Who cares if they really did it? It looked really cool on the show.
I know, I know--it did. But I couldn't help wondering and I thought somebody might know.
I guess I'm saying it was the most fascist, permissive government ever; no, nothing to do with the US, don't know why you'd even ask.
American Empire = Roman Republic? Further thread merger! Back to the Fascism in 2012 thread with you, Lord Dice!
Srly, yeah, I know a little about the way religions were imported and spread throughout the ancient world. I had just never thought of Marc Antony or Attia standing naked and bathing in fresh-slaughtered cow blood before and just wondered if anyone knew whether that was real.
You assume that what you view as important is what the people in actually power truly believe is important. Most likely the things that the people in actual power truly believe are important (and not just what they tell their side of the voting public) don't get deadlocked all that often. They want you to be distracted by all the inane crap so you don't see what they are really doing behind the curtain.If that were true, we would never see deadlocks over important issues in Congress. I'm not saying the Democratic party is full of angels. It's not. It's got corrupt people and it's got idiots and it's got corporate interests. But it also has a lot of people like you and like me who actually believe in things and who want to improve the country, and it actually gets some of those things done. That, and the Republican party is terrifying.Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line.
I'm not sure that's true, on the whole. Perhaps in certain instances it is, but the issues that we see in deadlock, or the issues that aren't even fought over because their failure to pass is guaranteed - many of those issues are really important ones, and ones where the philosophical and intellectual gulf between the two parties is really clear.
Either way, though, that sounds like an indictment of Congress, rather than an indictment of party structure. Even the independent or quasi-independent members of Congress are subject to the same follies.
>.>
<.<
Gay marriage.
|
I agree. And if someone who holds these evangelical beliefs are able to truly separate their religion from their duty as a citizen I would be impressed. However, I think those who wish to ban same sex marriage believe that their religion trumps the American ideal of religious freedom. They think that if they stand back and allow same sex marriage to become a legal government protected right they are supporting a conduit to hell because they still believe that gay people choose to be gay. To them, if the government says its legal than its okay for young impressionable people to embrace being gay and that it encourages them to choose to be gay.I really don't get this. How is this train of thought any different than someone who believes that eating pork is a conduit to a wrathful hell trying to outlaw pork?
There's a line that gets crossed when someone determines the law not on it's social effects but on religious grounds. Where does letting two people of the same sex marry create legal issues or disrupt society? Aren't you just trying to use the law to enforce your religion?
Because if I cannot or do not accept two men or two women getting married, and I have to think about them doing the nasty, and I am not accepting of this, All I will think about is them and make me angery and make me go insane and crazy and possible kill someone... I have disrupted society. Even if I did not kill it makes me crazy and thus society is disrupted because it made me crazy and I cannot function.
BTW I support same sex marriage/partnership or what ever
|
I agree. And if someone who holds these evangelical beliefs are able to truly separate their religion from their duty as a citizen I would be impressed. However, I think those who wish to ban same sex marriage believe that their religion trumps the American ideal of religious freedom. They think that if they stand back and allow same sex marriage to become a legal government protected right they are supporting a conduit to hell because they still believe that gay people choose to be gay. To them, if the government says its legal than its okay for young impressionable people to embrace being gay and that it encourages them to choose to be gay.I really don't get this. How is this train of thought any different than someone who believes that eating pork is a conduit to a wrathful hell trying to outlaw pork?
There's a line that gets crossed when someone determines the law not on it's social effects but on religious grounds. Where does letting two people of the same sex marry create legal issues or disrupt society? Aren't you just trying to use the law to enforce your religion?
Stealing and killing, those can disrupt society, those can hurt people, those are actions that can prevent the victim's future. To equate Gay Marriage with those is ridiculous. Religion isn't required to have morals, and those that can't understand that will likely have a hard time understanding the separation of religion from law.
I am not justifying it or saying that it makes any sense (after all I am an atheist who supports gay marriage). I was just describing how some Christians probably view it. Also, Christians do not keep with all mosaic law and evangelicals do not believe in the "all sins are equal". That certainly wasn't so in the old testament. In the old testament being gay got you executed, eating pork did not.
I'm in one!
Does cyz know you're a bi bigamist?
I am not justifying it or saying that it makes any sense (after all I am an atheist who supports gay marriage). I was just describing how some Christians probably view it. Also, Christians do not keep with all mosaic law and evangelicals do not believe in the "all sins are equal". That certainly wasn't so in the old testament. In the old testament being gay got you executed, eating pork did not.
If I recall correctly, the old testament also executed children for talking back against their parents. So would that have been a better example?
