posted
How about the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith/cultural tradition has the right to define what is and is not a marriage? This may not be overtly stated in the numerous laws defining marriage as between a man & a woman, but it's very clearly the underlying motive for these laws.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Occasional: Has that ever actually happened? I can think of one case, a case that is still in progress where a conservative author criticised Muslims, but that case is still unresolved.
It has, though I can't find the specific case I'm thinking of.
posted
I found this post and others he has written over the last few years to pretty much sum up my feelings. There is another post here that also says a few things I agree with.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I read your link properly, despite Occasional's remark, Stephen Bloissoin was neither jailed or fined. He was censored and they didn't even particularly do a good job of that. I'm not a huge fan of the approach taken. I'm more concerned about the Maclean's case actually http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/349282
As I said, in my first remark, Canada is not perfect but I think they struck a better balance. For Dagonee, the same-sex marriage issue as Jhai pointed out is a good one. I particularly respected of the stand that the two Catholic Prime Minsters that oversaw legislation dealing with the issue, despite their personal views:
quote: The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chretien, and other Roman Catholics in his cabinet have been warned they may pay the ultimate spiritual price if they push ahead with plans to legalise same sex marriages.
They could go to hell when they die, according to Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary. The outspoken church official has upped the stakes in the heated debate over same-sex marriages by warning that Roman Catholic politicians who push ahead with proposed legislation could suffer eternal damnation.
This includes Mr Chretien, who will resign in February, and his heir apparent, former finance minister Paul Martin. Mr Martin, a devout Catholic who attends mass almost every Sunday, will likely oversee implementation of the legislation after Mr Chretien steps down next year. He has a large lead in the leadership race that will take place in November.
Both men, however, seem prepared to risk the censure of their church in the name of equal rights for homosexuals.
Mr Martin has said that he wrestled with the concept of gay marriage. But he told reporters recently that his responsibilities as a politician "must take a wider perspective" than his faith.
Mr Chretien, whose father and grandfather fought with the Roman Catholic church in Quebec, has also made it clear that there must be a separation between church and state in Canada.
He moved ahead with legislation after a series of court rulings found that marriage cannot be defined only as a union between a man and a woman because that discriminates against gays and lesbians.
His government has drafted a bill that would not limit civil marriage to same-sex couples, but would still allow churches to decide if they will marry gay couples.
posted
I don't think it is fair to say that the only opposition to gay marriage is only from Judeo-Christians. I know a gay man who is not telling his family about his lifestyle. His family is not judeo-christian, or even white. They are Chinese and greatly value progeny (my baby is one and they don't see why I'm not trying to have a second). They would probably be ok with him marrying a nice girl, having babies and having a homosexual lover on the side. But they want babies that are genetically related to them. I have not spoken to them directly about their views on legal gay marriage (kinda awkward discussion to have with someone's family when you know that he is gay and they don't), but from what I can gather, I would be surprised if they would be ok with it. Marriage is for babymaking. Interestingly, they also have a history of polygamy in their family.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that the only opposition to gay marriage is from the Judeo-Christian tradition - obviously, that would be factually wrong. However, the legislative push for having marriage be defined as between a man and a woman in the US is largely coming from Christian groups and individuals within the US that want the law to reflect their understanding of their religious scripture.
Other religious traditions, such as Hinduism, are perfectly okay with marriages between men or between women. In fact, there are religious texts of Hindu gods of the same sex occasionally marrying and/or having babies together.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The difference is what is done in marriage and what is done out of marriage. If a school teacher and a student wanted to get married, I would still be ok with it. It would be ethically problematic.
I understand that (for some) sex within a marriage is different than sex without that blessing. I don't understand how, if someone is too young to give informed consent to the latter, they would be old enough to consent to the first.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
According to that article, 418 children have now been removed and are in state custody, all on grounds that they have been or are at risk for "physical, emotional, or sexual abuse." Read the article for more on that.
