gender), but sin or no sin, it's nobody's damned business.
Saying that the government has a right to regulate 'sin' is just scary. Some sins are only thoughts, so once you open that door... but I guess that door is already open, with "hate " crimes. I seem to recall some of you being against certain hate crime legislation...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I still am, but that's on a different principle. So is Irami, for the same principle. Come on, Olivet - don't bait. Why do you have a post defending privacy and advocating thought-policing at the same time?
Is this the don't-legislate-morality argument?
Private acts are exactly that. Do whatever you want. But don't ask for a public blessing.
[ November 05, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
But, kat - that's part of the issue. We have a society that has established laws governing our behaviors and actions and consequences of not following them.
When they are outdated/outmoded, whatever you want to call them, then it seems that they could/should be changed.
I don't think it's so much asking for a "public blessing" as a "public recognition" that though I may be different from you I am still a human being, created equally according to our Constitution.
Of course, it took a long struggle to get equality for the slaves we carted over here, and even longer to get equality for women, but what the heck - if a group needs to be oppressed for the welfare of the majority, then let's choose gays. Or let's start removing women's freedoms. Or let's reinstitute old policies whereby only "landowners" get to vote and have a say in how their country is governed.
I guess if you want to get really nitpicky, then we should probably really follow some of those hundreds of laws Moses gave to the Egyptian slaves afetr they escaped to the desert. Which shall we still follow? Personally, I'm really bummed they don't insist on segregating women during their unclean periods now - that was probably the best lifesaver and rest a woman has ever had! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
After they were set free, I'm sure you meant, Shan.
quote: Personally, I'm really bummed they don't insist on segregating women during their unclean periods now - that was probably the best lifesaver and rest a woman has ever had!
*sigh* You seem to be buying into a common misunderstanding. The Red Tent is not at all accurate.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
**skips through thread throwing rose petals, giving hugs, and smiling broadly**
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
OMG, this can't be happening! It must be a sign of SOMETHING!!
Pat's . . . he's . . .
SKIPPING! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm pretty sure skipping = sashaying.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
And now I'm dosey-doeing.
**dosey does**
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pat dosey-doeing Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: Come on, Olivet - don't bait. Why do you have a post defening privacy and advocating thought-policing at the time?
Is this the don't-legislate-morality argument?
I wasn't advocating thought-policing. At least, I don't think I was.
YOu used the word "Sin", which muddied the waters. I'm saying that IS subjective (not subjective to YOU-- I get that).
To say that something can't have a public 'blessing ' because it is a 'sin' just adds too many layers of subjectivity to it. You can't use government to justify religion or vice versa. Not in the US, anyway.
Nevada has legal brothels. I'm pretty sure prostitution fall under a 'sin' heading. Just as inter-racial marriage was once seen as both sinful and illegal, and a man had the legal right to rape his wife.
It's a different heading.
I was surprised to see you using an argument that had been used against you in hate-crime (Oddly enough, you persuaded me on the hate-crime heading-- I still think it might help in the short term, but the underlying idea that some motives are worse than others is very scary).
I just think you shot your argument in the foot when you used the word "sin", since it's a religious term that carries a lot of baggage. I think we can debate our points without pushing those buttons.
Society has the right to define those things, like marriage. I'm okay with that-- I see the need for the majority view to dictate social standards (though my heart aches for Caleb).
I think that, for me, the debate is pointless for two reasons, 1. it won't change anything, 2.The change, though inevitable (and unaffected by debate, see above) will come in it's own time, not ours.
It's really funny, because these same sorts of arguments have been going on for centuries, only the topics have changed. Slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights in this century, going back to the "Do women have souls?" essays in the Age of Milton.
I like you kat. I hope you know that. I see these kinds of arguments as pointless, though, because they all swirl into a pit of emotion (whether Caleb's pain and resentment or your religious feeling-- all of which I understand and sympathize with) and it changes nothing, except it makes me sad to see people I care about hurting each other.
And I sort of wonder what any of this has to do with Irami? Is he back?/ I offered an olive branch once when I saw him on, but he didn't respond, so... I no longer bear him any ill will, or anything. People get upset, and they get petty and mean-spirited sometimes...
Guh, I just remembered why I stopped posting on serious threads. Bad idea to come back, especially now that I have the flu.
I hope we're still friends. I didn't mean to upset you> I can't see the screen, now... crying.
I'd better just go.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Society has the right to define those things, like marriage. I'm okay with that-- I see the need for the majority view to dictate social standards
You're making my bow-tie spin, Olivet. Surely it is better to go for a modular macro-society that incorporates many different sub-societies than one uber-society?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It would be better, but we're just talking US society, and government, the way it is. I'm essentially apolitical, in that I don't think a single individual's opinion matters all that much.
Which is why I find these debates so wearying and pointless.
The only reason they don't also make me sad and angry is because I really believe, deep in my guts, that this issue will be as big a no-brainer to the internet forums of 2203 as slavery is to us now. As evidence of this, I give you the popularity of Will and Grace. Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: The only reason they don't also make me sad and angry is because I really believe, deep in my guts, that this issue will be as big a no-brainer to the internet forums of 2203 as slavery is to us now. As evidence of this, I give you the popularity of Will and Grace.
What I don't get is why people continue to compare gay rights to womens suffrage and the slavery laws of the past.
Women suffered more than homosexuals do today.
Slave suffered more that both homosexuals and women suffragists combined.
They are uncomparable.
Olivet, why are you so sure that homosexuality will be such a widely-accepted practice in the future. Hey, it might be, but how do you know? I'm just curious.
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
Um, because saying words like "damn" and "hell" and "ass" were huge no-nos just twenty or thirty years ago on television, yet they abound today. Surely, discrimination against gays is worse than that. Seventy years ago, women wouldn't be caught seen wearing what preteen girls wear in public today by anyone other than their lovers—pretty much the same for men.
The point is that society's strictures and tabus get more lax over time, though usually within reason. The fact that women and slaves (and other minorities) have faced worse discrimination should be an indicator that homosexual acceptance will begin coming sooner and with somewhat lower resistance. I don't actually believe that—I know too many religious people who refuse to abide by that in a civil manner (i.e.- "God hates Fags" crap)—but using the logic of lesser discrimination leads inexorably to less resistance integrating to the public. Obviously false. So, either gays are more widely (though very differently) discriminated against, or not a whole lot of people are as loony as those in the image I linked (still using the former logic).
Oh, and can all the people who don't like it because it's a sin justify to us why they feel it's okay for people of other religions or no religion to have marriage rights? Why is it justifiable for someone who is Buddhist or Muslim or Wiccan—people who are obviously not accepting and/or openly disregarding of Christian doctrine—to marry someone else, but as soon as two guys want to marry people get all holy on the issue? Do tell me how the hierarchy of sin handles this so clearly and cleanly that it seems to be a non-question to those of Christian persuasion (because I think I missed that chapter).
Furthermore, I have had premarital sex, I have drank alcohol to the point of overindulgence, and I've thought many other sinful thoughts—to be honest, I don't think I'm remorseful for pretty much any of it (except for maybe a couple of the thoughts). Do I have no right to marry because of my sinful nature? The only thing marriage will stop is the premarital sex, and maybe I'll find a vice or something after that. Using the "holy" argument against gay marriage would ultimately lead to anyone who doesn't enter into marriage in a "righteous" fashion is pretty much doing the same damage to the ideal of marriage (except it's easier to pretend otherwise when we don't have to tell our little Bobby about Uncle Dave and Aunt Richard).
[ November 05, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Actually, rivka, I meant exactly what I said. I've been reading a book called The Bible Jesus Read by Philip Yancey. His interpretation is that those laws and 40 years of wilderness were imposed on the "freed" peoples becuase they did not know how to behave in freedom. As soon as Moses trekked up the mountainside to chat with G-d, they immediately fell back into their "slave" days behavior. And it took all of those "laws" (interpret - ways to behave in free society) and 40 years of complete dependence on G-d, to teach them differently. Not that the lessons ran very deep, hence the need for the Savior (and all the subsequent prophecies regarding said Savior.)
I thought it a very interesting insight, and actually the book itself is rather fascinating. And a nice prod to pick up the "actual" book and read it. I highly recommend it.
Edited for minor spelling/grammatical errors.
Edited one more time to say these two things:
Go, Leto!
and
The particular period of time you live in defines the social issues of the day. I.e., how moral/right of it was the British Empire to send convicts to live or die in Australia and the America's? That was a huge issue at the time it was occurring. How moral/ethical was it of the plantation owners to bind people based on their origin and color of skin into bondage? How moral/ethical has it been for women and girls to have no property rights, no freedom to decide their life course, no freedom to decide when, if and how many children they would bear? How moral/ethical is it for the U.S.A. today to turn a blind eye to the illegal immigrant labor practices that are currently on-going? Who's to say what is an important issue a years after the fact? Just to mention a few -
And one last edit - sorry - it took me a minute to get the reference to "The Red Tent" - hefty assumption on your part, rivka - I've never read it. Is it any good?
[ November 06, 2003, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I just do. It's like knowing that... Oy.
When we found out that my son's testicles had been damaged to the point that one of them had to be removed, and the other was so scarred that he would probably never father children, I was devastated. The thought that he would never know the the amazing feeling he brought into my life when I first held him in my arms... I weighed on me.
I obsessed. I couldn't sleep. I got up in the middle of the night and prayed, many times.
Finally, something happened. I don't know what. I just knew it was going to be okay. Maybe it was an answer to my prayer. Maybe it was nothing of the sort. But suddenly, there was peace.
I have been attacked here sometimes, and I probably brought it on myself. I would cry and obsess over things people said to me here. Sometimes it was just personal and petty, sometimes not. I do know that if the hubby wakes up and finds me crying like this, I'll have to leave for good-- and even I know it's because I'm sick. I should have known better.
But I'll tell you why I think it will change.
1. That's what society does.
2. Even now there are still lingering prejudices in society-- the pressures that made J.K. Rowling publish her Harry Potter books using only her innitails-- because they thought boys wouldn't want to read a story about a boy written by a woman. But the dinosaurs are dying off.
3. As the world population grows, there will be more gay people. I believe that, because that's what happeneds with fruitflies, etc. and I think homosexuality is built into us, to spring up when it's needed, just like fruit flies, or whatever. i think it's cyclic.
4. I just think that by the time our babies are great-grandparents, the percieved need to keep those uppity faggots in their place will be gone.
5. And I HOPE that some day we will all be able to celebrate in joy when tow people find love for each other, instead of saying, "That's wrong because they're not the same race" or "That's wrong because blah, blah"
Anne Kate, who is LDS, has shared on this forum her own belief that her church will one day come to that conclusion, too. A lot of folks disagreed with her, but you haven't kicked her out.
And I used the Vote as an example (for women and minorities) but probably the nearest example is even more recent. In the 1960s, Virginia became the last state to prosecute an interracial marriage, and there are still lots of folks (of various races) who still believe it's wrong. They have the right to that belief. I'm glad, though, that it isn't illegal.
It may be offensive for me to be the one to say this, but sometimes you just have to have faith, and let time work its magic. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's an interesting interpretation, Shan. Sounds like it is predicated upon some beliefs I do not share. *shrug*
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
I can respect that Olivet. We might not agree, but hey, that's how the world is.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It is interesting. I suggest re-reading Deuteronomy and perhaps Leviticus - if you're up for it!
I think the most important point this particular Biblical scholar makes is that the Old Testament is what Jesus read, used and loved - and that you can't have a firm understanding of the New Testament unless you have spent some time with the Old -
In Mia Maids (soooo many years ago) I tried plowing through the Old Testament as one of my goals, but it just didn't have much meaning at age 12. It's rahter different this time around. Lots more to think about. Many more connections to make.
However, my original point remains (which I obviously didn't make clearly enough) - I don't think it's okay to pick and choose which biblical "laws" we will follow, and I also don't think most of the fundamendalist movement has much idea about why those "laws" came into being during Moses' time, and they are obviously ignoring Jesus' injunction to follow the great commandments of "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul and mind" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Okay - go ahead and hang me for a heretic now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Shan, I suspect I am more familiar with both Leviticus and Deuteronomy than the majority of Jatraqueros. In the original Hebrew.
And I don't pick and choose which laws I will follow. I keep them all. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hmmmm. All the laws?
Deuteronomy 12:2
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods . . .
Deut 12:27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.
Deut 14:1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourseles, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
Deut 17: 1-5 Roughly paraphrased - with 2 or 3 witnesses, you are allowed to stone to death a person that has worshipped other Gods
Deut 21: 10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thy enemies, and the Lord they God has delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; . . .
Shall I continue? Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Like I said, the Old Testament is not the best place to justify a position like mine.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
But it sure makes for fascinating reading, don't you think? Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Of course, just as long as you realize that although I can't use it to justify my position, you can't use it against me for the same reasons.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Never. History takes care of that quite neatly.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, you're right. It is true that some of those laws can only be kept while the Temple is standing, or by certain people. OTOH . . .
quote: Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods . . .
This one has already been taken care of. See Joshua and Judges.
quote: And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.
Cannot be done in the absence of the Temple. However, the Sages tell us that our prayer services are a temporary substitute.
quote: Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
Self-mutilation is indeed a forbidden mourning practice.
quote: Roughly paraphrased - with 2 or 3 witnesses, you are allowed to stone to death a person that has worshiped other Gods
"Paraphrase" isn't quite the word I'd choose. In any case, this one requires a court with the power to mete out capital crimes -- which hasn't been true for quite some time.
quote: When thou goest forth to war against thy enemies, and the Lord they God has delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; . . .
Ok, not being either male or a soldier, this wouldn't apply to me either. Besides, that one is an "you may" not "you must" anyway.
We believe that keeping all the commandments that one CAN is considered as though one had kept all 613. I'm used to thinking in those terms; please pardon my lack of clarity.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hmmm. I'm not finding any that are particularly appropriate for this day and age out of those 613.
Deut 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertainith unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lorf thy God.
Here's a beaut - which when we look at our rape laws to day has not really changed:
Deut 22: 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
You know - I don't know what bothers me more. These "laws" that Moses laid down for so-called decent, God-fearing behavior - or what must have been occurring already for these sorts of laws to be necessary.
Kinda makes one stop and wonder just WHAT G-d really meant by "ye are a chosen and peculiar people", hmmm?
This author made some key points about this section of the Bible which I think help in the understanding - first, these "laws" were part of three final speeches Moses gave to his people before they left the wilderness for the Promised Land - which he would not get to set foot on. HE would no longer be with them to guide and lead and intercede with God. But he wanted to impress on these poeple to remember! Where they had been, Who delivered them, what was expected. The past could not be forgotten or undone - instead honor it through bearing witness, so as not to repeat it. Moses learned that success was a danger to a follower of God. He struck a stone in anger and brought water. For that, he would not be allowed to cross over into the Promised Land. He wanted these poeple to know this. As this author put it, "every significant downfall . . . came when he seized power for himself - rather than relying on God." God uses our human weaknesses.
Anyways - I am tired and rambling. It's been a fascinating thread - thanks for letting me take part! Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
I got to admit, i'm right with you here, Olivet, though less civil about it. I tend to feel exactly like Lalo about this with a few exceptions, but I tend not to post about it because it depresses me so bloody much. For me, this really catches onto your statement concerning this argument in the passage of history:
"It's really funny, because these same sorts of arguments have been going on for centuries, only the topics have changed. Slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights in this century, going back to the "Do women have souls?" essays in the Age of Milton."
I feel much the same way, and when I read people justifying what to me will eventually be clearly defined as little different than racism, and sexism, I cringe. As Olivet has mentioned, I think Time and science will come to underline who is right and who is wrong on this issue.
Of course, I also have to understand that I come from a different background, and this has shaped some of my interpretations. Despite being raised, as a fairly devout Lutheran, my home housed a somewhat agnostic father, and an open minded mom. I grew up twenty miles south of San Francisco, and in my teens was repeatedly exposed over and over to both gay culture, and gay individuals, often over a local radio show that had gay comics, and later at school and university. The way I was raised, the region I grew up in, and the people I have met have left me predisposed to be opened minded about the issue. My experiences over time insured to a degree, my decision making on the issue. I could not ever come at this issue from the Homosexuality is an abomination/sin angle after my upbringing, and after I met and dealt with gay men and women repeatedly over the years. My associations assured that I'd see in these friends a truth that others deny. That they were wholly, and assuredly "gay" and had little choice in the matter.
Coming from a different environment and different experience, perhaps a devout Baptist, or Catholic, or LDS upbringing, or in a family that frowns upon homosexuality and amongst a community where gays must remain closeted, I imagine I might think differently. I understand that, to a degree, and I can sympathize, if not agree with the perspectives that come as a result of the truth's people perceive who come from a different environment from me. I suppose I could be more open minded here, but I tend to be close minded when it comes to relative flexibility on issues that to me, are akin to racism and sexism.
But that isn't where I come from, and that isn't who I came to be, and I feel nothing but sadness when I see people who can't believe what seems so clear to me, with their own eyes, but can believe the scribblings of some troubled man and men thousands of years ago in a thoroughly different, and thoroughly fallible culture.
I'll make no presumptions that all individuals claiming to be gay, are born gay. I don't believe that's true. Certainly evidence is stacking up that confused sexuality can and often is the result of sexually and physically abusive homes. But this is only one portion of the gay community. Virtually every gay man and women I met in college came from happy homes, free of violence, free of abuse, just as a majority of gay men and women do. The fact remains, homosexuality has been punished with everything from absolute ruthlessness, and violence, to ostracism, and basic prejudice and yet it's survived, generation after generation inspite of the monstrous consequences that have been visited upon those who are gay or perceived to be gay. This is no common sin, like theft, or adultery, or murder which are matters of choice, and character, quite clearly the objective evidence, if not the irrefutable scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is nearly always something that people merely are.
I simply cannot and will not ever condemn someone for what they are, simply because of a few passages in a book, and a certain dogma suggests that I should. I'd turn my back on Christianity, and God itself, before I'd turn my back on individuals who are born different than I am. I suppose what it comes down to, for me, is how I was raised, and how I perceive God, and quite clearly I was raised differently and perceive God differently from others.
Rant over (needless to say, I get a bit too chatty, and cranky on this subject, as it's sore point with me).
[ November 06, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: graywolfe ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know, Shan, I could respond to your selections. But it would clearly be a waste of my time. You've made your position clear enough.
quote: Hmmm. I'm not finding any that are particularly appropriate for this day and age out of those 613.
Obviously, I disagree. Strongly.
quote: You know - I don't know what bothers me more. These "laws" that Moses laid down for so-called decent, God-fearing behavior - or what must have been occurring already for these sorts of laws to be necessary.
Kinda makes one stop and wonder just WHAT G-d really meant by "ye are a chosen and peculiar people", hmmm?
I have a variety of comments I will choose NOT to make about your biases and assumptions here.
I don't attack others religious views, and I'll thank you not to attack mine.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Look on the bright side, Caleb...if things go as they have in the past decade, by 2042 Christians will make up under 50% of the population, and they won't have the majority thing to backup their arguments.
I'm with Olivet, though, in thinking that common sense will prevail sooner than that, legalizing civil unions before you retire. Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
The reason I’m against gay marriage:
Homosexuals make up ~10% of the population, depending on your source, and will never be anywhere near a large minority of the population.
Second, any type of legal protection granted by marriage can be achieved in the current system by use of current legal forms: Power of attorney and so forth. Many lifelong homosexual partners have these set in place and often work better than marriage because they can't be torn apart by the family courts.
Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves?
Also, the reason marriage isn't a right is because what if someone doesn't want to marry you? Did they violate you're right to marriage?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Can they file joint income tax returns? Can they receive dependency medical, SS, pension, unemployment, or veterans benefits? Can they sue for wrongful death on behalf of a deceased spouse? Can they get family rates on insurance or move into family zoned areas? Can they stop a partner from being deported? Can they enter hospitals and jails at times designated for immediate family only?
I think marriage rights go a lot further than power of attorney.
And I agree, we should give equal rights to polygamists.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:You know, Shan, I could respond to your selections. But it would clearly be a waste of my time. You've made your position clear enough.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm. I'm not finding any that are particularly appropriate for this day and age out of those 613.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know - I don't know what bothers me more. These "laws" that Moses laid down for so-called decent, God-fearing behavior - or what must have been occurring already for these sorts of laws to be necessary.
Kinda makes one stop and wonder just WHAT G-d really meant by "ye are a chosen and peculiar people", hmmm?
I have a variety of comments I will choose NOT to make about your biases and assumptions here.
I don't attack others religious views, and I'll thank you not to attack mine.
Rivka, questioning religious perspectives is not attacking them, and certainly can't be interpreted as an attack on you and your religious beliefs. If you disagree, fine, explain why -- but I have to say, thus far, it seems almost as though you're looking to stifle discussion, not actually defend your point of view.
Respond to her selections. Yes, she's stated her position; it's more than you've done, and I'm afraid I don't see how her straightforwardness in any way prevents you from replying in kind.
quote:The reason I’m against gay marriage:
Homosexuals make up ~10% of the population, depending on your source, and will never be anywhere near a large minority of the population.
Wow. Damn if it doesn't depress me that you're one of the voting public, Doug.
So screwing over only one in ten people just isn't enough to merit actions taken to restore equality? You do realize all minorities in America, total, make up slightly more than a quarter of the population, right?
quote:Second, any type of legal protection granted by marriage can be achieved in the current system by use of current legal forms: Power of attorney and so forth. Many lifelong homosexual partners have these set in place and often work better than marriage because they can't be torn apart by the family courts.
Heh. Oh, so denying homosexuals equality with heterosexuals is good for them?
In that case, let's get rid of marriage for heterosexuals, too. After all, if homosexuals have it so much more streamlined and efficient, why shouldn't we get in on the fun?
quote:Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves?
Wow!
Yes, Doug. Allowing state-recognized monogamy between homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly like polygamy.
And what if someone wants to marry themselves... Heh. Wow. There's a brainteaser for you.
quote:Also, the reason marriage isn't a right is because what if someone doesn't want to marry you? Did they violate you're right to marriage?
Heh HEH!
Yes, Doug. Yes they did. If I want to marry Nicole Kidman, and she refuses, she's violating my right of marriage. A lawsuit is pending.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Off-topic post addressed to Olivet:
quote:I just think you shot your argument in the foot when you used the word "sin", since it's a religious term that carries a lot of baggage.
Yeah, I know. That's when it stopped a persuasive argument.
That's why I put in the schreeching halt part - because with the invocation of the word, the common ground is lost. Any time you're attempting to communicate with someone, you HAVE to speak their language. I've been thinking about this a lot, which includes arguing about it with my dad. I swear I'm turning into him, and it's both inevitable and irritating.
Anyway, his contention was that people express emotions in different ways, and the person on the recieving end needs to understand how the person expressing the emotion does that - expresses it. My point was that that's fine for default actions, but if the expresser actually wants the message to get across, he can't abdicate responsibility for communication. If you're the one persuading/with a message, you're the supplicant. If you're persuading, you are asking people to loose their hold on their opinions and consider yours. The burden of communication is on you(/me - I've lost the thread of my pronouns here).