I'm in one! :D>.>
<.<
Gay marriage.
YAOI!
I am not justifying it or saying that it makes any sense (after all I am an atheist who supports gay marriage). I was just describing how some Christians probably view it. Also, Christians do not keep with all mosaic law and evangelicals do not believe in the "all sins are equal". That certainly wasn't so in the old testament. In the old testament being gay got you executed, eating pork did not.If I recall correctly, the old testament also executed children for talking back against their parents. So would that have been a better example?
It's almost as if religious documents have been outmoded as legal proof or something...
QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS HISTORIAN BUFFS:
So, I've been watching Rome and I think it's awesome, but, when they're standing underneath the cow getting slaughtered and get drenched in blood, is that real or is that over-the-top exaggeration?
Um, it's fictionalized, but yeah, they did bull sacrifice back then, that's where the Minotaur came from. If fact they used to have Bulls vs Men in the coliseum, thus do we have spanish bullfights in the modern era.
In the Roman form of the Mithraic mysteries, it occurred. I can't state as to its frequency. You can begin at Wikipedia and work from there.
I enjoyed both seasons of Rome and was sad to see it conclude after only two runs. I like what they did with Caesarion, but I won't give it away as it will be obvious once you've reached the final episode.
However, remember that such an argument cannot be simply about having children and raising them in the 'nuclear family'-- because then you would have to explain why we still give benefits to childless couples (especially those never intending to have children),
This has been answered by numerous court briefs, what you are suggesting here is too much of a violation of personal privacy. How do you prove that a couple will never have children? They say so? So if someone forgets to take their pills or changes their mind or a condom breaks, then what? People can claim their intentions, but what ultimately happens may be something totally different.
As for couples that can't have children, again that is a privacy issue, how do you prove they can't have children? Violate doctor-patient confidentiality?
What if they are too old to have kids? What is too old, men can father kids well into the 100s. As for women, more fertility research is going on all the time. I remember reading a story about a woman in menopause taking hormones to carry her daughter's child because her daughter couldn't.
I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.If you want to read the brief yourself, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sure you correctly summarized their statements. I am just saying, I am not sure if what they said was the reason, was in fact the actual reason.
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.
I removed a couple incendiary posts.
Also, it would probably be best if this thread stayed on topic. Some of you are probably looking for the Civil Religious Discussion thread.
Okay, it doesn't have the exciting all-night parties and all-day brawling celebrated at Valhalla, but it ain't bad.Give me that old-time religion!
QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS HISTORIAN BUFFS:
So, I've been watching Rome and I think it's awesome, but, when they're standing underneath the cow getting slaughtered and get drenched in blood, is that real or is that over-the-top exaggeration?
The short answer is that we're not sure. We're pretty sure the Mithraic mysteries included something like bleeding a bull. It's not clear if people were formally baptized by walking under a bleeding carcass. They didn't leave us any holy texts, so we're going on artwork we find in situ, graffiti included. The idea was that it was going to be a secret, like freemasonry. (There were of course other reasons people were into mystery cults.)
The extant sites don't have the facilities we would expect for the regular, formal ritual slaughter of animals. The Romans were picky about that and thus such sites stand out. But the Mithraic initiaties could have hired it out to the local civic cult.
It's a good idea to be cautious about applying our ideas of what would be wild to ancient religious practice, though. Initiates of Attis ritually castrated themselves, because that's what Attis did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.If you want to read the brief yourself, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sure you correctly summarized their statements. I am just saying, I am not sure if what they said was the reason, was in fact the actual reason.
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.
Word choice is also why some proponents of same-sex marriage want it called marriage. They want access to the same benefits as those afforded to straight couples, this includes the perceived notion of equality. To come up with a new term for them, or a new term that can include them means they aren't worthy enough to be included in the original term and hence, not equal.
Thank you Urizen and Samnell.
I apologize for contributing to a derail (again), Ross, but CRD is so stuffy.
Word choice is also why some proponents of same-sex marriage want it called marriage. They want access to the same benefits as those afforded to straight couples, this includes the perceived notion of equality. To come up with a new term for them, or a new term that can include them means they aren't worthy enough to be included in the original term and hence, not equal.
Oh I understand that. I'm just saying why I personally against calling same-sex unions "marriage". To me it sounds like someone saying, "The marriage of function and function." I mean if they are joking, sure, "Our product REALLY gets the job done." But if not, then it just sounds stupid. "Marriage of art and art".