There are more details of the call that prompted the raid. The girl in question still has not come forward/been identified, although she said she was several weeks pregnant in the call and they have removed several pregnant teenage girls, so that would seem to indicate she might be among them, but no one knows. She also alleged that she was beaten and choked as well as raped by her "husband" and was not free to leave, and was told that if she did manage to run away she would be forced by the "outsiders" to cut her hair, wear makeup and modern clothes, and have sex with many men. So more details-- but still no word on who she is. I agree with whoever said she might fear retaliation from within the community if she admits to making the call.
The article also makes mention of severe emotional trauma suffered by children taken in a similar raid more than 50 years ago. I really hope that does not repeat itself.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I don't think Australia is particularly tolerant when it comes to religion.
Certainly there are no rights to religious freedom like there are in other countries.
Are you sure?
quote: Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:
The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
That said, I cannot find the study that prompted my "Australia, maybe" comment so I'm not particularly attached to the idea.
scholarette: First, I think thats a very big generalization from just one sample, not even quite one since you didn't ask them. I'd give good odds that my family would be disappointed if I did not have children, but opposing same-sex marriage legislation is very different and I know both my parents voted liberal (or Green, I wasn't sure if he was joking).
Another big issue, I remember a lot of grief when Leslie Cheung died Secondly, I saw a good article on the issue and how it affected the Chinese when the issue was being debated in Canada:
quote: Zaixin Ma, the Vancouver newspaper editor, says that many Chinese who arrived in recent years are "trying to find a new sense of who they are," and many are far more liberal-thinking than the previous generations who have more access to political power and the mainstream media.
"Personally," he said, "I cannot accept same-sex marriage, but I feel that if my community decides to accept it, then that's okay. It's not for me, and hopefully not for my family, but I would then accept it from other people."
Terry Lum, the 33-year-old head of the Community of Chinese Canadians, an organization that represents Chinese-Canadians under 40, is "neither against it nor for it," and thinks that this is the prevailing opinion of the younger Chinese community.
"There's a huge gap in the community," Mr. Lum said. "First of all there's the gap between the young and the old. But there's also a gap between the early immigrants and the late immigrants."
What bothers Mr. Lum, and others, is the presumption that there is this one huge community that speaks the same language and thinks along the same lines.
"You can say they're all Chinese if you like," said Mr. Lum, a fourth-generation Canadian. "But that's not much different, really, than me saying a Ukrainian who is here is the same as someone from England."
Where generalizations do hold true, Mr. Lum says, is that most members of the Chinese community are little different from other Canadians when they merely shrug their shoulders at an issue that doesn't particularly affect them.
"We do understand," he said with a sly smile, "what it means to be Canadian socially correct."
I think the spirit of the article is quite correct, the Chinese community in Canada didn't really care much about the issue. It was a real non-starter for them. Thats very different from the US where same-sex marriage can really be used to "get out the vote" from right-wing voters.
In any case, the issue is kind of a red herring. The Chinese community in the US is much smaller proportionally than in Canada and even in Canada the Chinese were indifferent to the issue when it came up. They definitely are not a significant factor when it comes to the issue in the States.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I don't think Australia is particularly tolerant when it comes to religion.
Certainly there are no rights to religious freedom like there are in other countries.
Are you sure?
quote: Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:
The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
While the Commonwealth cannot make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, nowhere does it say that people have the right to religious freedom.
In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause. (The Australian Constitution does not have many 'rights', unlike, for example the US one.) Despite calls for a Religious Freedoms Act by bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (in part to bring the laws in Australia into conformity with our obligations under the ICCPR), no such legislation has been enacted.
Further, this only applies to the Commonwealth government - there are no such restrictions on the State Governments.
Note also that there is no explicit freedom of speech in Australia, only an implied limited freedom of political speech. So there is no freedom of religious speech - something I am sure some people would consider intolerant of religion.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they are a significant factor. I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue. I find that often by framing the issue as the evil intolerant Christians, it further entrenches people against ssm. I might be a bit skittish having had some nasty arguments about ssm (I am actually in favor of ssm but don't like a lot of the arguments people often use).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:if she did manage to run away she would be forced by the "outsiders" to cut her hair, wear makeup and modern clothes, and have sex with many men.
THE HORROR!!!