So, yeah, using the word sin did end the persuasive part of my posting, because I used language that was not communicative to the audience - those who do not believe the same action is a sin, or those who don't think it matters if something is considered a sin or not.
So, um, it's okay to not consider it a valid argument. It wasn't.
Of course we're still friends. At least, I sure hope so. I think you're absolutely wonderful. I hope the flu gets better. My lymph nodes are swollen - I wonder if I'm getting it? The whole thing came from being at work until late last night - studying for GRE.
I don't think Irami's back - he posts occasionally, half the time to scold me, but I noticed his post on this.
[ November 06, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Also, the reason marriage isn't a right is because what if someone doesn't want to marry you? Did they violate you're right to marriage?
Marriage isn't a singular right, of course, unless we wanted it to be possible for someone to marry themselves, as you suggested. The idea behind 'marriage' in this context--in almost all contexts--is, naturally, two consenting adults who choose that they want to function in the community as a unit, also being entitled to the standard benefits of that coupling.
The right to get married is like the right to vote. You can't vote when there is no election, but you still have the right to vote. You can't get married if no one will agree to it, but you still have the right to get married.
Doug, would you do me a favor and answer my last question?
"How would you react, Doug, if you and your fiancee, male and female, were denied marriage because you didn't agree with the local religion? Would you be offended at that point and demand your right to be married? Or would you accept that it was not the will of the community that you be wed and just move on? I think you're taking this "right" for granted because it IS readily available to you and your partner with no restrictions whatsoever."
[ November 06, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Homosexuals make up ~10% of the population, depending on your source, and will never be anywhere near a large minority of the population.
So, what is your threshold for a group to be large enough to be worthy of equality? Is it OK to deny equal employment and equal housing to Ukranians until they are >15% of the population? I like you Doug, but this arguement appalls me.
quote: Second, any type of legal protection granted by marriage can be achieved in the current system by use of current legal forms: Power of attorney and so forth. Many lifelong homosexual partners have these set in place and often work better than marriage because they can't be torn apart by the family courts.
I've addressed this before. Why should a committed gay couple have to go through the enormously more expensive and complicated process of hiring attorneys and peering into crystal balls to try and anticipate all future ways their union will be challenged in order to have the same protections of their union a drunk straight couple can get by dropping a few bucks at the Elvis Chappel of Love? I think it is naive to assert that all types of legal protection that a gay couple might need in the future even can be foreseen and addressed in advance, whereas a straight couple will get them all under the banner of "marriage", without having to take any additional precautions.
quote: Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves?
No, it does not follow that because the complaints of one group are found to be ligitimate that all complaints of all groups must be found to be legitimate. How is your statement any different that saying "Well, we can't decide in favor of this plaintiff because then we'll have to find in favor of all of them."?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Rivka, questioning religious perspectives is not attacking them, and certainly can't be interpreted as an attack on you and your religious beliefs. If you disagree, fine, explain why -- but I have to say, thus far, it seems almost as though you're looking to stifle discussion, not actually defend your point of view.
Lalo, did you read Shan's earlier post and my reply to it? I was responding to each selection -- even though I find this a "go ahead! prove me wrong!" challenge. But statements like "I'm not finding any that are particularly appropriate for this day and age out of those 613," don't make me feel like I'm having a dialogue with an open-minded person. They make me feel that a very very very basic tenet of my beliefs is being treated with casual disdain, and dismissed.
Unlike some Hatrackers, I really try hard not to argue for the sake of arguing.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie.
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*Gives katie a big ol' hug*
I like all you guys, you know. So I'm going to back out of this dicussion as gracefully as I can, and I hope I have not made anyone feel personally attacked. As a person whose actions were dictated by religious feeling for most of my life, I hope you all know that I respect those who have faith, even when I don't agree with them. I know how hard it can be to hold an unpopular belief.
Doug, the issue of polygamy isn't really the same, as it has some more complicated legal issues, but honestly, I don't see why consenting adults can't enter into partnerships of more than two people. Is it because I have the flu that polygamy/polyandry doesn't seem like that big a deal to me right now? *giggles*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs Olivet*
Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that?
[ November 06, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think the words you were looking for are "butt sex". Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Frisco: Oh, for crying out loud.
Your bias is showing. The ratio of male to female was not specified.
[ November 06, 2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
That's certainly better than the always popular wife-to-present-to-world-and-raise-kids and mistress-for-fun arrangement.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sorry. I think I must've left my sense of humor in my other pair of slippers if you took that seriously.
I did laugh at "whatever", though. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
The idea of polygamy doesn't really bother me, but I wonder about certain differences. Now, I don't claim to understand the heart of a polygamist, but I myself could never be married to more than one person.
Because when you get married you're telling that person that you love them more than anyone else in the world. I can't see myself saying that to more than one person.
If that's possible for some people, I wouldn't judge them. But the issue of marriage benefits become much shakier with polygamy than they do with homosexuality. If we let anyone marry as many people as they wanted to, abuses of the system would run rampant. For that matter, you'd be hard pressed to get a company to pay health benefits for 14 wives.
Basically, I don't have a problem with polygamists getting married, but I highly doubt we could make it work to treat those marriages as we would a two person union.
The reason, then, that homosexual marriage and polygamy are not comparable is that one works within the current system without harming anyone and the other one could potentially destroy it, if benefits were involved. Not because its a sin or a pagan weapon of war, but because we simply have no infrastructure to make it work.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Caleb, are you saying we should allow gay marriage because its easy to do so, but not grant polygamy because it would be hard? I think fighting the battle for giving them their rights would be far harder than the changes to the infrastructure that would have to occur.
A lot of changes had to be made to give African Americans equal rights and are continuing to be made today, but we did it because it was right regardless of how hard it would be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know, I just had something of an epiphany. I think I know where, way back, the trains split tracks.
You're seeing marriage as a way to really, really say "I love you more than anything." Traditionally, marriage has been a way to bind and build society - create a foundation on which society can be built.
Maybe that's why marriage has fallen apart so much? Because, honestly, with greater independence and less emphasis on group projects (farms and so on), the only self-interested reason in the world to get married is because you're crazy in love and want to show it?
It isn't romantic and dreamy, but there are many reasons other than headlong romanticism to get married (I've heard). OSC himself does a great deal of writing on it.
If you think marriage is basically a permanent love letter (which loses meaning if the love isn't happening), then polygamy doesn't make sense and gay marriage does.
If you think love is one part of a marriage but not all, and that as an institution it is both more encompassing and more important and the structure of marriage essential, then the idea of marriage as a rescindable love letter is ... incomplete?
(I'm just trying to figure things out. No offense intended anywhere.)
Added: "We can't do polygamy because it's complicated." That's not going to work.
Added after that: What z said.
[ November 06, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I agree with you that polygamists should have the right to get married to whomever they wish.
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure how to do that responsibly, which is not an issue for homosexual marriage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, if I ever had a child and that child chose or was born homosexual (and no one can claim, with any substantial evidence, that this point has been decided), I would still love them.
Yes, I would want them to have the same rights and priviliges and responsibilities as a heterosexual person or couple. This includes the right to adopt and raise children together. Even though I am by no means sure this wouldn't result in some substantial psychological problems in life. Not because homosexuality is wrong, but because society's recations to it is so mixed and often cruel or even violent that the child might really get a raw deal, which would result in possible issues.
Then again, until we start requiring permits to have children-something I am when I see certain news articles in favor of, until I cool off-the blatantly underqualified and unfit parents-to-be, there is no Constitutional grounds to deny this privilege to homosexual couples.
Personally I say concerning marriages make all of them a civil union. It would be the civil union that binds the couple together legally and confers all the rights and responsibilities under American laws of marriage. The civil union must be seperate, obviously distinct from any religious marriage. Swear to God not to cheat on your spouse, to share things, etc., but do that in church. Swear according to the law not to do those things and to do other things in a courtroom. It completely sidesteps the religious restrictions on homosexual unions and is, according to our American ideals and our Constitution, the only way to go. The fact that state governments have made bigoted and discriminatory laws to the contrary doesn't change that fact.
That said, just because a person thinks homosexuality is a sin does not, by that belief, make them a bigot. This is a common attack that is just as stupid, in my opinion, as the attack that homosexual unions should be legally impossible because God says so. The first goes from a belief to a label-belief that homosexuality is a sin to the label bigot (whether specifically said or not). The second goes from a belief to a law-I believe God says this, therefore it should be law.
I don't care if you think the disapproving Christian is a bigot, and I don't care if you think the homosexual is a sinner. Such things are completely outside a discussion of what the law is and is not, and what has been made of it. Even though more than half of Americans, according to polls, believe homosexual marriages should remain impossible here, that does not mean such a stance is lawful. We are not governed strictly by percentages. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. We have rules laid down on this issue quite specifically in the Constitution, and until and unless the Constitution is amended by the correct process, homosexual marriages should be legal in any state in the Union. Frankly, it is my belief that they are legal in America, but there are many laws on the state lawbooks that are illegal and wrongly adhered to.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Shan is obviously not paying ANY attention if he can't find any of the 613 commandments that are still applicable today.
The first one springs immideately to mind "Be fruitful and multiply" is certainly considered one of the commandments.
Or, how about "Thou shalt not kill." Always applicable. Or "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Usually a good one to follow along to.
How about imitating god's good and upright ways, or loving god? There are ten commandments specifiying our relationship with god.
Or learning torah and teaching it. That seems pretty applicable to any jew, or even many christians. There are 6 commandments concerning our relationship with Torah. For a jew, obviously these would all still be applicable.
From leviticus, we are not supposed to stand idly by while a human life is in danger. Nor are we supposed to wrong anyone in speech.
Nor are we supposed to cherish hatred in our heart.
The list goes on and on and on... This is a small sampling, shan. Obviously, you weren't looking very hard. Either that, or perhaps you just want to undermine a religion that isn't yours.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
A permanent love letter?
Well I don't know where you got that idea--perhaps from my pondering about the nature of polygamic love?--but it is not my personal definition of marriage.
But to be honest, I don't think it should matter to you what I think marriage is about. All that matters is that I want the right to join in union with whomever I wish, and be privvy to the various societal benefits that are given to recognized monogamous relationships.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*bear hugs Jeff*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dignity is not something that is ever specifically granted in American law. How could something so nebulous ever be written into law?
That does not mean that our laws are not designed to protect it, however. The dignity Caleb is speaking of is at the heart of the American Dream (to go cliche-y).
Caleb does not want to be married in any church. He wants a civil union that confers the same rights and responsibilities upon him and any future partner as does any heterosexual couple in America. What the Law is and should be is not a discussion that includes words like "sin" and "Will of God" and other such disapproving statements. We are not a theocracy, we are a republic. Someone, anyone please show me where in the Constitution it states that homosexuals are somehow inferior citizens when compared to heterosexuals, and then perhaps I can understand a basis for prohibiting homosexual unions.
No one can show much such a thing. The very idea of an "inferior citizen" flies in the face of everything America stands for. Not American citizens, not American churches, and not an American God, but America itself. Marriages are not a "public blessing", they have substantial legal benefits and responsibilities attached to them.
Other people have said it better. Whether or not an action or a thought is a sin to a specific religious group-no matter how numerous and powerful that group may be-has no bearing on whether or not the sin should be legislated. The Law is seperate from religion. Your religion's preacher or pastor or Pope or mullah or ayatollah or priest did not make this nation a republic and write its laws. In America, human beings are human beings, period. That means that, until they committ a crime, they have the same rights and responsibilities as every other human being in America. Homosexuality is not a crime, anymore than sodomy is a crime or interracial travel is a crime. State laws may say such things are crimes, but the fact of the matter is that those laws are unConstitutional and against our sacred ideals as Americans. They're only adhered to because collectively we don't have the balls to strike them down. We don't have the ability as a nation to ensure that religious laws and restrictions only apply to followers of those religions, and not to other citizens.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Thank you, Rakeesh. And Olivia, thank you too, for everything that you are and do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* You're quite welcome:) Although I do have to lament, as a heterosexual male, all the wasted potential! I've seen pictures of you on www.foobonic.com, specifically the one with all the wimmins. *sigh*
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
What can I say?
I am loved by sinners everywhere. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm the sidekick from Will and Grace. Which I think makes me even gayer than the gay men I know.
[ November 06, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Swear to God not to cheat on your spouse, to share things, etc., but do that in church. Swear according to the law not to do those things and to do other things in a courtroom. It completely sidesteps the religious restrictions on homosexual unions and is, according to our American ideals and our Constitution, the only way to go.
Rakeesh, that's exactly how I feel. If homosexuals want benefits from the marriages that heterosexuals have, then let them have it.
I just don't they should expect Christian churches to marry them (for reasons I said earlier in the thread).
[ November 06, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree. Christian churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
cough*Rakeesh*cough
cough*MafiagameatGrenmeon11/10/03*cough
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I may be mistaken, but has anyone EVER argued that Christian churches should be forced to marry anybody? They don't have to perform wedding ceremonies for any heterosexual union, so I don't see why people are concerned about it. It's not as if those of us in favor of human rights are trying to edit Church doctrine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You should get that looked at, Zan. It appears to me that your condition is colloquially known as "glutton for punishment" Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Wetchik, the thing is, I haven't seen a single person claim to be for forcing churches to recognize it. I think you have been incorrectly interpreting posts.
Oh, and hear, hear! to Rakeesh.
-Bok
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: I just don't they should expect Christian churches to marry them (for reasons I said earlier in the thread).
Bok, this is what I said. ^
Rakeesh was the one who said:
quote: I agree. Christian churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples.
I never said anything about forcing churches to do anything.
So no, I haven't been incorrectly interpreting posts. Maybe you have been incorrectly interpreting mine?
Or maybe you wish to catch me in error, which you failed if true.
[ November 06, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Wetchik ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The strange thing is, though, that there already are a small number of Christian churches that will marry gay couples and will declare them married before God. I've attended more than one such wedding myself. I never cease to be amazed at the number of Christians who speak in the name of Christianity when what they are really espousing is their own narrow little version of it.
Additionally, most gay people simply don't care what the churches that oppose them think. Very few gays are actively trying to get churches to marry them. The overwhelming majority of the effort is to change civil law.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Actually, let me re-phrase that last bit. The overwhelming majority of the effort is to secure equal recognition of their union in the civil arena. The majority of the effort expended in changing laws has been from the anti-gay side.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: I never cease to be amazed at the number of Christians who speak in the name of Christianity when what they are really espousing is their own narrow little version of it
Are you saying that I'm "espousing" my own narrow little version?
Well, you're right. Not many think as I do. Not many Christians believe that there should be unions at all. Was that supposed to be insulting? Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No, it wasn't supposed to be insulting, and it wasn't directed at you specifically, either.
However, that said, you do seem to write in a manner that sounds like you're speaking for Christianity in general when in reality there is no one on the planet who can do that. One can only speak for one's own version of Christianity. My point is that there are plenty of Christians now - and their numbers are growing - who believe that homosexuals are equal in the eyes of God and who believe that a monogamous homosexual relationship is not sinful. I'll readily admit that these thinkers are still a minority, but they do exist and they do call themselves Christians.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry, must be my misinterpretation... When you make statements like:
quote:I just don't [think/believe] they should expect Christian churches to marry them (for reasons I said earlier in the thread).
When you add words like just, and basically reiterate this point in every post, it begins to seem like there are people, particularly in this thread, who are somehow arguing that churches should bend to the state.
We get it. No one is arguing that position in this thread.
That was what I was responding to, the repeated restatement of a point no one has attacked... It makes it sound like you are defensive, and perhaps (knowingly or not) trying to goad people into arguing with it because they misinterpret it as being an argument for the restriction of marriage rights in civil law.
I realize now that this isn't the case, but surely you can see this repetition as distracting?
-Bok
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Man, I went to all that effort, and apparently shan is gone *Grin*
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: I don't see what the big deal is---two consenting adults who love each other want to be joined as one in the holy state of matrimony.
Bok: I'm sorry?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
The thing is Caleb, if a community does not want a particular aspect of society. Whether that is drinking, excessively loud music, or homosexual marriage, a community/state/country has the right to provide or deny it according to the wishes of the majority. It is not persecution to not allow a gay couple to get married in North Carolina, when they can be married in Vermont.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
No, she just works all day, Paul. And I don't have the luxury of playing on the forum from work.
A 1000 apologies to all the irritated - I didn't stick to my main idea closely enough - which was this:
I don't think it's justifiable to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.
Which is where rivka and I started to diverge. I was informed that she knew those particular books better than anyone, in original languages no less, and followed all the rules, period. I questioned that by tossing out a handful of quotes. I might not read Greek or Latin, but I do read King James, so I figured I could point out an item or two. All in the spirit of lively debate, you know.
I also stated that Jesus himself questioned blindly following all the rules and exhorted his followers to the great commandments of "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself."
And like I said, feel free to hang me for a heretic, but questioning blanket statements that are made is not an attack on anyone. So - get over it!
P.S. For anyone that remembers this particular story - a young man approached Jesus asking what he needed to do to gain access to Heaven and stated that he followed all of those inummerable laws to the letter. Do you remember what Jesus said? Get rid of all that you possess and follow me. Think on that for a minute.
For the life of me, I can't see Jesus condemning another person. As far as I can tell, He just loved them, sometimes gently and sometimes toughly. But nonetheless, He loved. And that's what he told us to do.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just some heathen baiting people that obviously know better. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Shan, for what it's worth, I got that you were questioning the assertion that the poster in question followed ALL the old testament laws, verbatim, not that you were picking on religion, or the religious beliefs of a group of people.
Like, I know of a guy who never so much as kissed his wife before the "I do"s. That, to me, was weird and scary-- and I was a firm believer in waiting for marriage for, you know, the REAL goodies. My point being that individuals do sometimes take religious rules to unhealthy extremes.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don’t think the real problem is people picking and choosing what law to follow: I believe in a lot of the values conveyed by the Bible, but I also disagree with a lot of them.
If you view the Bible as a historical document, written by real people (a collection of stories, if you will) which will be coloured by historical political events as well as the author’s personal bias and motivations, then I think this approach is perfectly sound and rational.
If however you believe that the Bible is 100% truthful and is literally the word of God, perhaps it becomes more difficult to justifying picking and choosing. There is a middle ground – people who believe the Bible is an important spiritual text and believe it is based on the words of God, but also recognise the historical context in which it was written and regard it accordingly.
I think the problem arises where someone picks and chooses, then bases their belief solely on the law/statement that they selectively chose. That is, if you’re prepared to say “I believe xyz is a sin because Paul said so and that is enough for me’ I think it is hypocritical not follow all of Paul’s (or whichever book’s) teachings.
Of course, such hypocrisy is fine when it’s done in private. Everyone can believe whatever they want, and base it on whatever they want. It’s when people start it to impose their own personal beliefs on other people who may not agree that I have a problem.
For me, this includes homosexual marriages – both secular and religious. (I’m not saying that churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples; but I see no problem with the Anglican churches that do, and their congregations who agree with that decision.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hi, Imogen! Well said. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
thanks olivet
( I should really be doing an assignment right now, but this is much more interesting than patents on plant varieties...)
[ November 06, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thanks, Olivet and imogen. I appreciate your input. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that?
Yes, Kat. Exactly. I'm for homosexual marriage, but against polygamy. The only way I'd be happy is if it were homosexual polygamy.
Just, y'know, out of curiosity, how did you pull that crap out of what I said? Reproduced below, in italics:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
I don't have the time right now but i'll post again soon.
Since it seems nobody remembers my true position on this subject, and everybody is getting angry with me, let me just say:
I'm of the "All or nothing" crowd. You can't just pander and destroy an instiution over a thousand years old just for one group. If you want to totaly redefine what marriage is then you must include EVERYBODY under the sun, not just what groups you like. So change it for everybody or don't change it for anybody.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thank you for stating that so clearly. However, I now have to respond that I think that is a ridiculously simplistic approach to the situation. I believe that out of all the possible changes to the conventional idea of marriage, some proposed changes will have merit and others won't. To simply say, we'll if we let you have your change then we have to implement all changes ad absurdem is to stick your head in the sand. This attitude, I feel, is a cop out and it is, quite frankly, insultingly dismissive of what I feel is a valid complaint.
[ November 07, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple.
heterosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the opposite sex
homosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the same sex
polygamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between more than 2 members of either sex
They still seem fairly comparable to me.
quote:But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
I never said that homosexual monogamy did have anything to do with polygamy. Maybe you're the one who needs to pay better attention.
quote:The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
Maybe you missed it, but many people don't find homosexual relationships to be morally equal with heterosexual relationships any more than polygamy is. You're still avoiding the question instead responding with backhanded insults. If society should allow homosexual marriages, why shouldn't it allow poygamous marriages as well? As Caleb pointed out, there certainly would be more legal issues to deal with in legalizing polygamy, but if it's the right thing to do, that shouldn't stand in the way.
quote:Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
Because we all realize that pedophilia has a definite victim. One of your chief arguments has always been that there is no victim in homosexuality. Who is the victim in polygamy if all parties are in agreement?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I, too, wonder how such a *ahem* stiff proponent of homosexual marriage can balk, even slightly, at the mention of giving polygamists equal rights.
True, there is potential for abuse. But those are minor details.
I think we have as much right to tell someone to be happy with one spouse as we do to tell someone to be happy with a spouse of the opposite sex.
Plus, I'm tired of beating the women off with sticks. I mean, come on! There's plenty of Frisco for everyone!
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
But the true test of your open-mindedness, Frisco, will be if you take me to be your lawfully wedded husband.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I would, but Lalo would get jealous.
Could we include him, too?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
It seems like he would have a problem with it. He would only want one of us at a time.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
The funny thing about the "all or none" that you espouse, Doug, is that you yourself prefer to have two tiers of people where the right to get married is concerned. The heterosexuals like yourself that have that right and the homosexuals like me that don't. So I'll agree with Karl's response to your post, but I'm adding this because I feel your position is untenable AND a tad dishonest.
And I really do wish you would answer my question, but I'm not going to quote it again because I don't want you to feel that I'm badgering you.
For you guys trying to trap us into a polygamous slippery slope, the game is up. I agree that they should have the right to join themselves if they wish (look above to see my lack of understanding/lack of judgment towards polygamists) but in a discussion about whether or not we should recognize same-sex MONOGAMOUS relationships, as Lalo pointed out, polygamy's acceptability to society--or the lack thereof--does not enter into the equation.
Next you could say "what if I want to marry my dog?" or "what if I want to marry this litter of kittens?", or "what if I want to marry my baby sister?". All of these fall into the same category as polygamy, and they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people who, like their heterosexual counterparts (no pun[s] intended), primarily desire monogamous relationships and a community that fosters them.
[ November 07, 2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I don't think those of us bringing polygamy into it are trying to trap you in a slippery slope argument.
On the contrary, all of us I've seen so far are arguing on your side.