As I said, my reason isn't a big deal, it is just my personal preference why we should just give everyone, same-sex or mixed-sex, civil unions and reserve the word for specifically describing mixed-sex unions, doesn't even have to be religious. Everybody can get a civil union and in official legal documents it is always referred to as civil union. Frankly, people might eventually stop using the word "marriage" describe these legal relationships in that case.
Thank you Urizen and Samnell.
I apologize for contributing to a derail (again), Ross, but CRD is so stuffy.
Needs more rains of blood and autocastration. :)
|
|
That brings me to my next argument. Once allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. I do believe in the natural drive toward wanting to have children. Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship. Amongst others
4. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Stuff
4. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Stuff
Nathanson is right. In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
Here in the United States we have had experience with two of the things same-sex marriage advocates are asking us to consider. Specifically, a generation ago, we were asked to redefine marriage and family, at least subtly; and to believe that gender does not matter to the family.
Redefining Marriage
More than 30 years ago, Americans created “no-fault divorce” (NFD). This was a redefinition of marriage, an untested social experiment with the family, though much more subtle than what we’re being asked to consider today. The no-fault divorce experiment said marriage should only last as long as one partner wanted it to last, and implicitly said that it was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not child well-being. That was a dramatic shift in thinking, and society has paid the price.
Glenn Stanton, a sociologist and marriage expert, puts it this way: “NFD advocates told us that it was simply love, and not family structure, that made a family. And even though we didn’t have any experience with widespread divorce, NFD advocates assured us it would all work out fine.”
Thirty years of experience with millions of divorced families indicate it wasn’t such good idea.
Every major study since then—and there have been thousands—shows that the divorce experiment hurt children and adults. Badly. Worse than anyone ever imagined.
What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution.
Judith Wallerstein, a University of California–Berkeley professor, has studied children of divorce for 30 years. Looking back on her life’s work and the no-fault divorce experiment, she laments:
“In our rush to improve the lives of adults … we made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea of how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes.”
The same-sex marriage experiment follows this same path. It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
And, like the no-fault divorce advocates of the ’60s and ’70s, same-sex marriage advocates are telling us that parental gender does not matter for the family and for children.
Does Gender Matter?
But we don’t have to wonder how a one-gender family will impact children. We know from 40 years of experience with the explosive growth of “intentionally fatherless families.”
Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that: children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock.
All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure—suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference.
• Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.”
• Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
• A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.”
Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.
But this is not about the value of homosexuals as human beings. Indeed, their value is beyond dispute. They are loved by God as we all are.
But if we go the route of same-sex marriage, it means we will be subjecting our children to another state-sanctioned social experiment on the family, fueled largely by adult wishes.
The public purpose of marriage is primarily to take children from childhood to healthy adulthood. Its purpose is legitimate. It is tied to human well-being and the common good … and it thrives when men and women join together to parent children.
Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family—be it male or female—we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. If we allow this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generations. [url=http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.
Do you believe that your desire for the word "marriage" to mean a particular thing (which, mind you, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would negatively impact your life in any significant way at all) is as important a desire as the desire of those in same-sex relationships to feel the same level of societal (and, in some cases, legal) validation that heterosexual couples feel in marriage?
In other words, do you believe that keeping the word's meaning (as you, personally, understand it) intact is worth a huge segment of the population continuing to feel marginalized?
It strikes me as difficult for a person to claim a rational, non-religious basis for this decision, with full knowledge of the huge number of people whose lives would be dramatically improved and whose happiness would soar were they able to marry each other. A mature, rational individual would say, "Hey, letting them marry is no skin off my nose, and I should celebrate their good fortune and happiness," rather than say, "You can't get married because I don't want the word to mean something different that it already means in many places worldwide anyway."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, people might eventually stop using the word "marriage" describe these legal relationships in that case.I sorta doubt that.
Oh, I'm not talking about it happening in any kind of near future, but if all legal documents and all references in legal situations was about civil unions (I imagine it will just get shortened to unions, two words tends to be too wordy), then I would imagine most people are just going to talk about their unions. Well maybe not if we there is some confusion with labor unions, so maybe we'll have to find a new word. But I still believe that if all legal use of a term is not marriage, it is likely that marriage may fall out of use just because people are naturally lazy and using two terms for the same thing just will get to be too much work.
I think I personally like the word "alliance", but that is because me and my partner have said that it is ultimately us against the world. The image of us standing back to back with swords facing out against a horde. My partner being my ultimate ally. But I doubt most people think that way. Hmm, how about "bonding"? Too artificial sounding? Maybe not, people might get upset that it seems to imply "holy bonds of ...". I really like "union" for a generic term for joining two people (or perhaps eventually more) together.
