posted
<---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.
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?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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*
posted
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.
posted
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.
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?
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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! Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting interpretation, Shan. Sounds like it is predicated upon some beliefs I do not share. *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
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; . . .
posted
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.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I no longer bear him any ill will, or anything. People get upset, and they get petty and mean-spirited sometimes...![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.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.