I don't think there's all that much difference in monogamy and polygamy, no matter how many sexes are involved. I know I love more than one person. I can think of a few women I'd be happy to marry. And though I'm not interested in them sexually, I have a few good male friends with whom I'd have no qualms entering into a group marriage.
If it becomes a question of rights rather than morals, as I think it should, those interested or engaged in polygamy should receive them, too.
It only seems like a slippery slope when a moral argument seeps back into the fold.
[ November 07, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sexual relationships with animals is cruelty, to say the least. And probably rape.
Marrying a sister is incest, a taboo much more severe, in terms of genetics, than polygamy.
I'm actually a bit appalled that you'd liken those both to polygamy, even remotely.
Edit:
I think if you replaced this sentence:
quote: All of these fall into the same category as polygamy, and they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people
with this one:
quote: All of these fall into the same category as polygamy in that they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people
Then it becomes less offensive. But I still disagree. I think the big issue is who has the right to tell us who we can love and whether or not they can limit the sex or number.
[ November 07, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'll state for the record that I don't have any problem with polygamous or polyandrous relationships between consenting adults or even the legalization of such relationships. My point is that, as Caleb stated, there is no reason they need to be debated together nor does the merit of the arguements for one have anything to do with the merits of the arguements for the other.
OH, and Frisco, if you're switching teams I'll send you my number . I've seen your photos and you're a hottie! Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:heterosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the opposite sex
homosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the same sex
polygamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between more than 2 members of either sex
They still seem fairly comparable to me.
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that homosexual monogamy did have anything to do with polygamy. Maybe you're the one who needs to pay better attention.
And I never said you did. Had you paid closer attention, you may have seen the post was addressed to Katharina.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you missed it, but many people don't find homosexual relationships to be morally equal with heterosexual relationships any more than polygamy is. You're still avoiding the question instead responding with backhanded insults. If society should allow homosexual marriages, why shouldn't it allow poygamous marriages as well? As Caleb pointed out, there certainly would be more legal issues to deal with in legalizing polygamy, but if it's the right thing to do, that shouldn't stand in the way.
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we all realize that pedophilia has a definite victim. One of your chief arguments has always been that there is no victim in homosexuality. Who is the victim in polygamy if all parties are in agreement?
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
quote:I, too, wonder how such a *ahem* stiff proponent of homosexual marriage can balk, even slightly, at the mention of giving polygamists equal rights.
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
Or do I?
And if I ever should oppose polygamy, it would be to keep you all to myself. Mmm. White meat between two white buns, it's like a white-meat hamburger.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Well, I have always had a strange affinity for men who look like Doug McKenzie.
And I agree that there are specific differences in homosexual monogamy and general polygamy. I just find a bigger issue in whether or not the government can regulate my love life.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well I only mentioned them in context of the over-arching moral superiority that their argument implies. I agree with you insofar as I would not use those comparisons as an argument against polygamy--I would probably not argue against it at all; again, see above.
Those who are treating polygamy and homosexuality the same have let the "moral argument seep back into the fold", which is what I was arguing against. Like I said above, I think polygamists (sp?) ought to be able to make whatever choices they wish, even if I don't understand them. Perhaps especially because I don't understand them.
But when someone argues against homosexual marriage--ie, Doug not Frisco--by saying that we should allow polygamy if we allow gay marriage, their real argument is that if we considered marriage to be a right we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted with it and eventually it would become so perverted as to have no meaning in the public domain. That's why they use polygamy in their comparison: because to them it is a perversion. And that is the context in which I put those categories together.
As far as I can tell, Frisco, you and I couldn't agree more. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I just love how all of us pro-homosexual marriage folk have now divided and are arguing over polygamy.
Eddie, I'm not misconstruing your posts. Nobody is saying that monogamy and polygamy are exactly the same. I'm just saying that they're same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not.
Since this thread has already morphed, I would like to hear opinions on why polygamy is less acceptable than homosexual monogamy.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
That's what I was thinking and hoping, Caleb. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ryan,
quote:The thing is Caleb, if a community does not want a particular aspect of society. Whether that is drinking, excessively loud music, or homosexual marriage, a community/state/country has the right to provide or deny it according to the wishes of the majority. It is not persecution to not allow a gay couple to get married in North Carolina, when they can be married in Vermont.
You are mistaken. The USA is a republic. We are not governed by direct democracy. Communities do not have the legal authority to deny basic human rights if they don't like the right being exercised. Remember the Constitution? Bill of Rights? No, those documents do not say anything about homosexual civil unions, but they do say a great deal about things like if it's not specifically restricted here, it's a right, either of the states or of the individual. When a state passes a law, it doesn't mean the state had the legal authority to do so in the first place. At best it means no one is willing to challenge that law.
We've had lots of unconstitutional laws in America, and there's not a state in the Union that doesn't have many of them on their books right now. That doesn't mean they're right to have those laws, or that they have the legal authority to pass them. ---- Ed, why don't you try not to be so caustic and insulting for a change? You keep setting yourself up as the righteous, right-thinking individual telling the bigots just exactly how stupid they are. In case you haven't noticed, this is not the best way to change these "bigots'" minds.
Unless you simply prefer to hear yourself sound so socially concious and self-righteous to a real discussion, that is.
If homosexual civil unions should be legal-and they should-then so too should polygamous civil unions. If it's not expressly stated in the US Constitution that one group of people are somehow less merited to pursue their own happiness, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, then it should be legal. In fact it is legal, illegal state laws notwithstanding.
That said, on a personal moral level I have a serious problem with a polgymist in this day and age. I cannot think of a single culture throughout history where one form of polygamy was legal, and women were not denied basic human rights that we take for granted. -----
J4
[ November 07, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
Because they all involve an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship. Committed relationship is committed relationship is committed relationship.
quote:And I never said you did. Had you paid closer attention, you may have seen the post was addressed to Katharina.
And if you had paid attention, you would realize that your statement immediately followed a quote from me. How is it that you were addressing kat when you had just quoted me?
quote:I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
They're not the same, but they're certainly comparable. They're all vehicles, they all run on an internal combustion engine. They're much more alike than when they are compared to a building or a river. Nobody is saying they're the same, just comparable.
I'm not advocating polygamy, not by a long shot. And I've already stated that I'm OK with legalizing homosexual marriage. But thus far, all the arguments I've seen for homosexual marriages could be used for polygamous marriages as well. Like Frisco, I'm looking at this more as an intellectual exercise.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Well, now...don't mix up cause and effect. These women probably didn't have decent rights before the polygamous relationship.
Not that the stereotypes are all false, I just don't think there's enough evidence that shows that women (or men, for that matter. I know some women capable of pulling off polygyny ) in this day and age would be mistreated for me to approve of punishing individuals before they've actually committed a crime.
[ November 07, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is fascinating.
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
-----------
This has to be why this is the fiftieth thread in a month on this topic - because new aspects and angles keep appearing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Frisco,
You're right, of course. I should've expressed myself more clearly. I'll give it another shot.
Misogynistic societies are more likely to permit some form of polygamy because, let's face it, it's a system designed to keep the male in control. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a culture throughout history that has permitted polygamy where a woman can have multiple husbands. But I could rattle off without thinking at least a half-dozen that permit the other sort of polygamy, the paternalistic type.
This is what I meant when I said I was suspicious of men who want to have multiple wives. I do not really have enough faith in human nature to overlook the roles this forces on men and women. Man=boss. Woman=one of numerous wives. I suppose, somewhere, there has been a polygamist marriage with one many and numerous wives that wasn't based on ideas such as, "A woman's place is in the home," etc., but I cannot think of a specific example. Can anyone?
It's like parking your Ferrari on the curb, opening the door and leaving the keys in the ignition, and leaving the title in there as well. Too ripe for abuse for me to have much faith at all that it's not essentially a misogynistic environment.
Edit: Bear in mind, Eddie, that I believe polygamous civil unions of both types should be legal. I just have an instinct to mistrust the situation, that's all.
PS Katie, why on Earth ain't you on AIM?
[ November 07, 2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You're right, too. I don't like that scenario any more than you do.
I think polygamy, like most things, gets its bad stereotypes from the worst 5% of their population. I don't think most women in these relationships are forced to be in them...but the ones we see crying on TV sure were.
Legalizing polygamy wouldn't spawn as many of these situations, I hope, as much as it would the "group marriage" concept.
If I sound a little crazy, it's probably a combination of the facts that I read too much Heinlein and it's 9am and I'm still awake. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rakeesh, there's a new firewall at work, and it blocks everything. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Don't be like that, Kat.
I hate it when you graph bad motives onto someone else's perspectives to make someone look bad and then turn around and say "of course I don't believe any of that". What's the point? You did the same thing to me when trying to make the case that my views on homosexual equality were merely a mask for my true agenda of taking out the Church.
Then you said something like "I don't believe that, but the case could be made."
You actively slander other people and then sheepishly back off your rhetoric because you don't want people to think of you as being mean. It's babyish.
You'll say you are *amused* or *warming up* and generally just pile on the condescension and at the last moment you'll throw in a qualifier to get yourself out of trouble.
If you were really interested in reasonable discussion you would note that Lalo is not against polygamy:
quote:While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either.
And he has said as much several times.
Yet you still accuse him of producing fewer reasons for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality, as if he was trying to oppose it in the first place. That you ignored the fifteen previous posts discussing the reasons why the legalization of polygamic marriage has no merit whatsoever in a discussion about purely monogamous homosexual marriages is additionally telling--that or you simply have no decent response and wish to continue trying to trap homosexual equality in a slippery slope of what you consider immorality anyway.
More examples of Kat purposely misconstruing another person's perspective for the purpose of making them look bad:
quote:Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
quote:Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Please, when you are trying to pick somebody apart could you quote them directly and respond with fair summations of their views, rather than inserting a compeletly false version of it? Oh wait, you CAN'T quote anything of Lalo's that sounded like that because he didn't say anything that sounded like that.
quote:Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Except that no one here thinks that homosexuality needs to be "justified". You're missing the whole point, as usual. But that's something I kindof expect from you; it's the intellectual dishonesty I'm asking you to stop.
[ November 07, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Many of your emoticons I would put in the same category.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Katie,
quote:One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing.
Of course, it should be reiterated that millions of years of tradition and scripture, if they existed, would still not be a single gram of support to the idea that our nation should keep homosexual marriages prohibited.
Concerning AIM: Damn! Is Parachat a possiblity for you? I miss gabbing. ---- Frisco,
Actually I believe the opposite. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the majority of polygamous marriages have things like kidnapped young women, marriages between close family members without the woman's consent, etc. I don't think that because I have no data on the subject. But I think oppression and dehumanizing women is much more likely to happen in a polygamous relationship with one husband, many wives, than in either a monogamous homosexual or heterosexual union. --- Homosexuality does not need to be justified to anyone to make homosexual marriage legal. That's not how it works. The opposition has to prove that something is harmful and detrimental to society before they can legitimately say it should be illegal.
Just like innocent until proven guilty, we put the onus of agitating to keep something not specifically denied in the Constitution on the one doing the agitating. It's just that most people decide, "I disagree with it, so I'll support criminalizing it."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
Rakeesh: I'll go to parachat.
[ November 07, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I'm with Frisco. I don't agree with those saying that a discussion of the merits of polygamous marriage doesn't have any merits or bearing on a discussion of homosexual marriage. The justifications are the same. And I don't see it as an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy, because the line that existed before still exists: no victimization. So the progression homosexual marriage → polygamy → pedophilic/incestuous marriages → marriages to animals is a false one.
I don't think you can say that homosexual marriage is OK and polygamy is not. Everybody has backed off of that view now, but people were headed that way a page or so ago.
I don't think that polygamy should be illegal, and I do think this is an interesting and worthwhile angle on a tired old debate.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
My firewall doesn't let me do parachat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
D'oh! Sorry Katie:( I was about to leave-at the libary. I'll catch you Monday?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Parachat is hard for me when I'm working on other things, because I can't keep up with the conversation. Monday sounds good, though - see you then!
*plays small violin for lost AIM*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Misogynistic societies are more likely to permit some form of polygamy because, let's face it, it's a system designed to keep the male in control. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a culture throughout history that has permitted polygamy where a woman can have multiple husbands. But I could rattle off without thinking at least a half-dozen that permit the other sort of polygamy, the paternalistic type.
FYI I'm pretty sure that polygyny (if that is the matriachy side of it) occured quite frequently among the Pacific Island cultures. I read a book on people of the Pacific Islands a while back, but I don't remember the name or author. Google it if you wish.
AJ
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:But I think oppression and dehumanizing women is much more likely to happen in a polygamous relationship with one husband, many wives, than in either a monogamous homosexual or heterosexual union.
I agree and disagree.I think it's much more likely to be present in a polygamous relationship, but I'd argue that the situation existed before the marriage. I can't picture many headstrong and independent women getting into these relationships and finding themselves oppressed at a later date. Unfortunately, I think women who tolerate chauvinistic (I don't want to call being a housewife dehumanizing) behaviors are going to do so whether the relationship is monogamous or polygamous.
And, hey...at least with two or three other women on your side, you can revolt. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Actually, I used the wrong word earlier. Polyandry is the term for a relationship consisting of a woman with multiple husbands. Polygyny is the more prevalent form, a man with numerous wives.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Everybody has backed off of that view now, but people were headed that way a page or so ago.
I don't see that that is true. I've only seen a reluctance to throw it in because the ramifications of legalizing it are entirely different, including Rakeesh's concerns about the potential for abuse and the logistical concerns about how such marriages would be recognized when it comes to the standard monogamous couple benefits.
The issues are SIMILAR, in that the primary objection to keeping polygamy illegal is that it's an infringement upon human rights, but that is where the similarity ends.
In an argument that monogamous homosexual relationships should have equal rights to monogamous heterosexual relationships, we are fighting because no one else's concept of gender roles should be allowed to make those choices for us. With polygamy we are not discussing gender-marriage freedom as much as we are discussing many-party marriage freedom, and those are two entirely separate issues. Yes, they are similar in their "justifications", but that doesn't matter because it's an entirely different set of rights that no one here was trying to argue, for or against.
Furthermore, I don't see any reason for those of us who are on the Right to bring up the polygamy objection outside of the immorality-slippery-slope. They're saying "but then you have to allow polygamy too, and how can you justify that?"
They're using the fact that it would be very difficult to change marriage so as to accomodate many-partner unions as a justification for THEIR view that marriage should not be changed at all. Else why the objection? <---genuine question, in case I somehow misunderstood where all this polygamy talk came from in the first place.
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
You don't want to engage in that particular fray?
Hm.
Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They're using the fact that it would be very difficult to change marriage so as to accomodate many-partner unions as a justification for THEIR view that marriage should not be changed at all. Else why the objection?
I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all.
In any case, the reason you bring it up is the same. You say you are intrigued but you are trying to paint us as hypocrites (see your post to Lalo, above).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:Furthermore, I don't see any reason for those of us who are on the Right to bring up the polygamy objection outside of the immorality-slippery-slope. They're saying "but then you have to allow polygamy too, and how can you justify that?"
I agree that they are doing this. My personal answer, though, would be, "You are absolutely right. I think we should allow polygamy too."
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:I agree that they are doing this. My personal answer, though, would be, "You are absolutely right. I think we should allow polygamy too."
Which is more or less what I said:
quote:I agree that they should have the right to join themselves if they wish.
quote:Like I said above, I think polygamists (sp?) ought to be able to make whatever choices they wish, even if I don't understand them. Perhaps especially because I don't understand them.
Kat -
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Yeah, you can be intrigued by a seeming hypocrisy. What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because I think you'll find that that is a view held by YOUR side of the debate, not ours, and I think it perfectly--and redundantly--clear from our posts that this view is not our hypocrisy to explain.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*passes Caleb a Klondike bar*
Does this mean you're not going to let Lalo play?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Also I must turn down your Klondike bar, because I have a toothache. I do appreciate the offer, however.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. I'll put it in the freezer for you.
Back to Lalo. *waves around "Explain this" sign*
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And like I said, feel free to hang me for a heretic, but questioning blanket statements that are made is not an attack on anyone. So - get over it! "
of course, you responded to her blanket statement with the blanket statement that not one of the 613 commandments is valid today.
To a Jew, where there is nothing of the christian notion of the laws of moses no longer being necessary, many of the commandments have meaning that you won't recognize, because they are applicable to religion, but that doesn't make them invalid.
However, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of commandments that make sense in the modern context, even if we remove the concept of religion entirely.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*bats eyelashes*
Lalo, would like to marry me-- and Ron? He's really hot.
I'm sorry about that. I just couldn't resist. I've been fighting it for a whole day now, and it just had to come out. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Now wait just a damned munite. What's Lalo got that I aint? I've heard all about luscious Ron...
Then again, there's room for four, isn't there?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm in if Kat's in.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hey! Let's all have a giant Hatrack marriage. I bet if we pooled our resources we could form a quite formidable dynasty. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Uncle Orson would be turning over in his grave, and he isn't even dead yet!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know, Frisco. Do you have Cheetos?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I want in, but only if all the Hatrack hotties agree to do all the cooking and cleaning and stuff leaving me free to watch TV and drink beer.
I'm all for one of those dominating type polygamy things.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'll bring enough cheetos to cover your entire body with a fine, orange tint.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yours too, Kat.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
"Ew, gross. That's just not right."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*sound of a toilet flushing*
This thread just went swirling, and it's all my fault!
*beams*
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Eddie, I'm not misconstruing your posts. Nobody is saying that monogamy and polygamy are exactly the same. I'm just saying that they're same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not.
In which case, Eddie, you would agree that prostitution and homosexual marriage are the same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not?
In which case, if homosexual monogamy is legalized, it can only be done with the added legalization of prostitution?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they all involve an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship. Committed relationship is committed relationship is committed relationship.
Except for the math, of course.
I'm having trouble believing I need to repeat myself a fourth time. ZGator, you could make an arguable case for the merits of polygamy. No doubt you could persuade me to support it, given time. But a committed relationship between two people is not the same as a relationship between three or more. Note that I'm not dismissing polygamy as less equal or worse -- nor am I making ridiculous claims that a different proportion would somehow make a polygamous relationship worse than a monogamous one based off tired cliches of the fundamental differences between men and women.
However, monogamy is not in the same ballpark as polygamy. While both involve relationships and commitment, which makes them more closely related than, say, homosexuality and prostitution, they're very different institutions and deserve better than to be lumped together under the same generalization.
If homosexual monogamy is legalized in the United States, no doubt a case could be made to legalize polygamy. No doubt the release of homophobic policies held by the government would be a huge step forward in allowing polygamous relationships to gain further ground in their own battle. But the fight for freedom of monogamy and freedom of polygamy are not the same, regardless of their very few similarities, and it's intellectually dishonest of anyone to claim that they are.
quote:They're not the same, but they're certainly comparable. They're all vehicles, they all run on an internal combustion engine. They're much more alike than when they are compared to a building or a river. Nobody is saying they're the same, just comparable.
I'm not advocating polygamy, not by a long shot. And I've already stated that I'm OK with legalizing homosexual marriage. But thus far, all the arguments I've seen for homosexual marriages could be used for polygamous marriages as well. Like Frisco, I'm looking at this more as an intellectual exercise.
They have more in common than trucks do with buildings or rivers, true -- but as I said to Frisco, despite their statuses (statii?) as legitimate sexual practices suppressed by a hyper-righteous majority, they aren't the same. Thank god you've finally admitted that much; this repetition of my position was growing more than a little tiring.
Polygamy and monogamy are comparable, I agree. As I've agreed over and over. But in no way are they the same as the other.
quote:And if you had paid attention, you would realize that your statement immediately followed a quote from me. How is it that you were addressing kat when you had just quoted me?
Actually, in context, I was quoting myself. Katharina was lying again, and misconstruing my position. I've reproduced the section below, with a newly edited bolding of the section you may have missed. Looking back, I can see how you were confused -- it was my response to your quote I cited, and it's not hard to jump from there to believing I was replying to you.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Kat. Exactly. I'm for homosexual marriage, but against polygamy. The only way I'd be happy is if it were homosexual polygamy.
Just, y'know, out of curiosity, how did you pull that crap out of what I said? Reproduced below, in italics:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
In any case, ZGator, thanks for addressing most of my points -- it's far more intellectually honest than many people in this thread have been.
And speaking of which, this next post's for Katharina.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*all tingly with anticipation*
Added: And, sadly, leaving for weekend. You'll have to imagine my response.
[ November 07, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Boy, are you cranky this week, Ed.
Sure, why not compare something totally destructive to a civilized society to a marital institution.
But even so, prostitution is happening, and it's dangerous as hell. Why not legalize it? Make it 100% safer for patrons and prostitues alike.
I'll interested in hearing your views on polygamy when the piss evaporates from your Special K, seeing as you find it as comparable to prostitution as it is to homosexual monogamy.
I'll quote myself here real quick:
quote: And I agree that there are specific differences in homosexual monogamy and general polygamy. I just find a bigger issue in whether or not the government can regulate my love life.
[edit: heh...Zan and I have pretty much echoed each other in this thread...and he gets praised and I get a bad analogy. Go figure.]
[ November 07, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, to me the difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage is much like what, in my own head, I believe Lalo is saying. So, let's use the analogy I have in my head.
It's Valentine's Day and you've just won a "romantic dinner for you and your sweetheart." Now, the "anti-homosexual marriage people" seem to believe that "you and your sweetheart" means that a man and a woman will be showing up for dinner. The "pro-homosexual marriage" people thing that two people of any combination of sex will show up.
And for some reason, a few of the "anti-homosexual marriage" people seem to think that it should be perfectly fine for some guy and 19 wives to show up and not consider accommodating 20 people any different than accommodating 2.
So, can you tell me that that 2 people, male/female, male/male, or female/female really isn't any different from male/female/female/female/female/etc.? I'd like to bet that the restaurant owner feels that there is one hell of a difference.
There are legal entitlements to marriage between 2 people. The fact that some of y'all want those entitlements to only go to heterosexuals is your hangup. Extending entitlements to 5 wives is a whole different bag of worms. (What would you do if 5 wives all had differing opinions about what to do with a brain-dead husband? I mean, there has to be one person in charge, not 5.)
Marriage, and all the entitlements that come with it, should involve 2 people. Just like it does right now. Whether or not they need to be of opposite sexes is what we should be discussing.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:This is fascinating.
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Caleb's already ripped your lies apart, but you've ignored him, insisting that he's not "let[ting] me play" and you want me to waste more of my life dissecting the lies Caleb's already taken apart.
But even beyond the offense I take at your insinuation that Caleb's post about your lies isn't good enough because he wrote it, I'm more than a little amazed you seem to expect that demanding two dissections of your lies would be better rather than simply responding to Caleb's original post with a simple apology and affirmation of honorable intentions. With your continued behavior of ignoring his posts and misconstruing even them, I'm afraid I no longer have any hope that your intentions, while still enigmatic and unclear as they were before, can no longer be misunderstood as even remotely honorable.