But seriously, that's the scariest fate they could come up with? No wonder she made the call.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Are you suggesting that society should not determine a legal age of consent?"
I think that what has determined the age of consent (particularly about marriage) is currently too arbitrary or undefined. By all accounts, it comes down to when you graduate from High School - although "age 18" is something that is used because it is more consistent. The law also indicates age 21 for drinking, although I am at a loss as to why for that one as well. Don't get me wrong, I have an idea of the arguments for those ages. It's just that I don't think they are very good reasons.
Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.
18 is only the age of consent in some states. Others use 16 or 17, or even younger in some states (with restrictions such as difference in ages, which also apply to some states using 16-17.)
It is arbitrary, but it has to be. People are all different and mature physically, emotionally and mentally at different rates. Some age has to be picked that seems reasonable for most kids. I think 16-18 is reasonable, with exceptions for 2 minors possibly even slightly younger, like Pennsylvania's laws.
Occasional, I don't know how you could come up with an age of consent that isn't arbitrary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't think they are a significant factor. I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue...
Actually, I've just spent the last half hour puzzling over the issue and I think I've found something interesting. I was aware that that there is an antipathy towards same-sex relationships in China, but as my Leslie Cheung comment hinted, I've noticed an odd contradiction in Chinese attitudes to homosexuality. I've previously read a fair number of historical references that favorably compare the the treatment of homosexuals in ancient China to their treatment in ancient Greece, except for a much longer period.
What puzzled me was that I had no idea what changed or when it changed.
After being rather surprised, I double-checked the results in a book called "Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China" Interestingly, you can read the introduction and epilogue on Google Books. It confirms the rather unintuitive result that is summarized in this review:
quote: Although Hinsch ends his text with the fall of the Qing dynasty, his Epilogue provides a movingly written and powerful critique of contemporary Chinese homophobia. He concludes that the easy acceptance of same-sex love began to change in China with the coming of the Manchu rulers, who reacted against the opulent libertine lifestyle of traditional Chinese civilization. But what really revolutionized Chinese sexual attitudes, Hinsch argues, was the impact of Europeans. By the early 1900s, Chinese “progressives” had become so impressed with Western science and technology that they slavishly adopted a mystical faith in the superiority of all things Western. Sexual variance was suppressed, in favor of Christian notions that the only purpose of sex was reproduction. Since Western medical and psychological sciences in the early 1900s saw homosexuality as “pathological,” China's traditional patterns of acceptance of same-sex love disappeared. Progressive scholars (employed by Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the People's Republic alike) deleted references to homosexuality in new translations of Chinese classical literature. They simplified the writing style, meaning that most literate Chinese could no longer read the classics in their original uncensored form. Thus, modern Chinese have been cut off from an important part of their heritage. It is a great irony, Hinsch writes, that some contemporary Chinese claim that homosexuality is “a decadent practice” only brought into China from the West. They are ignorant of the fact that what really was brought into China from the West was an intolerance for same-sex love.
Man thats screwed up. We really messed up the Chinese more than I thought. Its convoluted, yes, but I don't think you can necessarily classify modern Chinese antipathy towards homosexuality as being non-religious without contradictory evidence.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: ... In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause
I'm afraid the practical distinction is somewhat lost on me, but I'll gladly take your word for it since as I mentioned, I can't find the reference for my earlier guess.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is a great irony, Hinsch writes, that some contemporary Chinese claim that homosexuality is “a decadent practice” only brought into China from the West. They are ignorant of the fact that what really was brought into China from the West was an intolerance for same-sex love.
Interesting. The missionary position FTW!
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by imogen: ... In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause
I'm afraid the practical distinction is somewhat lost on me, but I'll gladly take your word for it since as I mentioned, I can't find the reference for my earlier guess.
I will also take your word for it, with 2 qualifiers.
Bill Hayden was Governor-General of Australia, and an atheist. I can't see an avowed atheist getting that high in politics in America. It speaks well of Australia's tolerance that an atheist got that far.
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Further, this only applies to the Commonwealth government - there are no such restrictions on the State Governments.