I'll have to think about it, maybe there is a better word out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of slippery slopes, the Mormons officially practiced polygamy from 1852 to 1890. So far in my research though, I cannot find any evidence of a societal push for recognizing same-sex marriages during or immediately prior to this.
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.Do you believe that your desire for the word "marriage" to mean a particular thing (which, mind you, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would negatively impact your life in any significant way at all) is as important a desire as the desire of those in same-sex relationships to feel the same level of societal (and, in some cases, legal) validation that heterosexual couples feel in marriage?
In other words, do you believe that keeping the word's meaning (as you, personally, understand it) intact is worth a huge segment of the population continuing to feel marginalized?
It strikes me as difficult for a person to claim a rational, non-religious basis for this decision, with full knowledge of the huge number of people whose lives would be dramatically improved and whose happiness would soar were they able to marry each other. A mature, rational individual would say, "Hey, letting them marry is no skin off my nose, and I should celebrate their good fortune and happiness," rather than say, "You can't get married because I don't want the...
Scott, I don't think you really read my post carefully. I said that I would prefer that a different term, such as civil unions be used for everyone, same-sex and mixed-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should have all the same rights. I believe they should be able to have all the same benefits and responsibilities. I just thinking using the word "marriage" sounds to my ear, as dumb.
It is like calling your dog a cat because it is also a pet. I am not saying that you shouldn't get to own a dog and that your dog is less of a family member to you than my cat is. I am saying, let's use a neutral term like pet instead of trying to force a word to mean something that it doesn't.
If you don't like civil unions for everyone, I'd be glad to look at other suggestions for a term. And in the end if we expand the definition of marriage to include combining like things together (function and function), I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I am just trying to explain why I personally dislike the word being used that way. It sounds stupid to my ear. It has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights or religion, using the word in that way just sounds stupid to me.
I said that I would prefer that a different term, such as civil unions be used for everyone, same-sex and mixed-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should have all the same rights. I believe they should be able to have all the same benefits and responsibilities. I just thinking using the word "marriage" sounds to my ear, as dumb.
It is like calling your dog a cat because it is also a pet. I am not saying that you shouldn't get to own a dog and that your dog is less of a family member to you than my cat is. I am saying, let's use a neutral term like pet instead of trying to force a word to mean something that it doesn't.
If you don't like civil unions for everyone, I'd be glad to look at other suggestions for a term. And in the end if we expand the definition of marriage to include combining like things together (function and function), I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I am just trying to explain why I personally dislike the word being used that way. It sounds stupid to my ear. It has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights or religion, using the word in that way just sounds stupid to me.
Pres man, you're just being silly. Art with art and science with science sounds silly because they are the same entity. It's not a man getting married to himself, that just doesn't make sense. It's two different people, two different entities who wish to be joined together.
In fact using your very own logic, Art and Science doesn't make sense because it's Concept and Concept, Sugar and Spice doesn't makes sense because it's Taste and Taste etc.
Pres man, you're just being silly. Art with art and science with science sounds silly because they are the same entity. It's not a man getting married to himself, that just doesn't make sense. It's two different people, two different entities who wish to be joined together.
LOL, believe me, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I know it is silly! I said it wasn't a serious issue. This isn't really issue for "logic", you can't really convince me that something that just sounds stupid to me doesn't sound stupid. It is like trying to convince me that chocolate cake is the best flavor for cake, despite me not thinking so. It is totally a personal preference issue. I just think using the word "marriage" in that way sounds dumb. You certainly don't have to agree with me, I'd be surprised if anyone did. I just think we'd all be better off using a more neutral term like civil union for everyone.
|
|
Also, a study about kids raised by same-sex parents.
I'm not even going to try to link anyting else, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Research tends to indicate that same sex females do present a lot of the issues attributed to same sex parents, with same sex male parents much less so, even proportionally.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).
This is absurd. Marriage between consenting adults will not lead to sex with animals. Explain the logic behind that statement.
Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship.
I would love to see the peer reviewed research that supports any of this. Also, the notion that gay men come from backgrounds of abuse is a very outdated notion. Same sex pair bonding, parenting, and courtships emerge among other species besides humans - in other words it is a natural tendency.
Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.
Sigh. Again with the dogs and now with inanimate objects. Dogs and blow-up dolls do not have rights, are not sentient, and therefore cannot enter into a legally binding, consenting marriage. As far as polygamy and incest go - I don't care. As long as they are consenting adults they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. The options are not endless. Marriage could be easily defined as the legal union between consenting adults. That rules out blow up dolls and dogs.