In the section above, you start out by declaring that I'm not open-minded and disconnected from "what's going on." While this section seems a non-sequitor in the context of any post, you exacerbate the problem by moving away from these unjustified lies and declare my "opposition to polygamy," despite my repeated declarations of my unresolved stance on polygamy, neither condemning it nor supporting it.
This, by itself, is an inexcusable lie. I've reproduced below every judgement I've passed on polygamy up to the time you posted this crap -- please, tell me which ones you used to justify this lie.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!
Yes, Doug. Allowing state-recognized monogamy between homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly like polygamy.
And what if someone wants to marry themselves... Heh. Wow. There's a brainteaser for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
After lying about my supposed opposition, you then go on to wonder about why it doesn't exist. You come up with the oh-so-original that I find it "squicky" -- presumably, an obnoxious euphemism for the euphemism "icky." You base this lie off nothing, especially considering my willingness to consider (gasp!) sex between those sexual deviants, homosexuals, and even endorse the legalization of marriage in order to provide equal rights.
Doubtless you're projecting some arguments you've heard against intolerant or bigoted people who want to suppress equal rights for homosexuals, and you're trying to convince yourself that lying about my position, then lying about the reasons why I would hold such a position (even when your lies about my intentions are in blatant opposition to everything I've ever written). It's not very clever, Katharine.
From your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy, you move on to another lie -- and insult -- about supposed neediness in a relationship, and how I wouldn't like polygamy because I'm oh-so-high-maintenance in my relationships. This is probably the most surprising lie you've told yet, especially considering the source. But, of course, you go on to then pretend-retract the remarks, without actually doing so.
quote:Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Of course you don't believe it. I don't really see how you could, unless you're particularly good at convincing yourself of the lies you concoct.
Speaking of which, you move on to your next lie. Technically speaking, it's not a lie -- I have produced less argument against polygamy than anyone else here has against homosexuality -- but in the context of your many, many lies, you accuse me of not only being weak-minded and needy, but inconsistent and cowardly. You imply that I've produced as little reasoning or proof behind my posts as you have -- an insult I take deeply to heart, especially considering my long labor to make my positions as clear as possible.
Of course, then you revert back to a former lie and declare that my supposed intolerance for polygamy stems from my supposed declarations of its "squicky" nature.
Then, of course, you make your first actual assertation on the topic. While it's incorrect, unreasoned, unwarranted, and probably an intentional lie, at least you're addressing the issue instead of making up fantasies about the people behind the positions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Caleb went on to dissect your post, pointing out a few lies and giving you a gentle and generous breakdown of your penchant for lies. You fail to respond to his post, or even acknowledge his position -- instead, you give him an emoticon instead of an actual response or apology.
From there, Caleb calls you on your avoidance of the issues. You respond with this:
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
"This"? He didn't come anywhere near addressing the issue at hand in the thread, only your constant lies and avoidance issues. Then you ignore the work he put into pointing out your habitual lying and declare that you want me to respond for myself, a selfish demand that both insults Caleb's work and worth and takes precious time away from me to address the lies Caleb had already taken partial care of.
Caleb calmy responds with the following post, pointing out your rude and deceitful debate tactics.
quote:Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
You respond with the following, completely ignoring what Caleb had just posted in favor of pretending he had instead asked you a question about the issue you had been so diligently avoiding.
quote:I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Caleb points out that you are, again, lying -- nobody in the thread, Caleb asks: "Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all."
You respond to this calm and reasonable (and repeated) request for some, any proof behind your lies with another avoidance:
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Now, as before, you respond to Caleb's question by answering one you made up. You flatter me by declaring, in direct opposition to your former posts, that I'm a man of principle -- a sudden transformation from the weak-minded, high-maintenance fool who relies on inconsistent principles and unreasonable argument -- then again lie and declare that I accept same-sex marriage but oppose polygamous union.
One final time, Caleb asks you to provide a shred of reasoning behind your lies.
quote:What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
You respond by offering him a Klondike bar and asking if his question means he won't "let [me] play."
Caleb finishes with you with a quote that's etched on my memory.
quote:My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Heh. Brilliant, dude.
Of course, Kat, you ignore him once again in favor of putting the Klondike bar in a freezer, then going "back" to me, as though I had already responded to your lies.
"*waves around "Explain this" sign*"
I hope I've done so. I've explained each lie you've provided, and in great detail. Doubtless, you'll ignore it -- I notice when you saw I was posting, you immediately declared your departure for the weekend -- but I hope someone out there will have a better idea of who and what you really are.
I found out the last time Kayla reamed you. I remember Kayla posting posts longer than three pages in response to your lies, and getting one-sentence responses that wondered why Kayla was just so mean and aggressive? You avoided every question of hers you didn't lie about, and wound up frustrating her as a writer and infuriating myself and others like me, who were reading the thread.
You're a thrice-damned liar, Kat, just from the combined posting of Kayla, Caleb, and myself.
I hope I've answered your "Explain this" sign adequately.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think we stated earlier that fitting polygamy into society would require a few more details to be worked out than homosexual monogamy.
For instance, when the restaurant owner offers a date for "you and your sweetheart", singular, you may only bring one sweetheart. When he invites you and your family to his Christmas party, you can bring all three.
Your biggest argument is that multiple wives might disagree over pulling the plug?! Egads!
You say that marriage should include two people. Why?! Because that's the way we've always done it? I know you could give me better reasons if they existed. Do they?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Boy, are you cranky this week, Ed.
Heh. And you say that before reading my response to Kat's lies.
quote:Sure, why not compare something totally destructive to a civilized society to a marital institution.
Actually, I support the legalization of prostitution. I believe the current black-market model is destructive, and ought to be changed. Here's an Ornery thread I started on the topic.
quote:I'll interested in hearing your views on polygamy when the piss evaporates from your Special K, seeing as you find it as comparable to prostitution as it is to homosexual monogamy.
You've heard them. Over and over again. Specifically, I don't have them. I'm not a firm supporter of polygamy, but neither am I about to condemn it. I haven't taken the time to formulate a position, and I have no intention of doing so until I have more real-world examples of polygamous relationships and how they work.
quote:*bats eyelashes*
Lalo, would like to marry me-- and Ron? He's really hot.
I'm sorry about that. I just couldn't resist. I've been fighting it for a whole day now, and it just had to come out.
Olivia, dude, I'm all up in that shiznit. But if Ron wants some, he'd better start shaving his legs. My imagination's good, but it's not that good.
Especially since, if I ever do go gay, it'll be for Caleb.
That's right, Eddie. I went there. Talk to the hand, Mr. Five-Minutes-Ago!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So you have no opinions or views on polygamy, yet have no problem comparing it to prostitution or insisting to everyone that it's nothing like homosexual monogamy on a moral scale?
Um. Okay.
And don't worry about leaving me for Caleb. I got a proposal from Karl last page.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:So you have no opinions or views on polygamy, yet have no problem comparing it to prostitution or insisting to everyone that it's nothing like homosexual monogamy on a moral scale?
If you'll notice, I also compared homosexual monogamy -- about which I have very strong opinions -- to prostitution. I don't consider it the insult you seem to.
And while I'm not decided on which way to judge polygamy, anyone can tell a platypus from a duck, even if they've never seen a platypus before. I've yet to form an opinion on polygamy because I simply don't have enough real-world models of it, but it's hardly the equivalent -- morally or mathematically -- to monogamy. Polygamy may not be better or worse than monogamy, but it's not the same.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY! NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY! NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY!
I said they were both similar instances of the government encroaching on my love life in the name of Christian morals!
Yes, you can tell that a duck isn't a platypus without having to see the platypus. If we were talking about number of legs and body hair, that would make a difference. But we're talking about laying eggs! And whether or not you've seen one, you know it lays them.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Well, apparently those of us who support homosexual marriage rights are not all on the same page on related marriage issues--okay, related in my opinion, anyway.
Kayla, all you analogy shows is that the logistics of marriage benefits would need to be revamped. How 'bout if each spouse only got 1/n of the benefits, with n being equal to the number of spouses? In your analogy, the restaurant manager would be freaking ecstatic if I brought my 20 wives, and each got 1/20th of a free meal! For the price of one meal, he gets 19 other paying customers he might not have had!
quote:In which case, Eddie, you would agree that prostitution and homosexual marriage are the same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not?
In which case, if homosexual monogamy is legalized, it can only be done with the added legalization of prostitution?
I'm all for the legalization of prostitution. I don't think it's a given that it's "totally destructive to a civilized society," either. I think the criminalization of prostitution is just another attempt to legislate morality, and it's even more of a no-brainer than homosexual marriage rights and polygamous marriage rights.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Iccy, I said that it was totally destructive in a sense that it promotes instability while not offering anything as far as building. 100% unmaking.
Not totally destructive in a Godzilla sort of way.
Still, I'm all for legalizing it.
[ November 07, 2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I understand what you were saying, but I don't agree. I think it only promotes instability when you are enmeshed in a worldview that teaches that sex is inextricably tied to marriage. There's nothing wrong with defining sex and marriage this way for yourself. Heck, I do. But I have also known married couples with "open" marriages, where the marriage was serious and legit--imo, of course; I doubt some of the more conservative posters would agree--and both members understood that sex with others was accepted. As long as nobody is being deceived, including new partners, I don't see anything destructive in this. Similarly, if nobody was being deceived, I don't see an issue with prostitution. And I certainly don't see any such issue with single people.
Many religions say that such relationships, or such actions, are sinful, and I don't have a problem with that. I personally have defended on Hatrack the rights of Christians to their belief, for instance, that homosexuality is sinful and immoral when I felt that they were being attacked for this religious belief.
But I don't think sexual openness is innately, demonstrably damaging to society. I think all arguments that it is, whether it be in the form of legalizing sodomy, homosexual marriage, polygamy, and prostitution, seem to me to break down into 1) my religion says it's wrong, and B) it's always been disallowed before.
As far as I'm concerned, the issues are absolutely analogous, because they are all views of sexuality and marriage that are contrary to tradition, but, ultimately victimless.
And don't tell me that prostitution victimizes spouses who aren't ok with their spouse visiting a prostitute. Such spouses are being victimized, but not by prostitution, but by their dishonest spouses. A man who cheats on his wife by visiting a prostitute is no different from a man who cheats on his wife with another woman for free. We don't criminalize other kinds of infidelity; we realize it's a moral issue but not one it would be fruitful as a society to try to enforce. We shouldn't be trying to legislate these other issues either.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
*applauds Lalo's post*
Thank you for putting in all of that effort.
I covered the same stuff, but I couldn't go into it that deeply because... well, because this is the same situation that Kat ALWAYS puts us in whenever she comes into a homosexuality thread. I do doubt she'll retract anything at all, because in my experience with Katharina More Reasoning does not equal More Understanding. Quite the opposite, sometimes.
You should have seen the email that she sent me the last time she gave me this slander-and-evade treatment.
The sad thing is that, though I would prefer to simply ignore her posts and avoid conversation with her for the sake of my own sanity, she unerringly puts me in the obligated position of having to defend myself and others from false interpretations of posts and ideologies. I am happy to provide these defenses but it is tiring.
Icarus -
Ultimately these issues are all related. I agree with that. I also agree with pretty much everything you just said in that post.
But to further explain my (our, if I may presume for Lalo and others) reluctance to include polygamy in a discussion of whether or not it's right to allow homosexual marriages, keep in mind that polygamy was brought into this thread by individuals who do not support equal rights for homosexuals. The only reason they could have to raise this issue as an OBJECTION is to provide an example of an "unacceptable" marital relationship that falls under the mantle of being able to marry whomever you want to--not to mention the underlying suggestion that allowing homosexual marriage would drastically change our society overnight, since allowing polygamy is not something the system is fully capable of supporting. Coming from their perspective, this was a double-edged sword: it demonstrated that our "equality morality" was inherently flawed because the logical end of that morality would lead--in their minds--to mass chaos. People everywhere marrying everyone else and before you know it marriage itself becomes about as important as a friendship bracelet. See Katharina's "epiphane":
quote:I think I know where, way back, the trains split tracks.
You're seeing marriage as a way to really, really say "I love you more than anything." Traditionally, marriage has been a way to bind and build society - create a foundation on which society can be built.
Maybe that's why marriage has fallen apart so much?
Can you see the writing between the lines? First of all it's a complete misinterpretation of my post, which said "when you get married you're telling someone that you love them more than anyone else". I was talking about my own theoretical wedding ceremony, not making a blanket statement about what I thought marriage really is. Aside from this minor but typical annoyance, it demostrates their motivating perspective: when society starts to seek living arrangements that are not "traditional", or should we say, God-ordained, everything will start to fall apart.
On the other side of the blade, the polygamy argument destroys our "equality morality" if we say that we do NOT agree with polygamy rights, presumably because they're more comfortable seeing us as the ones for INequality, which is really rich considering the basic tenets of their position on homosexual marriage.
My efforts to separate the two from each other were to avoid this "trap". The simple fact is that nothing about homosexuality needs to be justified and nothing needs to be justified about polygamy, either. But homosexual marriage could happen tomorrow and no one would get hurt--quite the opposite--while polygamy would need a lot of preparation to ensure that our various marital-related systems could handle it fairly. I personally am the type of progressive who wouldn't mind allowing that overnight change immediately and THEN make the system work around it, but that is not an argument that I am prepared to make because I realize that I really have no idea WHAT the immediate consequences of that action would be.
All said and done, I agree with you completely.
[ November 08, 2003, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You should have seen the email that she sent me the last time she gave me this slander-and-evade treatment.
Since we can't, what exactly is the purpose of this post?
quote:The simple fact is that nothing about homosexuality needs to be justified and nothing needs to be justified about polygamy, either.
Obviously, something about them has to be justified-- otherwise there'd be no objection to them.
:shrug: Carry on.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Karl:
quote: Thank you for stating that so clearly. However, I now have to respond that I think that is a ridiculously simplistic approach to the situation. I believe that out of all the possible changes to the conventional idea of marriage, some proposed changes will have merit and others won't. To simply say, we'll if we let you have your change then we have to implement all changes ad absurdem is to stick your head in the sand. This attitude, I feel, is a cop out and it is, quite frankly, insultingly dismissive of what I feel is a valid complaint.
Remember i'm a libertarian so i want freedom for everybody to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people. But your feelings on this matter are hipocritical. You can't say you support gay marriage because of "freedom" then have it denyed to someone else. You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
Caleb:
I'm not trying to try you into anything. I support anybody's right to marry whoever they want, including polygamy, but i won't support some special intrest group fighting for "freedom" when they are just trying to help only themselves.
Of course there are two tiers of marriage. Everybody sees it, i'm just the one who points it out.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So it's all or nothing? You'd rather everybody wait until the majority agrees on everything instead of letting rights be restored as we gradually come to our senses?
So should heterosexuals be stripped of this freedom, too, until everybody becomes equal in the eyes of government?
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
I guess you want it like the constitution. White men were given freedoms but not blacks or women. I guess it was better someone got something than nobody got anything.
Edit: The day i learn to spelt will be a good day.
[ November 10, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Doug J ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
If I understand you correctly, Doug, you are for gay marriage and polygamy both, and therefore our interests are aligned. That we don't see eye to eye on whether or not polygamy and monogamy are analagous choices seems to be something of an afterthought.
But this is odd:
quote:You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
That argument sounds exactly like you're trying to "trap" Karl's position into hypocrisy. Especially when you take into account that Karl never said he was against polygamy rights.
Your insinuation that homosexual rights activists are simply serving their own jealous "special interests" (as if it was wrong to fight for one's own personal special interest) is silly and insulting. Do you imagine that the Americans who fought the Revolutionary War for independence and---yeah--freedom, were simply a special interest group seeking nothing but personal gain, since they fought the war for, you know, white people? You could just as easily say to the Bush administration "If you're going to take out terrorist states, you have to take out ALL of them at the same time". Now even I, who am against this war in general, realize that that is absurd. A conversation needs to take place before every confrontation. That is the way it works. As it happens, the conversation that needs to take place before homosexual rights are recognized is a substantially different conversation than the one that needs to happen when we take a serious look at polygamy.
None of us are against this conversation.
The problem is that the other side is using the inevitability of the second conversation as a way to invalidate the first.
[ November 10, 2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Problems with legalizing polygamy that are not found in homosexual monogamous relationships.
1. Inheritance benefits: Estates in traditional marriages devolve to the spouse in instances where a will has not been established. In polygamous relationships, is there an equal distribution or do all spouses have individual claims to the entirety of the estate?
2. Divorce from a polygamous union: Does one spouse divorce one other or divorce all the spouses? Can you divorce one spouse, but remain a member of the family unit, choosing not to divorce any of the others? Is that spouse entitled to half of the entire holdings of the estate if they divorce? In a system with one husband and multiple wives, can he divorce the lot of them and then seek sole parental rights on all of the children? If the wives collectively divorce the husband, does he have to pay alimony to all of them (to end when ALL have been married again) and can he be liable for child support to each child? If a woman divorces from the group, can she be held liable for child support for all of the other children as a person who contributed to the overall benefit of the family?
3. Tax liability: Does the husband get multiple tax benefits for children and marriage based on each marriage or a one-time situation. Can the earnings of each spouse be garnished to cover back taxes of the others? For the sale of real property, can state taxes (generally giving a one-time exemption on profits per married couple) be avoided multiple times by pairing each individual spousal relationship?
4. Tax haven harems. Could a man marry numerous wives who already had children in an effort to get tax write offs for each of the children and wives? Would families begin brokering off unwed mothers for this purpose? (Before you protest, think about how this happens in many societies for many reasons.)
5. Establishment of power of attorney. Is it done through a single, primary spouse or is it handled by committee?
6. If the father and mother of some children from a polygamous marriage die, do the children go to the other spouses, or would blood relatives have claim to the children. Now, how about the assignment of life insurance benefits/ social security benefits?
7. Social services: Can the entire family be liable for the poor child rearing practices of a single member? If the entire group is on Welfare and public assistance, would their circumstances make this a profitable way of living? Would the country be supporting a lifestyle financially?
Those are just a few off the top of my head, problems NOT seen in allowing civil marriages of homosexuals. Folks, you are comparing apples and oranges at best, apples and orangutangs at worst.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Obviously, something about them has to be justified-- otherwise there'd be no objection to them.
Don't see the obviousness, myself. I could just as easily object to your right to listen to punk music (and sometimes I even feel that that's a justifiable objection) and you would have no need or obligation to justify your music selection to me. I'm looking for the logic in that statement, Scott, and I need some help.
As to the section of my post referencing katharina, I could say "I think she's a principled woman: let her answer for herself" just for ironic kicks. Instead I'll admit that was a little petty. The problem is that she's done this to me before, and not a few times. That I got unjustified hatemail at the end of the last one really irked me, because I didn't want to post the email and I certainly wouldn't respond to it. Mentioning it here was partial retribution on my part, I suppose.
And for that matter, Lalo was A.) Right B.) Being Attacked and C.) Not being defended by anyone else. I considered it worthwhile to demonstrate my support.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thank you Caleb. Well said. That is exactly my take on it.
I have nothing against polygamous relationships between consenting adults. However, I do have reservations about some of the "ad absurdem" cases. Doug J wrote:
quote: If you want to totaly redefine what marriage is then you must include EVERYBODY under the sun, not just what groups you like. So change it for everybody or don't change it for anybody.
Now maybe I'm mistaking hyperbole for a serious contention, but on this thread "Everybody under the sun" has been said to include not just polygamous relationships, but also incestuous, and inter-species relationships. I do not feel that it is hypocritical of me to say for instance that I think gays should be allowed to marry but that you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog. I believe there are fundamental differences in the two issues and those differences may very well lead to the allowance of gay marriages and the disallowance of human/canine marriages. The same may also be true of polygamous relationships. If there is a conversation about "should polygamous marriages be legal", it may very well turn out that someone can come up with some valid reasons not to legalize polygamy. If this is the case, that does not change the legitimacy of the arguements of the homosexual rights camp.
Therefore, I do not think it hypocritical to be in favor of one and not the other if you can support your opinion logically. Additionally, since I have already stated that I have no problems with the legalization of polygamous marriage, then your labeling me as a hypocrit is premature on that count.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the thread is off-track with polygamy a little because people are mixing the three aspects to the homosexual civil union debate:
1) Does the government have a compelling interest to in prohibiting a particular type of sexual relationship between consenting adults? (The longevity of the relationship does not matter for this question.)
2) Is it of practical use to the legal system to legally recognize a particular type of relationship?
3) Is it right for the government to provide benefits (of convenience, if nothing else) to one particular type of relationship intended to be a lifetime joining of consenting adults and not another?
The first question has been recently decided against allowing government interference w/ consenting adults acting in private and a non-commercial setting. Outlawing homosexual sex: unconstitutional. Outlawing prostitution: still constitutional. This question is no longer a barrier to recognizing homosexual marriage. And obviously, polygamous sexual relationships aren’t outlawed, either.
The second question has to do with whether recognizing the relationship will create a legally useful set of rights and obligations between the parties of the relationship and between the relationship as a whole and third parties. Clearly, there are a host of difficulties here that attach to recognizing polygamy (which wife gets to specify the medical care received by an unconscious husband?) that do not attach to recognizing homosexual marriages. Only laws that institute a difference between rights and obligations of the husband and wife would be difficult to map onto a homosexual relationship, and there are very few of them. Even those few are archaic (such as the definition of rape in some states still being “nonconsensual sex with a woman other than the wife of the perpetrator”) and should probably be repealed.
The third question has to do with all the moral questions regarding the government’s underlying policy motives behind granting any benefits to members of a particular type of relationship. Views on this range from the libertarian “government should provide benefits to no type of marriage” to those who recognize the government’s interest in procuring societal benefits derived from encouraging long-term relationships. If this view acknowledges the benefit of non-traditional family units, it will likely support legal homosexual marriage. If it takes a more traditionalist view of family it will likely only support legal recognition of heterosexual marriage. The moral equation must also take into account the extent to which marriage is the basis for a civil right that cannot be procured in any other way.
A particular answer to the third question can also be used to support only recognizing heterosexual marriages, recognizing homosexual and heterosexual marriages, or recognizing heterosexual, homosexual, and polygamous marriages. But also remember that unless the answer to the second question supports the legal usefulness of the relationship, the third question is irrelevant since without that usefulness it can provide no benefits to anyone except the government saying “I approve of you.”
My own thoughts? Legally recognized homosexual marriages are probably going to happen and will probably be a good thing for society. Polygamy will never be truly legally useful nor beneficial to society.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scott,
quote:Obviously, something about them has to be justified-- otherwise there'd be no objection to them.
Justified to meet your moral approval? Well, yes. Justified to you in order tomake homosexual marriage legal? No. That ain't the way we work. A homosexual does not, legally, need to seek and obtain your moral approval of their lifestyle to be permitted access to a right allowed to everyone but their own tiny minority.
And by the way, marriage is a right, folks. It's a legal condition granted to every citizen in America once they reach a proper age. The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license. So don't anyone say it's not a right when it's allowed to every single citizen except for homosexuals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Caleb:
Not justified to me-- what do I matter?-- but justified to the public so that they can support homosexual marriages.