Does that mean in practical terms an Australian state could pass a law "prohibiting the free exercise of any religion" or any those other types of laws prohibited to the Commonwealth? In the US, the federal constitution always trumps state and local law when they conflict--that's not true in Australia?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean the Commonwealth Constitution only prohibits the Commonwealth Government from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
So in practical terms, a State government is not prohibited from passing such laws.
The principal that a Cth law & Constitution will trump an inconsistent State law & Constitution also applies here - but such State laws would not be inconsistent, as the prohibition is not on laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion in general , merely on the Commonwealth (not any other government) from making such laws.
Does that make more sense?
Re: Bill Hayden. It wouldn't surprise me if Australia is, in fact, more tolerant of atheists than other countries, including America. I think generally we are a less religious country. But that doesn't equate to religious tolerance, merely tolerance of atheists!
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, as far as I know, no State has made a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion and I doubt they ever would. But they *could*.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I should add, I don't think Australia is particularly intolerant of religion - my initial point was {if badly worded} just that I don't think it's one the shining examples of religious tolerance.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue.
While I agree that it might be technically possible, I think it's highly unlikely.
I don't think it's that unlikely, as I've met many people who fall into that category. For them it's "rationale" is hyper-macho homophobia -- plain old "gays are yucky."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see a significant difference in the wording found in the US constitution compared with the Australian constitute.
US Constitutiont:
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Australian Constitution:
quote:The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Neither one of them affirms a right to freedom of religion. If anything, the Australian Constitution is more explicit in its protection of religious freedoms.
It is interesting to note that although it is widely held that the US constitution guaranteed a right to freedom of religion, that is never explicitly stated. In fact the presumption that the first amendment restricted the authority of state and local governments was highly controversial until after the civil war. The extent of the right protected by the US first amendment is still hotly contested.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if she did manage to run away she would be forced by the "outsiders" to cut her hair, wear makeup and modern clothes, and have sex with many men.
THE HORROR!!!
But seriously, that's the scariest fate they could come up with? No wonder she made the call.
I imagine that a lot of women would not want to be forced to have sex with many men.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine that a lot of women would not want to be forced to have sex with many men.
Agreed. But how many women would include being forced to "have sex with many men" in the same list with being forced to "cut your hair, wear makeup and modern clothes"?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably not many. But a possible list might be being forced to walk around in lingerie and have sex with many men, and it's possible that the haircut, makeup, and modern clothes are as problematic to them as lingerie in public would be to women outside the compound.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Probably not many. But a possible list might be being forced to walk around in lingerie and have sex with many men, and it's possible that the haircut, makeup, and modern clothes are as problematic to them as lingerie in public would be to women outside the compound.
A valid point.
I do find a great deal of irony in the fact that a community in which young girls are forced to marry and have sex with older men, where they are in all forced to wear a certain style of clothes, hair and no makeup -- would threaten its young women by telling them that "outsiders" would do those same things (except that the men and fashions would be different).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It certainly is ironic. I was just objecting to BlackBlade's mock horror. Just because most of those things don't sound bad to us doesn't mean that none of them do. And to those girls, it's probably the equivalent of saying, "You'll be forced to dress and live like a whore."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's probably the equivalent of saying, "You'll be forced to dress and live like a whore.
I recognize that the threat is intimidating to those within this community not specifically because they will be forced to do something they don't want to do but because they will be forced to do something they have been taught is immoral.
I still find it ironic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Man thats screwed up. We really messed up the Chinese more than I thought. Its convoluted, yes, but I don't think you can necessarily classify modern Chinese antipathy towards homosexuality as being non-religious without contradictory evidence.
In the Chinese literature I have read, there is an acceptance of homosexual relationships, however, there is still the expectation of producing heirs. You can go have your fun on the side, but you also must do your duty to your family and make a baby. I am too lazy to go and check what era the books are written in (I know I haven't read anything written after 1900). It isn't the homosexual sex that is the problem, it is the neglecting your duty. The family I know would not be pleased if any of their sons married an infertile woman either. They would consider that grounds for divorce (though the man should always pay a very generous alimony to an ex wife).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an arthouse film a few years back about that. "The Wedding Party" or something?