The pledge, at least its incarnation since 1954, is unconstitutional.
Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them.
Again you are jumping to absurd equivocations. A same sex marriage occurs amongst two consenting adults because the law of the land deems adults capable of making sound decisions to enter into a non-exploitative relationship. To say that opposing gay marriage is just another restriction like not being able to marry children or non-humans is completely illogical.
I pretty much had to stop there. The rest of what you had to say either offered information as fact without providing references or made presented some form of the fallacy that children without fathers studies were about lesbian relationships rather than single parent child rearing. Bring me peer reviewed facts and then we will talk.
|
|
I am not justifying it or saying that it makes any sense (after all I am an atheist who supports gay marriage). I was just describing how some Christians probably view it. Also, Christians do not keep with all mosaic law and evangelicals do not believe in the "all sins are equal". That certainly wasn't so in the old testament. In the old testament being gay got you executed, eating pork did not.If I recall correctly, the old testament also executed children for talking back against their parents. So would that have been a better example?
That is Lev 20-9. They would say that Jesus revised the punishment to allow those unruly children to repent and ask for salvation rather than to kill them to absolve them of their sins. I am well aware of the insanity of the Old Testament (like permitting rape in times of war, selling children into slavery, executing a newly wed wife if she doesn't meet the virgin criteria...). I am not defending them...I think they are all lunatics. I am merely arguing that this crazy stuff is there, and one Christian can't really accuse another of misunderstanding the teachings because they try to be more literal. My whole point is that the entire bible is an outdated guide to morality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see the peer reviewed research that supports any of this. Also, the notion that gay men come from backgrounds of abuse is a very outdated notion. Same sex pair bonding, parenting, and courtships emerge among other species besides humans - in other words it is a natural tendency.
Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine...
Now we're officially on the crazy train. There is no logic here, let alone facts. Just hate and fear.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, remember that such an argument cannot be simply about having children and raising them in the 'nuclear family'-- because then you would have to explain why we still give benefits to childless couples (especially those never intending to have children),This has been answered by numerous court briefs, what you are suggesting here is too much of a violation of personal privacy. How do you prove that a couple will never have children? They say so? So if someone forgets to take their pills or changes their mind or a condom breaks, then what? People can claim their intentions, but what ultimately happens may be something totally different.
As for couples that can't have children, again that is a privacy issue, how do you prove they can't have children? Violate doctor-patient confidentiality?
What if they are too old to have kids? What is too old, men can father kids well into the 100s. As for women, more fertility research is going on all the time. I remember reading a story about a woman in menopause taking hormones to carry her daughter's child because her daughter couldn't.
Pres Man--
My point in bringing up childless couples isn't to say that it's reasonable to invade people's privacy that way-- it's to point out that there is NO reasonable non-religious argument against gay marriage that does not explicitly or implicitly depend upon theories about its effect on children and families. Thus (IMO) it's impossible to defend restricting marriage to heterosexual couples using secular arguments, unless you are also arguing to restrict marriage (and marriage benefits) only to couples with children (which still doesn't exclude homosexual couples, unless you either restrict it to the children's biological parents; or buy into "evidence" showing that a heterosexual couple always makes for better parenting than homosexual couples).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...
OMG. don't be afraid to say it all in public, the worst thing you could do is embarrass yourself!
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...
Beckett--
Presuming your evidence is any good at all, it would also require that we restrict marriage to couples with children-- otherwise, if you allow marriage to heterosexual couples without children but not homosexual couples, you are still overtly singling out a particular group to discriminate against, without reasonable justification for doing so.
|
|
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman.
I don't think your distaste for other person's definitions of the word is enough reason to justify restricting people's civil rights. If marriage were removed from civil law and given entirely to religious groups as part of religious sacraments but not part of civil law-- you still would not have sufficient justification to interfere with the religious freedom of groups that approve of gay marriage and want to conduct such ceremonies and confer such statuses within the constrains of their faith.
Wrong definition of gay. ;)YAOI!I'm in one! :D>.>
<.<
Gay marriage.
I like my definition better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So those people that voted for Prop 8 got their vote flushed down the toilet b/c Judge Walker decided it. That sounds like a Tyranny to me.
It was an issue that should never have even come to a vote. Rights and privileges should never be voted on, and in fact, most of the time, they AREN'T. Slavery, women's voting, and the end of segregation weren't voted on, and the last two would have been voted down if they had come to a vote. The only right or privilege I can think of that has come to a vote is gay marriage, and I don't see that as fair. Why should gays have to get popular support when nobody else does?