It's a necessary step in gaining recognition as a protected minority. Bypassing public justification will only get you resentment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A majority of public approval is not even a factor in whether or not a human right should be protected for an American citizen, Scott.
How long exactly should homosexuals wait until they're no longer second-class citizens under varying state laws, Scott? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty or a hundred?
Thankfully America didn't wait that long to finally recognize the full-citizenship status of African-Americans in America. You do remember there was a little *ahem* "resentment" of them when the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rakeesh said: So don't anyone say it's not a right when it's allowed to every single citizen except for homosexuals.
I agree that homosexual marriages should be legally recognized. However, it is a little specious to say that every single citizen except homosexuals are allowed to marry. Marriage, as is currently defined by law as a union between a man and a woman, is available to every single citizen, barring trivial exceptions such as incapacity.
As you said, “The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license.” You forgot “and a willing spouse-to-be of the opposite sex of at least the legally require consanguinity.” (I’d add “and neither party married to anyone else” but I don’t want to encourage the “polygamy is the same as homosexual marriage” crowd.
Homosexuals have exactly the same “right” to marry as anyone else – the right as defined is simply not appealing to them.
Should that be changed? Yes. Would it be unconstitutional not to change it? No.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee,
You are literally correct. I should say "equivalent" right, not "identical" right then. But then men and women marry because they fall in love, or think they fall in love, by and large, and thus want to spend the rest of their lives together. For the government to say that only one type of love is legitimate is to define the other, and thus those who believe in it, as second-class citizens.
Denying it is unconstitutional because it denies them their basic freedom, their liberty, to spend their lives with the person of their choice under the umbrella of marriage.
The reason I find the argument you make-though you support permitting homosexual marriage-is that it says, "It's OK to fly flagrantly in the face of the spirit of the law, and all of our American ideals, but homosexuals have instead of the right to marry the partner of their choice the utterly useless-to them-right to marry a choice of partners they don't love." It's the kind of argument that lets people stay good and comfortable with making a minority a second-class group of citizens, with governing a nation based on their own narrow interpretation of their religion that doesn't even apply to the whole population.
It's akin to seperate but equal. An African-American family says, "I want to send my kids to the white school." Status quo says, "You can't do that, but we'll give you the same thing over here." It's the "same" right, but for one group of people-the status quo or heterosexuals-it's beneficial and solid, but for the other groupe of people-minorities and homosexuals-it's useless and insulting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Thankfully America didn't wait that long to finally recognize the full-citizenship status of African-Americans in America. You do remember there was a little *ahem* "resentment" of them when the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?
It DID wait that long, Rakeesh.
The resentment that was created was simply not enough to disuade those in power, or those that put them in power, that the changes should not be made or should be retracted. In other words, the public was either FOR the changes, APATHETIC to the changes, or POWERLESS to stop the changes.
[ November 10, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So homosexuals should wait until some nebulous time in the future when there's still resentment, but not enough resentment to make trouble?
There were still lynching, night-ridings, and cross-burnings after 1969.
I don't know. I understand what you're saying, but to me it sounds like a formula too likely to be used indefinitely. It's a human right being denied. The majority of prejudiced and often bigoted people who want to keep homosexuals as sub-citizens be damned.
Edit: And your basis for denying a basic human right is still: the majority doesn't support complete human rights for this minority.
[ November 10, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As I stated- I do not support allowing homosexual marriage. I do not consider marriage a right, per se.
So your appeal to human rights falls on deaf ears over here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rakeesh,
I’ll accept your characterization of homosexual marriage as an issue of “human rights.” Since we agree on the desired result and the underlying fundamental rationale of justice, I think we can safely continue to disagree on the underlying constitutionality of the distinction, since I doubt either of us wants to delve into case law to support our positions.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll admit you'd probably win that sort of contest, Dagonee:) ---- Scott,
Why isn't it an issue of human rights? Why is marriage not a right in your eyes? That's my question. By saying it's not a right you've carefully sidestepped granting this universally-permitted (with a couple of requirements and exceptions) "privilege" to a small minority. What is your basis for saying it's not a right? And if it is a privilege, what is your legal basis for denying it to a minority in America?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sopwith - Those of us in favor of allowing polygamy understand every point you make.
But I don't think they're "problems", merely decisions that need to be made. The only one that seems to require much thought is the divorce/alimony one. And in the last example, you seem to take it as a given that these families would for some reason all be on welfare.
And I think my head is going to explode if I hear the phrase "apples and oranges" again. The issue is whether or not the government has a right to dictate our love lives on the basis of a moral majority. Apples and apples.
I'm fairly sure everyone here is aware of the differences between monogamy and polygamy.
quote: 1. Inheritance benefits: Estates in traditional marriages devolve to the spouse in instances where a will has not been established. In polygamous relationships, is there an equal distribution or do all spouses have individual claims to the entirety of the estate?
That one's easy. Just pick one of those two. Flip a coin, maybe.
quote: 2. Divorce from a polygamous union: Does one spouse divorce one other or divorce all the spouses? Can you divorce one spouse, but remain a member of the family unit, choosing not to divorce any of the others? Is that spouse entitled to half of the entire holdings of the estate if they divorce? In a system with one husband and multiple wives, can he divorce the lot of them and then seek sole parental rights on all of the children? If the wives collectively divorce the husband, does he have to pay alimony to all of them (to end when ALL have been married again) and can he be liable for child support to each child? If a woman divorces from the group, can she be held liable for child support for all of the other children as a person who contributed to the overall benefit of the family?
These are worst case scenarios, and all seem to be solvable with a little math.
quote: 3. Tax liability: Does the husband get multiple tax benefits for children and marriage based on each marriage or a one-time situation. Can the earnings of each spouse be garnished to cover back taxes of the others? For the sale of real property, can state taxes (generally giving a one-time exemption on profits per married couple) be avoided multiple times by pairing each individual spousal relationship?
Give them the tax breaks of a monogamous couple. Yes, the earnings of all spouses should be able to be garnished. Give them the normal one-time examption per marriage. One, that is, because only one marriage takes place.
quote: 4. Tax haven harems. Could a man marry numerous wives who already had children in an effort to get tax write offs for each of the children and wives? Would families begin brokering off unwed mothers for this purpose? (Before you protest, think about how this happens in many societies for many reasons.)
Yes, tax breaks for children...until we start limiting the number of children one may have. No, no extra writeoffs for more wives.
quote: 5. Establishment of power of attorney. Is it done through a single, primary spouse or is it handled by committee?
Sounds like a decision for the members of the marriage. Why is that a problem?
quote: 6. If the father and mother of some children from a polygamous marriage die, do the children go to the other spouses, or would blood relatives have claim to the children. Now, how about the assignment of life insurance benefits/ social security benefits?
If a father and mother, divorced, of a child both die, does the child go to a step parent or a blood relative? I suppose we could let the courts decide, like they do now.
quote: 7. Social services: Can the entire family be liable for the poor child rearing practices of a single member? If the entire group is on Welfare and public assistance, would their circumstances make this a profitable way of living? Would the country be supporting a lifestyle financially?
Yes, a family should be responsible for child rearing.
And in the event that a family is on welfare...well, I think the country could actually get off paying less than they would had each member filed for welfare separately.
There. Five minutes. Let a few pros take a whack at it for a few hours, and I'm sure some good solutions would be found.
Doug - Do you not think that one group pushing to get laws changed will effect everyone in similar situations? I think a lot of precedents set in the process of legalizing homosexual marriage would overlap into other areas...like polygamy.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Scott - How willingly would you give up the special rights you've been given due to being married?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Five minutes thinking of solutions to your problems, not five minutes of consideration on the subject.
The solutions aren't important to me. They're out there somewhere, and it will apparently take someone who knows more than you or I about the subject to find them.
My concern is why we're using petty excuses like those as reasons to withhold equal rights.
Incidentally, I don't see why there are tax breaks for getting married, anyway. Is love not enough incentive?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Gee, thanks for deleting your post, Sop.
Like enough people don't think I'm crazy, anyway! Now I'm talking to myself. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You've been awake for several hours.
Maybe Sop is helping out with your experiment. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Five whole minutes, Frisco? It shows.
Responses to rather flip responses:
1. Flip a coin? This is a really serious matter and one that is part of the reason behind the need for legalization of homosexual unions. Currently, a homosexual life partner has NO rights as to inheritance, no matter how long they have been in a monogomous relationship... they can even lose jointly-held assets. You pass on this as something of feather-weight importance, but it is a necessity, especially in a day and age when homosexual couples can and do adopt children (or have them surrogately). The issue for polygamists is completely different, but once legalized becomes inherently much more complex, potentially bogging down estates in courts for years. Legalizing gay marriage makes this cut and dried for those involved, legalizing polygamy makes this a tar-filled legal mire. Simple, eh?
2. Worst case scenarios? Solve with a little math? Perhaps you should sit through a few sessions at your local divorce court proceedings. Welcome to the modern day, divorce is common and regular. Once again, divorce is more simple in cases of gay marriages, but diversely complex in cases of polygamy. You've never had the chance to see a real divorce attorney at work, have you? They go for the throat and they would love nothing more than having a dozen to go after in one single case. Tsk tsk tsk, math has nothing to do with divorce courts, nor does civility usually.
3. Are you assuming that one mass ceremony weds the entire polygamous group at one time. The polygamous families I've seen discussed bring wives in at all different times. Might I suggest you sit down with a tax accountant at some point and suggest to them legalization of polygamous marriages. Then bring up those ideas... be prepared to see their eyes light up at the possibilities. Once again, in the case of gay marriages, the laws do not have to be changed for tax status and there would be no new loopholes.
4. Actually Frisco, there is a dollar limit on the child credits per married couple and a limit on the number of children it applies to, per couple. Not a problem with gay marriages, even in cases of adoption. Now a man with 12 wives and 24 children... a whole different can of worms.
5. Never been through this either? Take a look at the situation in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Look at how complex that has become and that is a single spouse marriage. And let's take the one husband and 12 wives group again. The husband ends up like Terri Schiavo and 11 wives want to pull the plug and one doesn't... or maybe it's seven for and five against.
6. Tsk, tsk, tsk... to easy to dismiss here. Welcome to the real world of civil courts, Frisco. These battles get vicious at times in monogamous marriages. Try adding in multiple potential co-spouses who may have no blood ties, but have a legally binding marriage certificate. Very messy in the courts, especially if the children become a major deciding factor in inheritances and insurance payouts. Pass this off if you will, but this is a major factor in many such cases today.
7. Note the use of the word "if" in touching on the question of public assistance and Welfare. Once again, run this "wonderful world of polygamy" mindset by a Social Services worker.
Notice that none of these problems listed would be shared by gay marriages and polygamous marriages. You do the whole discussion a huge disservice by lumping them together.
What might be a quick intellectual exercise to you is something much more complex in the real world.
Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't add to the work of our courts and legal system, in fact, it reduces it. Many tragic situations of inheritance and power of attorney could be easily fixed if they were able to share the privileges found in traditional, legal marriage. The same could, in no way, be said for polygamists.
One decision rewrites one law and clears the air. The other requires an overhaul of the whole system and muddies the waters terribly.
Edit to add: Original post was deleted so as to give a more complete explaination. It does say the same thing in the beginning, though. Frisco, get some sleep...
[ November 10, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Frisco's sincere here and considered each item in your post. He's also laid back enough he probably won't take offense to the dismissive bits. That's pretty cool.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Katharina, he was pretty dismissive about what I had said. I do appreciate him addressing each one, but this is pretty serious stuff.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sorry if it came off as if I were trying to belittle the issues. They're all good things to consider when trying to decide how to mit polygamy into society.
But what I'm getting from your posts it that we shouldn't give polygamists equal rights because:
A: Potential for abuse. Besides the fact that we're using negative stereotypes that may or may not perpetuate themselves if we're to legalize, legitimize, and tolerate a new form of relationship, I'm still not a big fan of punishment in anticipation of a crime.
B: It's complicated. Are we lazy? Opposed to change? Unwilling to endure a period of turmoil, even one affecting such a small percentage of the population as this, for the sake of letting letting these people pursue happpiness?
I just think that I see polygamy as something that has potential to do good (though I got a chuckle out of your using a man with twelve wives as your example). I'd love to see a world in which a child could grow up with three loving fathers and three loving mothers and eleven siblings as friends. Granted, this would be a rarity for a long time to come...but as long as it's illegal, it's going nowhere.
I guess I should turn my badge and gun of cynicism back over for this.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If I was dismissive at all with your points, Sopwith, it's because we're arguing different arguments.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, I have friends who are gay and friends involved in a polygamous marriage.
My sister-in-law couldn't get married and was left holding the bag when her long-time life partner walked on her. She was left paying off a lease, loans and bills that could have and should have been equitably divided should they have been able to be married, as they had wanted to do years before.
The polygamous friends, well, one is trying to get out of the situation and she's having to deal with a seriously sticky situation. It's not pretty and if it were legal and headed to court, it would get even worse.
Personal experience with these two types of relationships has left me with decided opinions on them.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Caleb:
quote: If I understand you correctly, Doug, you are for gay marriage and polygamy both, and therefore our interests are aligned.
While i am for both gay marriage and polgamy, i also think it is a change our country shouldn't take lightly. This change will radicaly redefine marriage in the US, and thus the world. Plus, this will affect how the world acts towards the US; and i don't mean those pinheads in Europe.
quote: Your insinuation that homosexual rights activists are simply serving their own jealous "special interests" (as if it was wrong to fight for one's own personal special interest) is silly and insulting.
No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
Karl:
quote: Now maybe I'm mistaking hyperbole for a serious contention, but on this thread "Everybody under the sun" has been said to include not just polygamous relationships, but also incestuous, and inter-species relationships. I do not feel that it is hypocritical of me to say for instance that I think gays should be allowed to marry but that you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog.
When i say "everbody under the sun" i only mean consenting adults. Beastiality and pediphelia are a diffrent subject. But i don't see why incestuous marriages should be banned. The same taboo that block them were the same types of taboo that block gay marriage.
Rakeesh:
quote: The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license.
Should edit it to: The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, not the same sex and the money necessary to pay for a license.
A gay man can still marry a gay womam, technicaly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:what is your legal basis for denying it to a minority in America?
I define marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman.
Pretty definitive. I understand that most states do not have this strict definition of marriage-- however, most states also do not allow homosexual marriages because there is an implicit societal understanding that a legal marriage, in American society, is between a man and a woman.
As far as marriage rights go. . . I'd be willing to give up none of them. Is there a reason I should?
Or was that a ploy to 'help' me feel empathy?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Perhaps it was, Scott.
Doug:
quote:No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
So are you just going to ignore my example of the Revolutionary War? I suppose you'll teach your kids that our country's founders weren't really patriots because they didn't fight for freedom for all people, just white ones? I'm sorry, Doug, but I fail to see your purpose in trying to show hypocrisy when there is none. Sure, maybe I'm selfish for wanting to address the fact that my rights are being infringed.
But the thing is, Doug, if my argument over my rights should win the day, it would be a moral victory for polygamy too, since its argument is so similar. I'd argue that the only way polygamy ever has a chance in this country is if homosexual rights become recognized first. Again, I find this statement obnoxiously insulting, because your sentiments are very clear:
quote:i won't support some special intrest group fighting for "freedom" when they are just trying to help only themselves.
*
You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
*
No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
With virtually everyone in the thread saying that they support polygamy rights, I don't see the reason for your huge hang up here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In regards to the Founding Fathers, yes, I do think it was a fundamental hypocrisy for them to claim to fight for the rights of all men, and to overlook that they meant only white males. Also, I'm sure that most of them were aware of it, and considering they were at war and the alternative was anarchy, made the best of it and prayed their descendents would be wiser and stronger than they.
We are not presently at war, the alternative isn't anarchy, and if you mean stop struggling when you get what you want, that's fine, but you can't claim to fighting for the freedom of everyone.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Caleb:
quote: I suppose you'll teach your kids that our country's founders weren't really patriots because they didn't fight for freedom for all people, just white ones?
I don't have any kids and when/if i do i don't really know what i will tell them.
quote: With virtually everyone in the thread saying that they support polygamy rights, I don't see the reason for your huge hang up here.
I'm sorry, but it is a huge hang up for me. I don't want to take the chance that once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about. There is a long history of this in this country and all other the world.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying that the sanctity of marriage as an institution between two people should not be changed?
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Sorry, what i ment to say was that once gay marriage is accepted people woin't continue the fight for polygamy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scott,
quote:I define marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman.
I'm asking on what you base that definition. I'm assuming there is a religious basis in that definition somewhere, so I ask again, how do you feel justified in supporting a law based not on our American ideals but on your own specific religion?
In other words, I'm quite sure you'd feel more than a little incensed if someone imposed a law on you, denying you a critical aspect of happiness that doesn't hurt them when attained (and this is as close as I can come to "right" without actually saying it), based on their religion which you don't belong to.
But the vast majority of Americans, for secular or religious reasons, see no real problem doing just this to a small minority of people in America today. The justification for many is "God says so". That's not actually what you mean. So long as it's your religion's God, that's apparently a legitimate reason to make law in America.
quote:...implicit societal understanding that a legal marriage, in American society, is between a man and a woman.
"Implicit societal understanding" is not a good enough reason to deny a minority happiness when their happiness doesn't hurt you. I'll replace that with "conservative status quo", and perhaps it doesn't sound so good. This conservative status quo is, in fact, discriminatory and very frequently bigoted, often based on nothing more than, "God said so."
quote:As far as marriage rights go. . . I'd be willing to give up none of them. Is there a reason I should?
Or was that a ploy to 'help' me feel empathy?
Well then, in this particular case, the ploy failed. Or maybe you feel empathy, but are unwilling to do anything about it. That's very nice. -----
quote:Also, I'm sure that most of them were aware of it, and considering they were at war and the alternative was anarchy, made the best of it and prayed their descendents would be wiser and stronger than they.
I wish that were true, and I think it was true for some of them...but it isn't. There were many of the Founders who had complex and well-considered reasons for wanting things like poll taxes, denying votes to everyone but propertied white men, etc. If by "the People" you meant "everyone", well many times the Founders used words like "the mob" instead.
And supposing it is true, it's still a terrible and hypocritical reason. Because the war didn't go on forever.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:it's still a terrible and hypocritical reason.
Yes. That was my point. I adore the founding fathers, but they WEREN'T fighting for freedom for everyone.
I think we create an image of the founding fathers, what we think they should be. I heard this morning on NPR a quote from Benjamin Franklin that he thought the constitution was good but inevitable doomed to failure, because as the people were destined for despotism by nature, they would only be satisfied by the rule of a despot.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote: When i say "everbody under the sun" i only mean consenting adults. Beastiality and pediphelia are a diffrent subject. But i don't see why incestuous marriages should be banned. The same taboo that block them were the same types of taboo that block gay marriage.
That makes sense. I mean, when two gay people have sex there's a good chance that one of them will get pregnant. And the mutation rate of children born to a gay couple is just as high as the mutation rate of those born to sibling-sibling or parent-child couplings.
No wait...
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well this article addresses 1st cousin couples primarily, but it seems to say that, well, they're not so bad.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I actually knew about that, which is why I didn't say anything about cousins Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah I'm bumping this thread. Maybe it should die, but it seemed as good a place as any to describe what just happened to me. I just got asked if would sign a petition for the Defense of Marriage act. I said no. And that which ever way you define it, introducing legistlation like that is always a good way to curtail personal freedom for everybody including one man-one woman married couples. The person asking (who probably had a very good idea that I would say no) then gave a "cuckoo" whistle as he walked on past.
I have just experienced firsthand (in a minor way) how some "Christians" who believe in being persecuted for their faith actually find it perfectly acceptable persecute others who don't believe as they do.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:beats AJ to death with his mag-light:
There. Now you don't have to worry about anything anymore.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
AJ, that sucks.
I'm still convinced it is human beings that blow, though. Christians who do that aren't doing it BECAUSE of their Christianity, but IN SPITE of their supposed Christianity. And no one group of human beings has the corner on being idiots.
Or on being wonderful, either. It's encouraging.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Just had a long, long drawn out lunch discussion on the Defense of Marriage Act topic. It went all over the map but was actually quite good.
One of the topics was the "errosion of freedoms" issue. I guess I live in more of a glass castle than I realized. Some of my co-workers genuinely believe that they have to get this passed, in order to stop a slippery slope that started with not posting the 10 Commandments in schools and they see ending in the outlawing of Christianity and/or the Bible.
The secular argument I actually used was that, if the bill does get passed, it is immediately going to the courts. I, as an American taxpayer do not want to have to pay the millions of dollars it is going to cost the US government for this bill going up the food chain of appeals til it hits the supreme court. One of the guys I was discussing it with is an extreme fiscal conservative and it stopped him for a moment and made him think. (I was tickled I got him to do that at all)
However in the end he feels that the money is worth it because the end result will be keep conservative Christianity legal in the US, and otherwise the slippery slope will be that it eventually get outlawed.
I am glad that both of these guys, even though we have profound disagreements in idealogy do understand that it isn't personal. I get excited when I discuss stuff, and at first they thought I was taking it personally. Once they realized I wasn't the discussion was much better. I don't really know how to change my own style of verbal discussion to clarify this though. It is how I was raised. You get excited and loud sometimes in the heat of the battle of the discussion but it is never personal.
I guess it is the same struggle we deal with here at Hatrack a lot of the times.
AJ
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
As a tangent, I have to admit I find the idea that "conservative Christianity" is becoming threatened is rather laughable, considering that at the same time, many conservative Christian denominations/groups also claim ever increasing membership... And I say this as a member (though lapsed) of a liberal Christian denomination, which certainly gets no love from the conservative Denominations, and is ignored by just about everyone else (Congregationalists who??).
If anything, these desires to legislate certain christian principles will kill off MY denomination, and I worry at the thought of it. After all, if it is IN LAW, you can't really be a Christian without believing in the idea (and, even more importantly, the process that reached the idea) that is legislated, can you?
Legislating conservative Christian principles is useful in two ways to the movement: it helps to legitimize conservative Christianity as the true Christianity, thus marginalizing us, say, UCC Christans (or similar Christian groups), as well as the more public defense of moral and right behavior.
It makes a sort of delicious irony that the only self-professed Christians who may truly be persecuted in the future are the ones that rarely use that excuse in public discourse today.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well conservative Christianity has used the "us against the world" mentality for at least the past 25 years (as long as I've been alive at least <grin>). It really does fit in with that link Kayla posted a while back about how Bush II uses more adversarial/fear speech in his statments than any other recent President.
In both cases the tactic appears to be working.
I also made the argument, that equally credentialed Biblical scholars can come up with completely different conclusions depending on the preconcieved ideas they started with. Who are "you" to tell them that their ideas are wrong? If they are wrong it is up for God to decide. (This ties directly in with my good people going to hell thread.)