I seem to remember a lot of sexual abuse going on in "Dream of the Red Chamber". It was mostly that the rich males could do whatever they want to pretty much anyone below them in class. I don't really think one needs to look back with great fondness on any pre-European golden age of Chinese sexuality. Not that European meddling has improved things greatly... just... uh.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:n the Chinese literature I have read, there is an acceptance of homosexual relationships, however, there is still the expectation of producing heirs.
As I understand it that is very nearly equivalent to the status of homosexuality in ancient greece. You were expected to marry, produce heirs and support them but that wasn't about love or sex -- it was about children. If you found a homosexual soul mate that was great -- but it wasn't a substitute for marriage.
Face it, the traditional idea of marriage is much more like practical business arrangement for producing children and heirs than what we seek today.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Yes, modern marriage is just a shadowplay for the homosexual fulfillment of yesteryear.
:cough:
Shouldn't it be "modern marriage is just a shadowplay for the political and economical contracts of yesteryear"?
I only skimmed this thread, and not completely familiar with the term 'shadowplay'...so if my comment doesn't make sense, ignore it. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ... you also must do your duty to your family and make a baby. I am too lazy to go and check what era the books are written in
Sure, and I don't think you have to go back to any specific era, that sort of attitude is very prevelant *now*.
However, there is a distinction between having antipathy towards X and seeking to legislate something about X. This is the point I was making here:
quote: I'd give good odds that my family would be disappointed if I did not have children, but opposing same-sex marriage legislation is very different and I know both my parents voted liberal (or Green, I wasn't sure if he was joking).
Do you understand this distinction?
Just because the Chinese traditionally did not think of homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships, does not mean that they would automatically support anti-SSM legislation in greater numbers than the average population. The article I linked to in the Globe And Mail also makes this point, although they do not have hard numbers, the cultural newspaper editor that they interviewed estimated that Chinese opposition to the idea was not significantly outside of the mainstream. This is my experience in general as well.
(As another example, many Jewish communities also place great emphasis on children. Can I make the generalisation that thus they would necessarily oppose same-sex marriage? No. I can't make that generalisation with just this evidence)
More importantly, opposition does not always translate into active opposition. In the US and Canada, the anti-SSM crowd tends to take an active stance rather than passive stance, proposing amendments, protesting activist judges, and campaigning for changes. In my experience, many Chinese voters do not tend to get involved in this way (unless they're Christian...but thats a whole different can of worms).
quote:Originally posted by pooka: ... I don't really think one needs to look back with great fondness on any pre-European golden age of Chinese sexuality. Not that European meddling has improved things greatly... just... uh.
I never said we should in general. However, given evidence, I can consider the possibility that for certain specific communities such as gay men, things may very well have been better if you compare say Communist persecution of homosexuals with how they seem depicted in the Tang Dynasty. You can provide evidence that women were treated worse in the Tang Dynasty than in the PRC. In fact, I probably agree with you. *But* it does not necessarily contradict the first possibility.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Face it, the traditional idea of marriage is much more like practical business arrangement for producing children and heirs than what we seek today.
Exactly. Not to mention that for most of history, women were basically property - first of their fathers, then of their husbands. They had only whatever power to choose that was given them by their father. I tend to find that people who are bothered by "non-traditional" marriage* have either a very narrow idea of traditional marriage or a very limited idea of women as full human beings.
*edit to add: people who are bothered by non-tradional marriage because it is non-traditional. For example, the people who argue against ssm because "marriage has always been...".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I tend to find that people who are bothered by "non-traditional" marriage have either a very narrow idea of traditional marriage or a very limited idea of women as full human beings.
I doubt they have any idea that marriage traditions changed between the days of Abraham and the 1950s. They've probably even conveniently forgotten that Abraham had concubines in addition to his wife.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I doubt they have any idea that marriage traditions changed between the days of Abraham and the 1950s. They've probably even conveniently forgotten that Abraham had concubines in addition to his wife.
Some have an idea. I had a conversation with someone online a few months ago, and I brought this up. So he knew...he just denied vehemently that it was true.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I doubt they have any idea that marriage traditions changed between the days of Abraham and the 1950s. They've probably even conveniently forgotten that Abraham had concubines in addition to his wife.
Some have an idea. I had a conversation with someone online a few months ago, and I brought this up. So he knew...he just denied vehemently that it was true.
So did you point him toward the relevant biblical passages?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So did you point him toward the relevant biblical passages?
I mentioned Abraham and his concubines. Didn't have my bible on me or I would have given chapter and verse.
His response, as I recall, was somewhere along the lines of "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or even Adam and Eva and Sara and Jessica."
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were male, gay, and named either Adam or Steve I would totally love to be in a relationship with (respectively) a Steve or an Adam. It'd pretty much rock.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, my point was not that all Chinese feel that way- My point was that it is very possible to get to believing that ssm is a bad thing without using specifically Christian values, using this family as an example. I will concede that most people oppose ssm because they view it as a sin. I just don't think it is the only route to an opposition to ssm (and arguing this point is the reason people think I am against ssm, even though my voting record indicates differently).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, let's break it down: A) You never actually proved that "this family" believes that anti-ssm legislation is desirable. You assumed that they would be because they have a traditional view of marriage for their son. Quick reasoning: My family, strongly desires traditional marriage for me, strongly supported Martin's stand B) You never demonstrated in the cases where Chinese families "do" believe that anti-ssm legislation is desirable that they do not in fact believe so due to imported Christian values Quick reasoning: Bret Linsch's book
Now, I grant that it is theoretically possible that there are people that oppose SSM due to reasons other than religion. In fact, I can think of a number of rational reasons that could be halfway convincing to me. The problem is that you have not demonstrated that these people exist in disproportional numbers in the Chinese community or that it has anything to do with them being Chinese.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: It certainly is ironic. I was just objecting to BlackBlade's mock horror. Just because most of those things don't sound bad to us doesn't mean that none of them do. And to those girls, it's probably the equivalent of saying, "You'll be forced to dress and live like a whore."
Your objection is noted. I had similar sentiments to The Rabbit, it seemed like staying was comparable to the alternative. I didn't think the threat was completely benign, but I've heard far more creative lies weaved to keep people under control.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they exist in disproportional numbers in the Chinese community. I mentioned the race mostly in reference to the not Christian culture. As far as whether the value is imported, the family is fine with him engaging in homosexual behavior- which is different from what the quote states. There is no belief that sex is only for procreation (and they definetely don't think sex should be limited to marriage), just that marriage is for procreation. I will concede point A- I assume how they vote based on inferences from their other comments. Based on his comments and other info from the family, I would expect them to vote against ssm, but I can not prove that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the article quoted that information precisely because it gives insight into the kind of brainwashing of women that has been going on for generations.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just had to share this idiotic report because I am not sure if it is worthy of a laugh or a cry. At the least it is ironic because of the horrible misinformation it perpetuates toward a breakoff that is even farther from the FLDS than the LDS. Where do reporters come from and why are they so badly trained in research and interpretation? Mostly, where did this writer get his information?
The RLDS has had its own problems with religious nuts, including a few murderers. However, almost from the start they have been more "Protestant" than "Mormon" in what they believe. The number one recognizable difference (and this is the head scratcher for the article) is the DENIAL that there ever was polygamy introduced by Joseph Smith. Because of the overwhelming evidence polygamy was introduced by him, although I am not sure of the official position, the RLDS claims polygamy was a false revelation by a mistaken prophet. Just for context, the RLDS pretty much consider the Nauvoo period teachings and revelations that really defines "Mormonism" to outsiders as a mistake in prophecy.
Note to readers: FLDS is the group in Texas that currently practices polygamy.
LDS is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ones with the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and a Temple in Salt Lake City, Ut.
RLDS is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in the Midwest. They changed their name to the Community of Christ. Its formation is rather complicted, but ultimately its first prophet leader was Joseph Smith III, son of Joseph Smith Jr.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[Australian, and a lawyer].