The third argument I used was that we allow the KKK and the Church of Satan to exist regardless of how evil some people view them to be. What if someone came up with a church of George, that said that to be in the church you HAD to be in a married homosexual relationship. You are then directly going against both the establishment of religion clause and and the free speech clause and would have yet another huge legal nightmare on the country's hands that would only serve to divide things further.
Anyway I didn't change their minds, nor did I expect to, but at least maybe I made them think in a direction they normally wouldn't.
Unfortunately their "for the good of society arguments" (which I have seen argued quite convincingly here) were extremely lousy and easy for me to shoot down (I kind of feel guilty about doing it now.) I could have argued their position far better than they could.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Banna- the church of George would be fine by the government. Churches can marry whomever they please to, it's just not a civil marriage if the couple isn't allowed to.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah I know that and thought about it after the fact. But these guys weren't quick enough on the uptake to call me on it. I know people just think at different speeds and there is nothing you can do about it but it is more fun when you are discussing something with faster thinking people. At the same time it was good for me because I actually had to articulate ideas that have been percolating in my brain for a while.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, it's an interesting question. Thinking about it, I haven't read the Defense of Marriage Act(s), and with suitably clumsy wording it is possible they ban churches from marrying people.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Since this thread won't go away, I thought I'd chime in again. I don't know who originally said this:
quote: once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about
But it goes along with something I've been thinking.
Homosexuality is actually a pretty natural way to want to be. Thinking of all those "Men can't talk" and "Women can't think" jokes we all have heard.
So if it does become acceptable to be married to someone who you are more likely to understand and get along with, I think heterosexual marriage will become fairly infrequent. It may even be looked on as somehow perverse. And I see a time when women are again relegated to second class status as a whole rather than merely in their personal relationships. If you don't believe me, tell me why 90% of the cooks on PBS are men. Even fields typically relegated to women are dominated by men. Also, someone was mentioning most the executives at Mary Kay are men.
Also, I will say again and again that marriage is not a right or freedom. I'll repeat it since I don't honestly believe it was addressed in the four middle pages that I haven't read. If I'm just totally repeating people, well good. I'm sure the other side of the debate hasn't been doing that...
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:So if it does become acceptable to be married to someone who you are more likely to understand and get along with, I think heterosexual marriage will become fairly infrequent.
Surely you can't be serious.
The only reason I'm attracted to women now is because I know that I'll never be able to marry a man? And this whole time I thought it was boobs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But these guys weren't quick enough on the uptake to call me on it. I know people just think at different speeds and there is nothing you can do about it but it is more fun when you are discussing something with faster thinking people.
AJ, I can't tell whether you're kidding or not.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Pooka
No, really. That was funny.
Oh, wait, you were serious... Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
<--- from what Frisco said.
[ November 13, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: bCurt ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I'm serious. I just can't believe this thread is still going and going and going.
Anyway, isn't a metrosexual someone who sleeps with whoever is convenient? How are we going to make sure they get the rights of paying more taxes?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
No, that's not what a "metrosexual" is. Metrosexual is a rather flippant term that's emerged recently. It refers to the increasing trend among heterosexual professional males to care about clothes, pedicures, manicures, etc. i.e. things that are stereotypically homosexual.
A bisexual is someone who sleeps with / loves / is attracted to both men and women.
And yes, metrosexuals should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. After all, they are consumers too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, a metrosexual is a heterosexual man who pays attention to what he looks like, follows fashion, and basically acts like a gay stereotype while still being attracted to, uh, what Frisco is attracted to.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Isn't that what I said? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(pssst! EG, I think kat was responding to the same post as you were.)
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
(shhhh, I only realised that I after I posted... lucky I had that in there so it looks like I was being a smart ass anyway... don't tell anyone that, though) Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No Kat I wasn't kidding. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. In fact I re-worded it three times before I came up with that wording. In reading it again I probably should have re-worded it another five times to work it over some more.
I am not trying to imply they have any sort of disablilty, just that on these sort of topics they think much more slowly than I. Possibly because they are thinking them through for the first or second time while I don't even know how many times I have ventured into the fray on this subject at hatrack alone.
I have been a math and science tutor for a combined total of about 6 years. In that time I had ample way to see the way people assimilate data. Some people think slower than others in different areas. It takes them longer to process data of a particular variety. These guys are an a shop floor for the most part, though both have college degrees. They are quicker thinking and much better than I about how to visualize the way to put parts together.
But, when it comes to a debate on these particular subjects, I'm far more educated and aware of all the arguments that are out there, most of it due directly to hatrack. These guys aren't terribly good at changing verbal-logical viewpoints rapidly and attacking subjects from a variety of directions at once because they don't have the practice that I do.
That is why I felt slightly guilty about it afterwards, they weren't prepared for my arguments or perspectives and I kind of hit them out of the blue with them. On the other hand, the complete unexpectedness of it, probably got them to think out of their boxes more than they would have otherwise.
AJ
[ November 13, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I should also add the that a Metrosexual cares about many of the things associated with the gay stereotype, but should not be confused with that stereotype as he's also supposed to be a manly man.
Examples of prominent Metrosexuals are David Beckham and Ian Thorpe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
AJ, I'm just saying there are possibly reasons other than "they think more slowly than me" for you not getting any response to your post. I mean, that could be part of it, but there could also be other reasons.
Added: Okay, I thought you were talking about Hatrack. That you didn't get responses on Hatrack because you thought much more quickly than the other jatrequeros. That thought seemed so bizarre and so out of character for you I couldn't believe you meant it. And this isn't what you meant! Yay!
[ November 14, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well thanks for the 411 on metrosexuals. I thought it meant bi. I just never clicked on any of the links when I check my hotmail. Still, what about bisexuals? AJ, we all have evolving thought process. For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized. I know that currently gays are the target of a lot of actual persecution, which is wrong and a crime. I believe in tolerance, but I do not believe in acceptance. Tolerance allows people to be free to do what they wish, acceptance is allowing them to affect me in doing what I wish. I think Tolerance can be enforced but acceptance has to be given freely.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
Why?
How does it follow that if the government allows, say, pornographic films to be made, that the religion against that freedom of speech would be criminalized? They are not. How does "my religion would be illegal" follow the government's allowing of homosexual marriage? It doesn't. Since when has any religion been criminalized? Do you have any precedents for this? Why should America recognize your religion over my religion, anyway? Where in the constitution does it say that conservative Christian values are held in higher esteem by the Supreme Law of the Land than, say, Unitarian Universalist values?
And who convinced you that gay marriage would result in a mass exodus from heterosexual marriage? Do you imagine that heterosexuals everywhere would simply stop being attracted to the opposite sex? Do you imagine that equal rights under the law would change people's opinions/feelings about homosexuality over night? Do you imagine Reverend Phelps getting engaged to a man the day after homosexuals become recognized by the law as equal citizens? Would you yourself consider gay marriage if it were legal? Why do you imagine that so many other heterosexuals would?
After my plethera of posts and arguments approaching the Christian view on homosexual rights as being motivated primarily by fear, how can you see these arguments as being anything else, but, indeed, fear?
The reasons you give for being against equality are, in a nut shell, that your religion would become illegal and heterosexual marriages will quickly become unpopular. Both of these hint at, as I've described before, your motivating perspective: when people are allowed to seek living arrangments that are not 'traditional' or 'God ordained' (with the caveat that we're using YOUR definitions for those terms), everything in society will start to fall apart at the seams.
The TRUTH is that that is simply false, and that there's no logical reason to come to that conclusion at all. Of course, whenever anyone requests proof for outlandish predictions such as these, whenever someone points out that we need real reasons to deny someone their rights rather than vague apocolyptic fears, we inevitably go on for six more pages without ever addressing that issue.
[ November 14, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry
Caleb, look at what is said.
If it is a hate crime to NOT allow gays to marry, then refusing to marry gays will be a hate crime. In that case the person will have to choose to either compromise the religion or commit a "hate crime."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Since when has any religion been criminalized?
quote:For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
[ November 14, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Caleb, I think you misunderstood what pooka said. If it is deemed a "hate crime" not to marry gays, then it could make some religions either break the law or compromise their convictions.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You know, Caleb, you're really screwing up the whole "effeminate gay" stereotype for everyone. People are going to start thinking that homosexuals are all well spoken and intelligent. What kind of sympathy will they get, then?
Couldn't you at least type with a lisp?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
But not allowing someone to marry isn’t a hate crime, no one is trying to make it a hate crime, and it doesn’t fit with what hate crime legislation is.
In every hate crime law I’ve ever heard of, a hate crime is a regular crime motivated by someone’s race, gender, orientation, etc. Not performing a wedding is not a crime, therefore not performing a particular wedding can’t be a hate crime.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
I can't prove otherwise, but in order to believe this I'd have to see a law that says that individuals have no right to refuse their services when it comes to performing marriages.
A Mormon bishop would be legally bound to marry a prostitute to a drug dealer if they merely asked? I find that very, very hard to believe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are the laws for this kind of thing - I mean, can the Las Vegas Chapel of Elvis Love refuse to marry two people because, despite appropriate tests, ages, genders, and non-relatedness, one of them is, say, 95 and the other 30 and the clerk thinks that old lady is having an innapropriate amount of fun?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Religious denominations have long been free to discriminate based on their beliefs. What would change if we were to legalize homosexual marriage?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I understand it, churches can pretty much arbitrarily decide whether or not they'll perform a ceremony. Justices of the peace, however, cannot turn people away.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't know the law for civil marriage, but the decision to perform a relious marriage is completely up to the discretion of the officiating clergy.
::points to previous post:: yeah, what he said.
[ November 14, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, the Chapel of Elvis Love. Justice of the Peace or mind-blowingly unself-aware preacher?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Depends. Is Elvis a God?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think he has him on payroll.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
More seriously, it could be either. Since the state can’t put itself in the position of judging the validity of religious beliefs it’s fairly easy to be officially recognized as clergy for the purposes of performing weddings. Any of the people here who signed up for that internet ordination thing a while back would qualify.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
One wonders what OTHER lessons might be learned from this example.
For the rest of you defending pooka's assertion that refusing to perform a gay marriage might be a 'hate crime'.... let's be a little more factual. Others have already clarified this point, but come on. Since when is choosing not to do a wedding ceremony a crime?
Again, I submit that all of these fears are just that: Fears. They are not concerns. They are not even arguments, for the most part. It's just the irrational idea--not unlike the irrational ideas presented by Lilburn W. Boggs, whom Scott pointed out with his link--that people who don't want to live according to your religion are going to start ruining society.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Caleb. Take. A. Breath.
Count. To. Ten.
Did you see when the Extermination Order was rescinded?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
Scott, I'm not understanding this. Unless the Mormon Bishop is also a Justice of the Peace, what does he have to do with civil ceremonies?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Caleb. Take. A. Breath.
Count. To. Ten.
Did you see when the Extermination Order was rescinded?
You mistake sarcasm for anger, Scott. Nothing I said in my post would indicate that I needed to regain control of my breath, or count to ten just to come back to my senses. So please avoid trying to give the impression that I'm ranting or raving or any other such nonsense.
You didn't even respond to anything I really said.
But no, I hadn't seen that it was officially rescinded in 1976. I do fail to see the relevance of that fact, however. That this order was not rescinded for nearly a hundred years tells us... what?
If anything it tells us how dangerous it is to let religion and government walk hand-in-hand, to the point where some are more equal than others.
[ November 14, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm.
[ November 14, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bad 1st season South Park paraphrase:
quote:You see Stan, it's illegal to hunt certain animals. You can only shoot them in self-defense. So that's why we shout out "He's coming right for us!" right before we shoot them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Caleb, I know we have an old argument about how orientation is estabilshed and whether it could be changed. I think we agreed that it can vary from person to person. I agree that no one can force a bishop to marry a couple. However, pressure may be brought to bear for the church to not restrict entrance to the temple. Forget the extermination order, that was about Mormons swinging elections. During the 1880s, congress passed a number of laws to persuade the church to abandon polygamy. All church property was seized and church officers were arrested. All this was before Utah was even actually a state. Edmunds Tucker Law
Considering what it has cost us (and I am contending that the scars have extended into my generation) it shouldn't be surprising that we don't want to see anyone else get away with what we could not- that is, expanding the American definiton of marriage.
But that's more or less an emotional appeal. Homosexuals are full citizens as much as people with first cousins are full citizens. It is wanting to marry that is the trouble. I don't really hope to persuade folks who believe in gay marriage as strongly as I disbelieve in it. I'm more out to persuade fence sitters that they can't deny church marriage but be open minded about civil union. It's an uncomfortable feeling, because as GM proponents say, Christians are supposed to be loving and squishy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, pressure may be brought to bear for the church to not restrict entrance to the temple."
Why would you say this? Catholics have been free to excommunicate people for hundreds of years; Scientologists can shun whomever they like. No one has ever successfully sued the Catholic church, as far as I know, for excommunicating them -- because no one has the inherent right to belong to a religion of their choice.
One of the reasons we should fight so hard to keep religion out of the public sphere -- and one of the reasons the state of Utah sucks so much -- is that you should NEVER have a situation in this country where being accepted by a religion is equivalent to civil and legal acceptance.
"I'm more out to persuade fence sitters that they can't deny church marriage but be open minded about civil union."
The thing is, I think they CAN.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:and one of the reasons the state of Utah sucks so much
My new favorite quote from Tom.
You have such a way with words, Mr. Davidson. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, out of curiosity, how much time have you spent in Utah? Those are big words for some from a state proud to be Hoosiers. *nods, smiling*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Tom is from Indiana? Hmph, I always thought he was from Illinois.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've spent probably a total of thirty hours in Utah, over my entire life. But it's in the news a lot.
(Kayla, I like to think of myself an a metromidwesterner: born in Michigan, raised in northern Indiana, temporarily redirected to Illinois, and currently in Wisconsin. *laugh*)
In all seriousness, though, don't you think Utah's remarkable lack of religious diversity is a powerful influence on its culture?
[ November 14, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm sure all the Utes would agree with you, Kat.
But whether he's spent time there or is guessing, he's pretty dead-on.
The alcohol laws alone are enough to drive a non-Mormon insane! You know how far I had to drive down at EnderCon to get myself good and wasted for "The Polish Boy" reading?!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm torn, here. Part of me wants to defend Utah, because going to college at Utah State was a basically completely heavenly experience. On the other hand, Tom pretty flippantly dismissed a state he'd spent less than two days in, and the logic of "bad news sells" seems to have failed him in terms of using what news reaches Madison to judge a state. And despite the flat numbers, the midwest doesn't have the greatest reputation for racial harmony. "Sucks so much" IS a bit much from a region that includes 8 mile.
On the other hand, I don't live there, and I don't want to. Nothing personal, just a preference.
Frisco, you mean Hatrackers aren't enough for you?
[ November 14, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm.
Since nothing in my post was "hostile", "aggressive", or "egaged in warfare", I'll put this on the ever-growing stack of character assassinations and lies that come courtesy of Katharina. I also note that you do not quote me or refer to any specific text of mine in telling this lie. Typical.
And if you're trying to say it's wrong to use sarcasm to make your point, that would be a wholly separate argument. An argument that you don't take the time to make, of course. Also an argument that you yourself flagrantly violate all the time. Here's a couple just from this thread:
quote:Or by making divorce laws, or custody laws, or going after dead-beat parents, or having anything to do with wills or inheritance. Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
quote:You mean the government? The one that has nothing to do with what the people it governs believes? So much for of the people, by the people, for the people...
quote:Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
quote: I think Lalo is a man of principle
(I add both of those two last ones because it is difficult to tell which one would be sarcasm in your eyes, though they are both obviously lies)
Anyway...
Pooka:
quote:Caleb, I know we have an old argument about how orientation is estabilshed and whether it could be changed. I think we agreed that it can vary from person to person.
Well you snuck something extra in there... I would agree that 'how orientation is established' can possibly vary from person to person, if only because I am unwilling to speak for anyone but myself in that regard. I contend that for the vast majority of homosexuals, their orientation is not "established" any more than heterosexuality is "established" for you. I have NEVER agreed that a person's sexuality could be changed (which would play into my underlying belief in the genetics of homosexuality, I suppose), and I base that on the fact that I tried to do that very thing for about twelve years and found nothing but heartache and abandonment.
But on to your post...
I'm taking a look at this Edmunds-Tucker Act. Also from the 1880's. Would I be misunderstanding you if I supposed that you support the following?
quote:In 1882 congress enacted the Edmunds Act which made "bigamous cohabitation" a misdemeanor. If proven guilty, the defendant was given a limited jail sentence and was thereafter barred from serving on a jury, voting, or holding public office. This law was effective, and around 1,300 Mormon men were jailed under it in the 1880’s.
Because this:
quote:it shouldn't be surprising that we don't want to see anyone else get away with what we could not- that is, expanding the American definiton of marriage.
..sounds a lot like you're AGREEING with the people that threw Mormons in jail because they disagreed with them on a religious matter. I pretty much find that deplorable, so please clarify.
Because if you agree with that, you're one step away from saying homosexuality should be a criminal offense. You're one step away from saying that gays should have to serve minor prison sentences if they are found living a gay lifestyle.
Surely that's not what you're saying?
But then that's the problem with referring to legislation from the 1880's. Not much of it is relevant today.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, give it up. You have a problem with me, you deal with me. Take it to e-mail. Don't litter the board.
You owe Scott an apology.
[ November 14, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Katharina:
No, I've already blocked your email address because I don't appreciate harassment in my inbox. As I've said to you more than a few times, I am not interested in communicating with you outside of making sure you don't get away with lies on hatrack.
As this is one of those cases...
quote:You owe Scott an apology.
I was obligated to respond. You have not shown where I was belligerent or offensive to Scott. You have not even pointed to whatever it was that I wrote that made you come to this conclusion. You can't just run around hatrack accusing people of doing things that they haven't done. I won't stand for it. I was not belligerent towards Scott and you are lying to say that I was.
This is exaclty like the situation on page 6 of this thread where Lalo and I called you on your appalling discussion tactics and you failed to respond to anything at all. Either A) Accept the fact that you just put your foot in your mouth, B) Prove your outlandish allegations (around here we do that with links to relevant stories and research or quotes of another poster's text), or C) Don't say anything at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, for crying out loud. Do you want a vote?
Everyone who thinks responding sarcastically and witheringly to polite, sincere people is the best way to prop up your contentions, raise your hand. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
If you read his response to "Take A. Breath." etc. I don't think it sounds angry or belligerent, but a lot can be misconstrued in internet postings. It seems plausible to me that sarcasm was mistaken for something else.
Anyways, that's between Caleb and Scott. We don't want to get stuck policing apologies, do we?
Tom has a point(Giving the 'Utah sucks' thing a rest for the moment)-- separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of America. No church can be forced to accept members or to marry people. The government can do lots of stuff that church A or church B might not approve of, but they operate in different spheres.
That said, when homosexual civil unions become legal, will any of those opposed to them leave the country? Just curious.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Disclaimer: Don't actually vote. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Take a breath, kat. Is it really our place to demand an apology on someone else's behalf? We don't even know if Scott took offense.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Olivet, I'm fine. I'm not demanding one. *waves arms* I do think he owes Scott an apology, but I'm sure Scott's day will go on whether he gets one or not. I'm just using sarcastic because that's what Caleb admitted he was doing. Belligerent was a judgment call; since it's causing so much ruckus and it isn't important, I'll withdraw it.
[ November 14, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Okay. That's cool.
What were we talking about?
Oh, yeah...
*runs away*
Edit: Yeah, he admitted the sarcasm, and I see where his posts could be read a few different ways. No need to withdrawyour opinion, though. Just thought the 'put it to a vote' thing was a bit premature;)
[ November 14, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, that's why I added the disclaimer. Caleb's said a few times his goal is to completely discredit me and point out what a horrible person I am. I don't share the...sense of a vast, judgemental audience whose opinion needs to be swayed, and I figure a person's character is revealed a great deal more by what they say than by what anyone says about them. If someone can't figure out for themselves an opinion, I'm not sure it's worth fighting for, assuming anyone cared in the first place.
I also think his determination to paint me as a horrible person is less than condusive to reading what is actually there.
Putting it to a vote would cut to the chase in the proposed PR struggle. I don't believe in it, though.
---
I have decided that I don't believe in group opinions or emotions or fates or anything. I don't believe there is any such thing as the heart of a nation. I don't believe in the collective. Not that I don't believe the collective is worth fighting for; I don't believe the collective even exists. There's no such thing as group loyalty or groupy enmity; there's only people. There are only individuals. You can't remedy a group hurt with one act towards an individual, whether it is good (say, mentoring) or ill (say, beating someone). It just doesn't exist. There are no groups; only individuals.
And sometimes families.
Like Hatrack. I do love Hatrack, but that's shorthand for a lot of thing. I love the people here and what I can get and do here, but I don't think there's any such thing as a Hatrack collective opinion.
[ November 14, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: There's no such thing as group loyalty or groupy enmity; there's only people. There are only individuals.
Really? That seems to be the complete opposite of everything that (what I understand of it, through OSC's books and Hatrack) your religion is all about. For some reason, I always thought that individual happiness came from establishing a family in a community (collective). That individuals willing to sacrifice for the whole (collective) were sometimes necessary.
If this isn't the case, then what is the argument against homosexual marriage? As I understand it, you are against it for religious reasons, and while I haven't memorized your position, I've read from more than one poster that it would be bad for society. But if you don't believe that there is a collective, then how could homosexual marriage affect it? And if it's just because you believe it to be a sin, then I still don't understand why it would matter to you as no one is trying to force you into a homosexual marriage and you can't be your brother's keeper if there is no collective. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a new theory. I'm still working on it. I'll let you read the dissertation when I'm done. *grin*
[ November 14, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You owe Scott an apology.
Gosh, Kat. It sure is swell of you to leap to Scott's defense like that, especially when Caleb's most offensive remark was that Scott was using a ridiculous and -- in light of Scott's argument -- hypocritical argument against homosexual equality.
Golly, I wonder if you read it at all? Or just Scott's response? Here's the relevant part of the post, just for you.
quote:Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
Wow! Caleb sure is an offensive bastard, isn't he? But for silly little minds like mine, Kat, do explain how Scott could possibly be offended by that, and why Caleb has any obligation to apologize for a reasonable and logical argument?
Actually, what's most surprising about this, Kat, is your insistence of Caleb's apology to Scott for an imagined slight (or for a reasonable, coherent post, if that's what he's supposed to apologize for). I mean, hey, haven't I given you a week to respond to my lengthy analysis of your lies in just this thread? Not only have you refused to challenge a single point I raised, you've failed to even acknowledge the post's existence!
So, let's follow the line of thought, here. You make unwarranted attacks on my character (all of which were blatant lies). Caleb refutes them, and you dismiss him, declaring that you want only my response to your lies. I make a post that declares I was about to post a response to your lies -- and you declare you're leaving for a weekend! So I post and wait a weekend. Then I wait a week. No response.
Gosh, Kat. Don't tell me I'll have to add "craven" below "deceitful" on my list of adjectives about you. I mean, if you can work yourself into a self-righteous tizzy over Caleb's non-offensive (and dead on) post, surely you can spare a few moments to respond to my criticism of you? Perhaps, dare I dream, apologize for your lies?
But I guess that was too much to hope for.
Here's the post, in case you've forgotten how far back it is. Eighth post down.
I doubt you can convince anyone here that you're not a liar, after that. Maybe, though, you can try to tell everyone you're not a coward?
Though going back to the same old bullshit within a week of my analysis of your last pack of lies seems a bit much. Heh. Christ. Out of interest, now that you've started your bit on Caleb, how long were you going to take before you declared him anti-Mormon or spineless? Maybe hypocritical or collaborating with Martians?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, you're a good friend to Caleb. That's nice.
[ November 14, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If I am one step away, what does that make me? One step away is still one step away. But I think you didn't understand me. For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a crime. It is a free country and I believe in free will. I just don't think marriage is about any consenting relationship. In my fantasy totalitarian state, citizens would be under the same burdens of proof to form a marriage as green card applicants obtaining citizenship through marriage. :evilaugh:
And by establish orientation, I didn't mean to exclude those who are different from birth (or conception in your case). What word would you prefer? (please interpret this as a genuine question and not snarkiness).
So should the polygamists have been jailed? Should polygamy be permissable as free exercise of religion? If an Arab with four wives converts to LDS, must he divorce his three latest wives or does he get to pick? I don't know...
Part of the trouble with the laws were they were enforced after the fact. This is typical of the level of constitionality of that process. And I don't know why it being in the 1880's makes it unlikely to happen again. The internment of Japanese was about midway between then and now. A lot of people think out actions in Iraq and with the Al Qaeda are similar.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh!
Gosh, Kat. I sure didn't expect you to completely avoid every question and accusation I provide.
So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit? I have trouble believing that anyone reading my thread (and especially posts by me or Caleb responding to your constant lies and avoidance) can see anything but repeated affirmation of your complete lack of ethical spine.
I'm disgusted, Kat. I don't know why I expected better from you, except by judging you as any other member of Hatrack, but from here on out any honesty from you would come as a complete surprise. Go on lying about Caleb -- I doubt anyone's still gullible enough to believe that accusations of dishonesty or rudeness from you are worth anything.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
LOL
So you can't prove that I was belligerent--quite naturally, because I wasn't--and you take that back. But you still think I owe Scott an apology for being sarcastic, even though you yourself (and many of us here) use sarcasm all the time to point out a flaw in someone's argument? (See above, where I do you the courtesy of quoting your actual text instead of putting words in your mouth)
Why exactly are you so intent on being my mother? I need to apologize to Scott? Where exactly do YOU fit into that assertion? Or are you just putting on a show for some wierd 'court of public opinion'?
Oh wait, now you say that you DON'T care what other people think. Which begs the question, why do you care so much about whether I should apologize to Scott for doing something that you haven't even shown to be a bad thing?
I have acknowledged that I was being sarcastic because I was being sarcastic. I do that sometimes, just like the rest of us.
What you are doing is incomprehensible to me. You are steeped in contradiction and hostility and for some reason you feel it is necessary to show everyone why I'm guilty of your crimes.
Well, Kat, I've responded to your allegations that I was belligerent. I disproved them. I responded to your allegations that I was being sarcastic. (Though to be technical, I "admitted" it before you ever tried to "pin" it on me)
I'm still waiting for one honest post from you detailing the multitude of objections that you have, using actual words from my posts rather than lies and innuendos, or putting words in my mouth.
Why are you so in love with the personal attack? Can't you just leave me alone like I asked you to? Did you take the time to find out if Scott was offended before you started demanding that I apologize to him? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--quote anything from me to show that I was being offensive? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--make a case that sarcasm in and of itself is inherently rude? And did you afterwards address your own use of sarcasm in this very thread?
How about some FACTS, please?
Oh look, another lie:
quote:Caleb's said a few times his goal is to completely discredit me and point out what a horrible person I am.
Ah, so my goal in this situation isn't to defend myself from you: "Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm." My real goal is just to hit you personally with a smear campaign. Right.
Have you even noticed that the only times I've addressed you lately on Hatrack were to point out where you were lying? Could it be that I'm defending myself, because, yeah, I defend myself when someone slanders me?
Oh and NOW look. Lalo shows you, again, how my post was not offensive in any way. And in spite of reason and logic and human decency, you respond "You're a good friend to Caleb. That's nice."
Please do me a favor and just leave me alone, as I don't need this particular insanity in my life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, I didn't read all that, but I did read Caleb's last line.
How about a truce?
Added: And this line, which I enjoyed:
quote:And in spite of reason and logic and human decency, you respond "You're a good friend to Caleb. That's nice."
[ November 14, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Okay, I didn't read all that, but I did read Caleb's last line.
How about a truce?
Man.
I'm at a loss for words.
Caleb, dude, don't let idiots get to you. After reading (and experiencing) this entire thread, Kat's assertations are proven worthless hundredfold. If it makes you feel better, the rest of Hatrack is reading her lies, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It does make me feel better, actually. Thanks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So is this thread dead yet?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Right. You'll ignore all of our points--even skip over my whole post--AND refuse to own up to your audacious behaviour, AND you'd ask me to participate in a 'truce' that would have no meaning for me, since you certainly haven't given the impression that you intend to clean up your act. Again, I would prefer that you simply leave me alone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pooka: Apparently not.
[ November 14, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And out of interest, how could you possibly be comforted by knowing the rest of Hatrack is learning how often you lie shamelessly? Unless you're somehow titillated by spreading lies about other people, I don't see how you would enjoy being proven a liar.
Though it would explain the sheer volume of your outrageous lies, and avoidance of any responsibility regarding them.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Apparently not.
No really, I would. That you jumped in between Scott and me to try and discredit my character was annoying and it was a lie. I had to deal with that.
It really *would* be my preference that you didn't slander me at all so I didn't have to go through this every other day.
Please comply.
[ November 14, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The "Apparently not" was to pooka.
[ November 14, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I have already demonstrated that I don't discuss things with you unless it is to defend against your lies. It is a promise I needn't make, but sure. Given the fact that you never treat me or my posts with respect, logic, or truth, I have no difficulty promising not to engage you unless I have to defend against a lie, which was my only purpose in responding to you THIS time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, you're the one who said it was sarcasm. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too.
I knew some uninformed poster would pop in and offer an opinion.
Kat is offering a "truce" -- as though Caleb had performed any fraction of a degree of the lies and bullshit she's hurled his way. She takes no responsibility for her repeated lies, and has yet to offer even a single retraction. Let alone an apology.
It's not "bullying" to demand that she take responsibility, nor to be disgusted by her frantic self-righteousness in the face of her constant deceitfulness.
You have not, obviously, "experienced" this thread if you've never been given this ridiculous treatment by Katharina. Obviously you haven't, given that you're somehow offended that I've repeatedly requested some sort of acknowledgement of my repeated, accurate analysis of her constant lies. (Obviously you've skipped constant, polite criticisms of her lies. Click the link I provided in an above post. Or better yet, read the thread from the beginning. Then return and pretend nobody should be outraged by Katharina's egregious lies and irresponsibility for her own words.) Heh, god forbid that either of us receive an apology.
But from observation on this thread alone, Katharina'll be back to lying about other posters within a week of any major analysis of her moral character. I realize it's hopeless and useless to get a worthless apology from her, but at least other posters will know better than to expect rational dialogue and decent conduct from her in future arguments.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:The "Apparently not" was to pooka.
I would delete the post, then, since I misunderstood your meaning. But I don't want to make it look like either of us were posting for no reason, so I'll just say I'm sorry I thought you were calling me a liar again. I'll believe you that that wasn't the case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I trust people to make up their own opinion.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
As do I. I wonder if they'll take into account your still going-on refusal to take responsibility for a single one of your lies?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've been thinking about something, lately. I figured out why TomD only posts one-liner devastations.
Because those are the ones that get read.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was still hoping to find out from Caleb what word besides established, determined, formed (I can see these are all problematic in the same way) is used to describe orientation.
Edit: Now you are lying, kat, Lalo's posts were hardly "devastations"
[ November 14, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Realized? Discovered? I think those fit what he's describing.
Added: But you didn't ask me. Never mind.
[ November 14, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I prefer to have a little more faith in the Hatrack public. Though the volume of your lies force my responding posts to be ridiculously long, I hope some will struggle their way through each and every one of your lies and realize exactly the sort of person you are.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Added: Why did you feel it necessary to prepare dissertations on your greviances, then? There is no formal system, no standing in judgment, and I doubt anyone cares.
That isn't to say that no one cares about stuff at Hatrack; I think people just have their own lives. It's like being worried what you look when you dance; no one's watching except those who aren't dancing and they'll be distracted by someone else soon enough, and the person that really matters is your dance partner.
[ November 14, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Lalo, you may want to consider some of the stuff in your profile... unless it's all true of course. Innocent until proven guilty and whatnot.
Edit: Bonks self on head for 9th page post
Re-edit: Note the size of the scroll goody--->
[ November 14, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's been fun, but I'm gone for the weekend. So long.
[ November 14, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo,
I see you’ve used your usual ad hominem attacks. I disagree with you so I’m “uninformed.” Plus, I haven’t experienced the thread. Because obviously, if I had, I would agree with you.
I’ve read the entire thread several times – I’ve participated sporadically throughout.
Just taking the most recent squabble, Caleb was sarcastic and arguably could be considered belligerent (i.e., aggressive). Kat did not concede the belligerent part, she just withdrew it. That means at worst Kat’s post was a mistake, not a lie.
As to whether or not she should have jumped in between Scott and Caleb, I wouldn’t normally have done it, but it does seem to be the way things are done here at Hatrack.
So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind.
Just because you’ve “responded” to her statements doesn’t mean the rest of us agree with you. You’re the one who dragged the rest of us into this squabble by insisting that everyone else at Hatrack agrees with your characterization of what she said as “lies.” Probably some do. Probably some don’t. That would mean it is a debatable issue – not fact.
As for insisting on a full response to your refutation of her posts, since you don’t respond to every refutation of your posts, I don’t think you’re in a position to insist on it.
Dagonee, declared by Lalo to be uninformed
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Katie, I hate to say this, but it seems like you're the one who's being belligerent here. It seems like you're just trying to get Caleb all riled up.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Heh.
And here I had hope that you weren't the person you conducted yourself as.
quote:Added: Why did you feel it necessary to prepare dissertations on your greviances, then? There is no formal system, no standing in judgment, and I doubt anyone cares.
Yes. If you didn't doubt people cared about your honesty, doubtless you would have apologized long ago. Is that really how your moral system works, Kat? You're only a decent person if you think you'll be disliked if you aren't?
quote:That isn't to say that no one cares about stuff at Hatrack; I think people just have their own lives. It's like being worried what you look when you dance; no one's watching except those who aren't dancing and they'll be distracted by someone else soon enough, and the person that really matters is your dance partner.
And there you go with another completely unrelated analogy.
Why do I care if people know you for the liar you are? Why have I documented your outrageous lies in this thread alone? Why do I continually call you on your ongoing lies and misrepresentation of other people's opinions and avoidance of responsibility for just a few of the lies you create?
I care because you're attacking a good man and friend of mine. I care because if I didn't, doubtless you would continue the attacks, escalating them the exact way you escalated the attacks on me when you thought I wasn't present to refute them.
Then, of course, I showed up -- and you immediately declared your need to depart for the weekend.
I care because you're going to pull this bullshit on someone else, and they'll have to go through the same process of listing and responding to your lies. That, or leave the lies standing as blemishes on their name.
Now that I've answered your question, mind answering mine? Why do you lie so often and in such great volume? When people respond to your lies, why not respond? Why not apologize? Why not take responsibility for your own actions? Why not stop lying?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Dagonee,
quote:Lalo,
I see you’ve used your usual ad hominem attacks. I disagree with you so I’m “uninformed.”
No, Dagonee. You are doing as Katharina does, and misrepresenting my position, albeit to a lesser degree.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew some uninformed poster would pop in and offer an opinion.
Kat is offering a "truce" -- as though Caleb had performed any fraction of a degree of the lies and bullshit she's hurled his way. She takes no responsibility for her repeated lies, and has yet to offer even a single retraction. Let alone an apology.
It's not "bullying" to demand that she take responsibility, nor to be disgusted by her frantic self-righteousness in the face of her constant deceitfulness.
You have not, obviously, "experienced" this thread if you've never been given this ridiculous treatment by Katharina. Obviously you haven't, given that you're somehow offended that I've repeatedly requested some sort of acknowledgement of my repeated, accurate analysis of her constant lies. (Obviously you've skipped constant, polite criticisms of her lies. Click the link I provided in an above post. Or better yet, read the thread from the beginning. Then return and pretend nobody should be outraged by Katharina's egregious lies and irresponsibility for her own words.) Heh, god forbid that either of us receive an apology.
But from observation on this thread alone, Katharina'll be back to lying about other posters within a week of any major analysis of her moral character. I realize it's hopeless and useless to get a worthless apology from her, but at least other posters will know better than to expect rational dialogue and decent conduct from her in future arguments.
You aren't uninformed because you disagree with me. You're uninformed because you declare Kat isn't a liar -- contrary to nearly every post she's made in this thread. Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them?
quote:Plus, I haven’t experienced the thread. Because obviously, if I had, I would agree with you.
You haven't experienced the lies Katharina seems to have a penchant for heaping on other people. If you had, doubtless you would agree with me. Or has she done this sort of treatment to you before?
quote:I’ve read the entire thread several times – I’ve participated sporadically throughout.
Just taking the most recent squabble, Caleb was sarcastic and arguably could be considered belligerent (i.e., aggressive). Kat did not concede the belligerent part, she just withdrew it. That means at worst Kat’s post was a mistake, not a lie.
I just posted what Caleb wrote. It was sarcastic, but not in any sense belligerent. Here it is, reposted again, since you don't seem to have understood Caleb's logic.
quote:Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
Caleb isn't attacking Scott. He's pointing out the flaws in justification of social inequality through religious mandate by condemning another justification of inequality through religious mandate. Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive?
quote:As to whether or not she should have jumped in between Scott and Caleb, I wouldn’t normally have done it, but it does seem to be the way things are done here at Hatrack.
She didn't "jump between" Scott and Caleb. She read Scott's post and found it an opportunity to attack Caleb. Else, why didn't she justify her demands for an apology, especially in light of her refusal to give one to anyone else regarding her own outrageous lies?
quote:So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind.
I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite.
I've been more than polite in dealing with her -- three pages ago. Admittedly, I've lost my temper with her today; more than reasonable, considering the week I've given her to respond or apologize to my earlier criticism of her lies, and especially given her renewal of posting attacks without any supporting proof or logic behind them.
Or, if you want to see the inhumanly polite, read Caleb Varns' posts. The man's been responding politely for eight pages, and had it thrown in his face. The man has far more patience than I. Tell me, why aren't you leaping to his defense? And why Katharina's, of all people, in all threads?
quote:Just because you’ve “responded” to her statements doesn’t mean the rest of us agree with you. You’re the one who dragged the rest of us into this squabble by insisting that everyone else at Hatrack agrees with your characterization of what she said as “lies.” Probably some do. Probably some don’t. That would mean it is a debatable issue – not fact.
This is debatable? I haven't lied about her posts, or presented them in a misconstrued manner. She really did say it.
But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable."
quote:As for insisting on a full response to your refutation of her posts, since you don’t respond to every refutation of your posts, I don’t think you’re in a position to insist on it.
I what? I beg you, provide a single example of me not responding to everything someone says. Doubtless you're basing this off the belief that nobody addresses every argument thrown their way -- unfortunately for you, I do, with every post I see. It's true, there have been times I've accidentally missed a post or accidentally skipped a paragraph -- I can't remember the last time it happened, but doubtless it has -- but every time, every time, when I've had my mistake pointed out to me, I've responded immediately and fully.
I take pride in my intellectual honesty. Do you? This claim of yours is rather outrageous, and brings me to question your own intellectual honesty. Exactly what did you base this insult from?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
It's stunning.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Here, Dagonee. Typos and all, here's the post I created on the sixth page. Tell me, how am I misrepresenting what Katharina's said?
quote:
quote:This is fascinating.
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Caleb's already ripped your lies apart, but you've ignored him, insisting that he's not "let[ting] me play" and you want me to waste more of my life dissecting the lies Caleb's already taken apart.
But even beyond the offense I take at your insinuation that Caleb's post about your lies isn't good enough because he wrote it, I'm more than a little amazed you seem to expect that demanding two dissections of your lies would be better rather than simply responding to Caleb's original post with a simple apology and affirmation of honorable intentions. With your continued behavior of ignoring his posts and misconstruing even them, I'm afraid I no longer have any hope that your intentions, while still enigmatic and unclear as they were before, can no longer be misunderstood as even remotely honorable.
In the section above, you start out by declaring that I'm not open-minded and disconnected from "what's going on." While this section seems a non-sequitor in the context of any post, you exacerbate the problem by moving away from these unjustified lies and declare my "opposition to polygamy," despite my repeated declarations of my unresolved stance on polygamy, neither condemning it nor supporting it.
This, by itself, is an inexcusable lie. I've reproduced below every judgement I've passed on polygamy up to the time you posted this crap -- please, tell me which ones you used to justify this lie.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!
Yes, Doug. Allowing state-recognized monogamy between homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly like polygamy.
And what if someone wants to marry themselves... Heh. Wow. There's a brainteaser for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
After lying about my supposed opposition, you then go on to wonder about why it doesn't exist. You come up with the oh-so-original that I find it "squicky" -- presumably, an obnoxious euphemism for the euphemism "icky." You base this lie off nothing, especially considering my willingness to consider (gasp!) sex between those sexual deviants, homosexuals, and even endorse the legalization of marriage in order to provide equal rights.
Doubtless you're projecting some arguments you've heard against intolerant or bigoted people who want to suppress equal rights for homosexuals, and you're trying to convince yourself that lying about my position, then lying about the reasons why I would hold such a position (even when your lies about my intentions are in blatant opposition to everything I've ever written). It's not very clever, Katharine.
From your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy, you move on to another lie -- and insult -- about supposed neediness in a relationship, and how I wouldn't like polygamy because I'm oh-so-high-maintenance in my relationships. This is probably the most surprising lie you've told yet, especially considering the source. But, of course, you go on to then pretend-retract the remarks, without actually doing so.
quote:Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Of course you don't believe it. I don't really see how you could, unless you're particularly good at convincing yourself of the lies you concoct.
Speaking of which, you move on to your next lie. Technically speaking, it's not a lie -- I have produced less argument against polygamy than anyone else here has against homosexuality -- but in the context of your many, many lies, you accuse me of not only being weak-minded and needy, but inconsistent and cowardly. You imply that I've produced as little reasoning or proof behind my posts as you have -- an insult I take deeply to heart, especially considering my long labor to make my positions as clear as possible.
Of course, then you revert back to a former lie and declare that my supposed intolerance for polygamy stems from my supposed declarations of its "squicky" nature.
Then, of course, you make your first actual assertation on the topic. While it's incorrect, unreasoned, unwarranted, and probably an intentional lie, at least you're addressing the issue instead of making up fantasies about the people behind the positions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Caleb went on to dissect your post, pointing out a few lies and giving you a gentle and generous breakdown of your penchant for lies. You fail to respond to his post, or even acknowledge his position -- instead, you give him an emoticon instead of an actual response or apology.
From there, Caleb calls you on your avoidance of the issues. You respond with this:
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
"This"? He didn't come anywhere near addressing the issue at hand in the thread, only your constant lies and avoidance issues. Then you ignore the work he put into pointing out your habitual lying and declare that you want me to respond for myself, a selfish demand that both insults Caleb's work and worth and takes precious time away from me to address the lies Caleb had already taken partial care of.
Caleb calmy responds with the following post, pointing out your rude and deceitful debate tactics.
quote:Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
You respond with the following, completely ignoring what Caleb had just posted in favor of pretending he had instead asked you a question about the issue you had been so diligently avoiding.
quote:I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Caleb points out that you are, again, lying -- nobody in the thread, Caleb asks: "Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all."
You respond to this calm and reasonable (and repeated) request for some, any proof behind your lies with another avoidance:
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Now, as before, you respond to Caleb's question by answering one you made up. You flatter me by declaring, in direct opposition to your former posts, that I'm a man of principle -- a sudden transformation from the weak-minded, high-maintenance fool who relies on inconsistent principles and unreasonable argument -- then again lie and declare that I accept same-sex marriage but oppose polygamous union.
One final time, Caleb asks you to provide a shred of reasoning behind your lies.
quote:What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
You respond by offering him a Klondike bar and asking if his question means he won't "let [me] play."
Caleb finishes with you with a quote that's etched on my memory.
quote:My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Heh. Brilliant, dude.
Of course, Kat, you ignore him once again in favor of putting the Klondike bar in a freezer, then going "back" to me, as though I had already responded to your lies.
"*waves around "Explain this" sign*"
I hope I've done so. I've explained each lie you've provided, and in great detail. Doubtless, you'll ignore it -- I notice when you saw I was posting, you immediately declared your departure for the weekend -- but I hope someone out there will have a better idea of who and what you really are.
I found out the last time Kayla reamed you. I remember Kayla posting posts longer than three pages in response to your lies, and getting one-sentence responses that wondered why Kayla was just so mean and aggressive? You avoided every question of hers you didn't lie about, and wound up frustrating her as a writer and infuriating myself and others like me, who were reading the thread.
You're a thrice-damned liar, Kat, just from the combined posting of Kayla, Caleb, and myself.
I hope I've answered your "Explain this" sign adequately.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You guys are BOTH baiting each other to one degree or another, and I wish you'd stop. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them?
Must I reiterate that just because you post something doesn’t make it true or that others will believe you. Your claim that I haven’t read your criticisms from a few pages ago is lie #1 in this post.
quote: If you had, doubtless you would agree with me.
It’s possible for people not to agree with you even when they know the same facts you know. This is either unlimited arrogance or lie #2.
quote: Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive?
I didn’t say it was “offensive.” I said it could be construed as aggressive. See dictionary.com’s first definition of belligerent: “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” For me to show "how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive", I just have to show that some case can be made for it.
Scott obviously thought it was at least angry, based on his “count ten” comment. Katherine obviously thought so. I think so.
Scott was posting the example as a specific response to Caleb’s question about when a religion has been criminalized. Seems pretty on point to me.
Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
quote: I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite.
You’re the one who said they were polite. I’ve read them several times. They strike me as very impolite. I don’t think politeness is necessary when attacking something you view as a lie. But you claimed it, not me. And your claim of politeness was designed to make Katharina look more unreasonable for not replying.
quote: But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable."
Yes, do that. Because the problem isn’t your less-than-clear prose, it’s my inability to navigate on a UBB. (Note the sarcasm.)
I’ll pull the most extreme example – you take Katharina’s question if it’s the “squickiness” of polygamy that bothers you and say “from your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy...”
She never said you “dislike[d] ... the "squicky" aspect of polygamy.” She asked if you did. And you continue to characterize her characterization of your argument as a lie, without even acknowledging the possibility that it’s a misinterpretation of your position.
Remember, I think the polygamy slippery slope argument has always been disingenuous at best. But rather than rant and call people liars, I chose to argue the position on the merits.
However, from the position the polygamy-baiters were taking, an undecided position on the right to polygamous marriages is just as inconsistent with the rationale for allowing homosexual marriages as being against polygamy. The proper way to combat the polygamy ploy was to distinguish polygamy from homosexual marriage, not spend 3 pages saying you have no opinion on it.
The point is I agree with your overall position but thought the post in question was snarky, offensive, and mischaracterized Katharina’s post.
quote:I what? I beg you, provide a single example of me not responding to everything someone says. Doubtless you're basing this off the belief that nobody addresses every argument thrown their way -- unfortunately for you, I do, with every post I see. It's true, there have been times I've accidentally missed a post or accidentally skipped a paragraph -- I can't remember the last time it happened, but doubtless it has -- but every time, every time, when I've had my mistake pointed out to me, I've responded immediately and fully.
I take pride in my intellectual honesty. Do you? This claim of yours is rather outrageous, and brings me to question your own intellectual honesty. Exactly what did you base this insult from?
Single example, as requested: You totally ignored my response questioning your entire characterization of Lynch’s book and her interviews.
I am absolutely intellectually honest. Take this thread as an example – I dismissed the polygamy/homosexual marriage analogy on several occasions and declared it shallow. In fact, I agree with you and Caleb on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage. But I also don’t think your behavior in this thread has been beyond reproach.
quote: And why [are you leaping to] Katharina's [defense], of all people, in all threads?
...
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
It's stunning.
*Hands Lalo the smelling salts.*
I’m not so much supporting Katharina as opposing your attacks on her. You’ll notice the only position of hers I supported was the statement that Caleb was sarcastic and belligerent, and even then I said I didn’t think she should have said it.
The reason I didn’t “defend” Katharina before was because I didn’t agree with her before. I was perfectly willing to just keep my opinion to myself about who was being a jerk to whom in this thread (and there’s plenty of people to think that about). I only said anything because of the line in your post about everyone at Hatrack seeing your point (and implying their agreement with it). In doing that, you stated my opinion for me. And I won’t tolerate that.
We’re left with two choices here. We could debate endlessly about who shares what amount of blame for the generally hostile tone of this thread, which doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Or you can accept the fact that not everyone thinks Katharina is the only one at fault here, and I can accept the fact that you and Caleb (and probably others) think she is.
Dagonee
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I don't think I can follow this thread anymore. If it becomes applicable, please post in this thread. Thank you.
--Pop
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must I reiterate that just because you post something doesn’t make it true or that others will believe you. Your claim that I haven’t read your criticisms from a few pages ago is lie #1 in this post.
And now you're lying about my own moral backbone. Your findings of Katharina's potential, possible, maybekindasorta innocence are inconsistent with the evidence. What possible justification can you take to point out that Katharina's fantasies aren't lies?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you had, doubtless you would agree with me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible for people not to agree with you even when they know the same facts you know. This is either unlimited arrogance or lie #2.
And because you're repeating your argument again, I have to repeat my response to it. The fact is that Katharina has lied. Your denial of it makes it clear that either you haven't read the thread, or are in turn lying about Katharina's lies. Or are you seriously denying that she's lied, repeatedly, and has refused to take any responsibility for her harassment and insults?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was “offensive.” I said it could be construed as aggressive. See dictionary.com’s first definition of belligerent: “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” For me to show "how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive", I just have to show that some case can be made for it.
Scott obviously thought it was at least angry, based on his “count ten” comment. Katherine obviously thought so. I think so.
Out of interest, why? Caleb showed the logical inconsistency of Scott's statement, and wrote no ad hominem attack against Scott himself. If you're willing to classify Caleb's mild post as "belligerent," so be it -- but by the same extreme interpretation of "inclined or eager to fight," you can classify every post in any controversial thread as "belligerent." Obviously they're inclined to argue; otherwise they wouldn't be posting in such a thread to begin with.
Caleb did nothing more than point out Scott's logical fallacy. Using sarcasm to point out Scott's mistake wasn't aggressive or hostile -- in fact, I'd say Scott's response of ignoring Caleb's response and instead using an ad hominem attack on Caleb himself, suggesting Caleb was flustered and infuriated, was far more offensive and, yes, belligerent.
quote:Scott was posting the example as a specific response to Caleb’s question about when a religion has been criminalized. Seems pretty on point to me.
Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
It's true, Scott's response, if provided in a vacuum, was on point. Unfortunately, Caleb asked "Since when has any religion been criminalized?" against an argument that if homosexual monogamy is legalized, conservative religions will be banned. When Scott provided the link, his post was easily translated as a supporting the claim that religion can be banned based on prejudiced religious majorities.
In light of the argument, Scott's link only strengthened Caleb's point. Caleb showed how it did so through extremely mild sarcasm, and was immediately criticized by Scott as being flustered. Katharina jumped on that, then as before without any reason or argument, and demanded an apology for Scott.
I like Scott a great deal, and we've known each other some time. He knows the respect I have for him. But he needed to provide some sort of qualifier stating how he wasn't taking sides in the argument, or possibly how his link did not, in any way, contradict Caleb's argument. The way Scott presented his link, however, seemed to argue against Caleb's position that making monogamy equal to all would not criminalize a religion. Caleb was entirely within his rights as a non-psychic reader to understand Scott's argument as such.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the one who said they were polite. I’ve read them several times. They strike me as very impolite. I don’t think politeness is necessary when attacking something you view as a lie. But you claimed it, not me. And your claim of politeness was designed to make Katharina look more unreasonable for not replying.
[inserted speech in bold]
You claimed that any post that pointed out a lie was impolite -- thus my post. Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. But to respond to it anyway...
No, I don't think what I've written to Katharina today is polite. It's intentionally so -- I'm angry and disgusted with her, and my posts are written to reflect my emotions. Frankly, I have trouble believing I ever took her seriously, given her dishonest conduct in this thread. Katharina's been damn dishonorable throughout this thread, regardless of whether she refuted my criticisms or not -- I don't expect it of her, especially given her utter guilt in her own lies. How could she possibly refute it?
Katharina looks pretty unreasonable throughout the thread regardless of my own level of politeness. I don't declare myself polite to make her look somehow worse -- why would I, when I could point to Caleb's own polite performance and how he was treated?
So where the hell are you getting it that I'm portraying my angry posts as "polite"? Or are you making it up to make me look more the villain? I've repeatedly pointed out that my critical posts are rude -- but given Katharina's own vile behavior in the thread, I believe my anger's more than justified. Don't you? After all, being polite only re-targeted Caleb on Katharina's libel list.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, do that. Because the problem isn’t your less-than-clear prose, it’s my inability to navigate on a UBB. (Note the sarcasm.)
I’ll pull the most extreme example – you take Katharina’s question if it’s the “squickiness” of polygamy that bothers you and say “from your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy...”
She never said you “dislike[d] ... the "squicky" aspect of polygamy.” She asked if you did. And you continue to characterize her characterization of your argument as a lie, without even acknowledging the possibility that it’s a misinterpretation of your position.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The point is I agree with your overall position but thought the post in question was snarky, offensive, and mischaracterized Katharina’s post.
Heh! And now you're re-writing Katharina's post. Here, I'll post it.
quote:What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored
Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Yes, Dagonee. And she's asking if I'm emotionally insecure and high-maintenance, not claiming it. And she's asking that my argument "consist of 'Ew. Gross. That's just not right.'"
Heh. Jesus. But of course, it's a "mis-interpretation" of something I never said. From your repeated assertations of your intellectual honesty, I would have expected better than to re-write history.
quote:Remember, I think the polygamy slippery slope argument has always been disingenuous at best. But rather than rant and call people liars, I chose to argue the position on the merits.
However, from the position the polygamy-baiters were taking, an undecided position on the right to polygamous marriages is just as inconsistent with the rationale for allowing homosexual marriages as being against polygamy. The proper way to combat the polygamy ploy was to distinguish polygamy from homosexual marriage, not spend 3 pages saying you have no opinion on it.
Again!
Read what I wrote, Dagonee. Not only did I repeatedly declare my neutral opinion on the virtue of polygamy, I constantly and consistently differentiated polygamy from monogamy. Please, I don't want to accuse you of not reading what I write again.
quote: Single example, as requested: You totally ignored my response questioning your entire characterization of Lynch’s book and her interviews.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Was that in this thread? Or some other thread I left long ago?
quote: I am absolutely intellectually honest.
Which would be why you just re-characterized Katharina's post and declared I didn't take a position I repeated for over three pages.
quote:Take this thread as an example – I dismissed the polygamy/homosexual marriage analogy on several occasions and declared it shallow. In fact, I agree with you and Caleb on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage. But I also don’t think your behavior in this thread has been beyond reproach.
Nor do I, for that matter. I'm more than aware that I've been rude. In fact, much of it has been intentional. It's clear Katharina's not going to respond to anything that calls her on her dishonest character -- no matter whether polite Caleb writes it or today's angry Lalo -- so I'm not as careful as I would be with a person with a spine, who would respond (and honestly) to posts about her lies.
For example, I think I've been fairly polite with you, though I think you're mis-representing several important positions in order to better improve your own argument. You seem more or less honest and reasonable, which means you merit polite conduct. In fact, beyond the occasional blow-up, I try to respond to everyone on Hatrack equally and fairly.
But Katharina's gone beyond the point of no return, especially with her still-ongoing refusal to take responsibility for her lies. If she did so, maybe I could have built up some small measure of respect for her in the future. Maybe I wouldn't be as disgusted with her. Maybe if she apologized and swore never to repeat this crap again, I may even believe her. But she's contradicted every hope I could have held for her, and thus I resign myself to curling my lip when I see her name and moving on to another name more deserving of reading.
I don't think I've ever felt this way about another Hatracker. Even Baldar, asshole that he could be, was a fundamentally honest person. Thing is, I like most people on Hatrack. But as far as Katharina goes, I'm resigned to disgust and distrust.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And why [are you leaping to] Katharina's [defense], of all people, in all threads?
...
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
I’m not so much supporting Katharina as opposing your attacks on her. You’ll notice the only position of hers I supported was the statement that Caleb was sarcastic and belligerent, and even then I said I didn’t think she should have said it.
You've also, may I remind you, just mis-represented Katharina's post as an innocent question instead of one in a series of character assassinations.
And believe me, I don't support attacks in general. Personally, I think I'm wasting my time pointing out her lack of character or backbone -- which makes this all the more frustrating. I doubt I'll continue, given what a waste of energy and time it is to write honest posts toward her.
quote:The reason I didn’t “defend” Katharina before was because I didn’t agree with her before. I was perfectly willing to just keep my opinion to myself about who was being a jerk to whom in this thread (and there’s plenty of people to think that about). I only said anything because of the line in your post about everyone at Hatrack seeing your point (and implying their agreement with it). In doing that, you stated my opinion for me. And I won’t tolerate that.
Yes, goodness, how righteous.
No. I mean that anyone who reads her series of lies must come to the inescapable conclusion that she is, in fact, a liar. The same way anyone who looks at the sky will see blue. I don't mean to imply that everyone on Hatrack has e-mailed me with their support, but that Katharina's unethical character is inescapably obvious through her behavior throughout this thread.
quote:We’re left with two choices here. We could debate endlessly about who shares what amount of blame for the generally hostile tone of this thread, which doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Or you can accept the fact that not everyone thinks Katharina is the only one at fault here, and I can accept the fact that you and Caleb (and probably others) think she is.
Dagonee
Oh? Was she provoked? Was she encouraged? Was anyone unclear in pointing out that her lies or how they reflected on her lack of an ethical backbone? How exactly could Katharina's lies be someone else's responsibility?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I only have one thing I want to quibble with about your post, Dagonee:
quote:Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
If I understood it correctly, Scott's argument was bascially:
"One reason to not allow homosexual marriage is that the government could conceivably persecute churches that don't agree."
So in response I ask for evidence to prove that such a thing has ever taken place, since I find the proposed situation to be very unlikely.
In response to that request, Scott gives me an example: Missourians killing Mormons back in 188? at the behest of the state.
In response to his example, I point out that the current relationship between Mainstream Christianity and homosexuals is not all too dissimalar from that of the Mormons of the 1880's and their surrounding culture. I found it ironic that his reasoning behind fearing a government crackdown on his religion (which was the rationalle he had suggested as a case for not affording homosexuals their equality) was a case in which the moral majority was totally intolerant of a group of people's sexuality. That that group of people were Mormons was additionally ironic.
Irony inspires sarcasm, I guess.
I don't feel that my post was in any way purposefully misinterpreting Scott's post or position. I reacted only to what I read and said only what I felt in response. I also see my post as a perfectly logical rebuttal of Scott's position.
I do believe that there's nothing wrong with using sarcasm in a debate, but I'm understanding more fully now that it needs to be tempered to avoid giving the aggressive or dissmissive impressions that are often associated with sarcasm. I wish I had written more of my thoughts, but again: I was inspired by irony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo,
I wrote a long reply but decided to delete it (twice now). I’ll make a few brief points and then I think we can part ways on this (though of course feel free to respond).
1. See this thread for one example of a post you ignored. And this was a thread you started.
2. The continued insistence that Katharina admit she’s wrong and apologize goes against Caleb’s request that she just leave him alone, which is how I interpreted her offer of truce. My first post on this issue was only about that. I suspect some activity from outside this thread was resurfacing here, but I just reacted to this thread.
3. “Three pages” referred to a single post (the infamous page 6, post #8) that took up 3 full screens on my monitor, not three thread pages of your arguments in different posts. My point there was that calling someone a liar is not productive. You say you have faith in Hatrack’s membership – if so, just compare her argument to your quote, point out the fallacies, and let it go. Don’t call people names.
3. My whole point has been that it is possible for well-intentioned, reasonable people to think that Caleb’s post was belligerent. It is possible for well-intentioned, reasonable people to think that Katharina’s earlier posts on polygamy were the result of the most common error of novice debaters – mischaracterizing their opponents arguments to make them easier to refute – rather than lying. I don’t want you to agree with me, just admit it’s possible for someone to disagree with you on this without lying.
In short, go ahead and think I’m stubborn, foolish, wrong-headed, or obtuse. Just don’t think I’m lying, either about reading the discussion or my beliefs on it.
quote:For example, I think I've been fairly polite with you, though I think you're mis-representing several important positions in order to better improve your own argument. You seem more or less honest and reasonable, which means you merit polite conduct.
I think it’s fair to say that this is my opinion of you.
Dagonee PS, yes, that was MUCH shorter than my first two attempts. I’m simply trying to find ground we can both disagree on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Caleb,
I'm just telling you how I reacted when I read it. You were in an obviously superior logical position and instead of going with that, you went for the easy score. It seemed to me like piling on in football, or when the ref doesn't stop a bout when a fighter can't lift his gloves any more.
Also, notice I didn't mention it when it happened – I didn’t think it was so over the top as to be abusive or inappropriate (especially in this thread). I was merely trying to show that it is possible for a reasonable person to react that way to your post.
But you’re right about sarcasm not being that useful in a written debate. You may have noticed I rely on it too much myself sometimes.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit?"
I do. Sincerely. I DO.
I believe that kat is both an honest and a moral person. I also think that she's very stubborn and occasionally lets her principles get in the way of her sociability. She's also rather emotionally sensitive, although she goes to great lengths to hide it, and will ALWAYS hit back -- sometimes hiding her claws in the pads of her paws, sometimes not -- if someone hits her.
Ironically, I believe exactly the same things about Eddie and Caleb.
-------
Frankly, Caleb should have known better than to leap into this thread, guns blazing. He's still too close to this issue to discuss it maturely, and keeps trying to force people to figure out where they stand. While that's ultimately an admirable approach, it puts a lot of Hatrackers in the position of having to choose between friendship with him and loyalty to their God -- and he seems determined not to permit both. It'll bring him grief, and bring grief to a lot of other Hatrackers who, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
For her part, I think kat needs to decide whether it's worth it to her to stay in this kind of conversation -- and when she decides it ISN'T, she needs to learn how to actually back out, instead of just making noises about backing out but really sticking around. I've been the subject of the same kind of character assassination that Eddie and Caleb are throwing around, and the ONLY way to fight it is to let the peanut gallery have their say; I've tried bowing out gracefully, I've tried tirelessly rebutting each point, and I've found that the only thing that works is simply letting the kids run their mouths off until everyone else sees how hateful and inaccurate they're being.
----
This is petty crap. Do you hear me? It's PETTY. It's shameful. It makes me sad just to read it.
I like each and every one of you, and can't understand why you can't allow yourselves to like each other.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:"So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit?"
I do. Sincerely. I DO.
I believe that kat is both an honest and a moral person. I also think that she's very stubborn and occasionally lets her principles get in the way of her sociability. She's also rather emotionally sensitive, although she goes to great lengths to hide it, and will ALWAYS hit back -- sometimes hiding her claws in the pads of her paws, sometimes not -- if someone hits her.
Ironically, I believe exactly the same things about Eddie and Caleb.
Hit back?
Tom, I don't know if you've been following the thread, but she hit first. Not only did she hit first, but she lied then, she lied now, and she has yet to accept responsibility for any of her actions.
Your description is touching, and I once had a good opinion of Katharina myself, but I'm disgusted by her conduct in this thread. While I'm not proud of being rude, for my part, I at least have anger to justify whatever offensive bits may be in today's posts. What justification does Katharina have? I gave her a week to respond to my last analysis -- rebut, apologize, whatever. She never even acknowledged it, but instead began a new crusade against Caleb. She has yet to acknowledge a single offensive bit on her part, or address a single issue anyone's raised regarding her ethical backbone.
I'm afraid I have trouble understanding where you're coming from with your declaration of Kat's inner goodness.
Let alone mine.
Heh.
quote:Frankly, Caleb should have known better than to leap into this thread, guns blazing. He's still too close to this issue to discuss it maturely, and keeps trying to force people to figure out where they stand. While that's ultimately an admirable approach, it puts a lot of Hatrackers in the position of having to choose between friendship with him and loyalty to their God -- and he seems determined not to permit both. It'll bring him grief, and bring grief to a lot of other Hatrackers who, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
Out of interest, Tom, can you point out a single example in this thread where Caleb's acted immaturely? Or forced people to "figure out where they stand"? I think you're judging him unfairly. He didn't leap into this thread "guns blazing" -- in fact, he was giving damn good arguments up until Kat started libelling me, at which point he stood up for me in my absence. And he did it pretty freaking politely.
I can't fault a single action he's taken thus far; in fact, I'm pretty proud of the guy for his restraint.
quote:For her part, I think kat needs to decide whether it's worth it to her to stay in this kind of conversation -- and when she decides it ISN'T, she needs to learn how to actually back out, instead of just making noises about backing out but really sticking around. I've been the subject of the same kind of character assassination that Eddie and Caleb are throwing around, and the ONLY way to fight it is to let the peanut gallery have their say; I've tried bowing out gracefully, I've tried tirelessly rebutting each point, and I've found that the only thing that works is simply letting the kids run their mouths off until everyone else sees how hateful and inaccurate they're being.
Ah. Which party, again, is being hateful and inaccurate? Which party's lying?
I'm rather annoyed that you're making Kat out to be the victim, here. Does calling her on her lies somehow make her the suffering heroine? Does her refusal to answer a single question or her penchant for lying about others make her a victim of merciless, evil Eddie & Co.? I don't see how you can empathize with her at all -- let alone call my insistence for some kind of acknowledgement of her lies "character assassination," when in fact I'm the emotionally needy, hypocritical, close-minded fool.
quote:This is petty crap. Do you hear me? It's PETTY. It's shameful. It makes me sad just to read it.
I like each and every one of you, and can't understand why you can't allow yourselves to like each other.
Yeah. It is petty crap.
Okay, dude. I'll back out. I don't like who I am when I'm angry and disgusted, in any case.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, I'm going to apologize. I've just spoken with someone who I believe is a friend of Katharina's. If she has quality friends like this, doubtless there's a reflection of them in herself -- maybe this lying of hers is just a temporary phase. Maybe she's just playing obnoxious games. Whatever it is, I liked her once, and I'm sure I learn to do so again.
If this guy can be her friend, I can at least learn to like her again.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Again, I submit that all of these fears are just that: Fears. They are not concerns. They are not even arguments, for the most part. It's just the irrational idea--not unlike the irrational ideas presented by Lilburn W. Boggs, whom Scott pointed out with his link--that people who don't want to live according to your religion are going to start ruining society.
--Caleb Varns
This is what prompted me to ask you to calm down. In your own words, you called people who disagree with you fearful and irrational.
:shrug:
quote: I hadn't seen that it was officially rescinded in 1976. I do fail to see the relevance of that fact, however. That this order was not rescinded for nearly a hundred years tells us... what?
--Caleb Varns
The relevance is that there was continuing (though unenforced, thank goodness) legislation against a particular religious group, in contrast to your statement that religion had never been criminalized.
I wasn't trying to make a statement about homosexuality. I was correcting your misunderstanding of religious persecution in America.
Odd as that may seem in a thread about homosexuality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:f I understood it correctly, Scott's argument was bascially:
"One reason to not allow homosexual marriage is that the government could conceivably persecute churches that don't agree."
So in response I ask for evidence to prove that such a thing has ever taken place, since I find the proposed situation to be very unlikely.
In response to that request, Scott gives me an example: Missourians killing Mormons back in 188? at the behest of the state.
This is not at all how the conversation went, Caleb.
Pooka said
quote: it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
You said:
quote:How does it follow that if the government allows, say, pornographic films to be made, that the religion against that freedom of speech would be criminalized? They are not. How does "my religion would be illegal" follow the government's allowing of homosexual marriage? It doesn't. Since when has any religion been criminalized? Do you have any precedents for this?
quote:Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
I admit I hadn't thought that particular point through very well. My bad.
THAT is the way events transpired.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Just thought I'd chime in, being uninvolved in this whole shebang and thus presumably a bit more obejctive: I think this bit (no comment on the rest of this thread!) is a simple misunderstanding. Caleb thought you were responding to a point other than the one you were actually responding to (I thought so too at first, due to careless reading). On your part, you weren't initially very clear on what the link was meant to prove. Miscommunication, that's all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:thwacks head:
I can see that.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I thought so. Just trying to pre-empt another round of "You're lying!" "No, you are!" involving different people this time, as it wasn't clear whether you thought Caleb was being disingenuous or just dense.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
for Lalo.....![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I cannot say what the feelings in northern or western states towards Dean are, because I am not there and haven't paid as much attention to those polls.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
<--- honest puzzling-through-this question)![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
I promise not to contend the point, just very curious.)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
You know, Shan, I could respond to your selections. But it would clearly be a waste of my time. You've made your position clear enough.![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Pooka![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)