[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
if progression means “moving forward” in some manner or fashion…explain to me how homosexuality is even remotely related to progression.
[/quote]
“Moving forward” as in granting equal rights to people that have historically been discriminated against due to outdated cultural or religious beliefs.
It happened with racial minorities, it happened with women, and it is happening with gays.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
An attack on traditional marriage. I guess they do have an agenda.[/quote]
Not an attack on traditional marriage, but an attack on the argument that traditional marriage has exclusively been the domain of one man and one woman.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes he did, I think. Though his arguement was hard to follow, what I got out of it was: The bible doesn’t outlaw non-traditional marriage involving rape, incest, and pedophilia, so you can’t use it to argue against gay marriage. If they were unrelated, he couldn’t use them in the same argument.[/quote]
Nope. The quote argued that there are many forms of marriage sanctioned by the bible, and so-called “traditional marriage” is not the 5,000 year old institution touted by fundamentalist Christians.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think he is on some kind of gay marriage jihad as that is all he fucking ever talks about.[/quote]
I talk about things I care about, including issues like gay marriage, religion, politics, nutrition, and working out. It’s not my fault if the only posts you respond to are in the gay marriage threads.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
An attack on traditional marriage. I guess they do have an agenda.
Not an attack on traditional marriage, but an attack on the argument that traditional marriage has exclusively been the domain of one man and one woman.[/quote]
What exactly do you think the domain of traditional marriage has been?
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Im One Million % against it, nearly caused our break up, but 2 guys marrying and adopting a kid, just is NOT right.
I hope that age of consent of 14 IS NEVER allowed ! I hope one day to bring kids into this world that age of consent thing made my stomach turn, ugh thats disgusting.
[/quote]
Maybe you should try talking to kids raised by same sex parents, or to the scientific community that has actually studied these kids and found they are normal in every way compared to kids raised by heterosexual parents.
On the age of consent, why are you so willing to buy into the stereotype that gays are pedophiles? Do you realize what an insult that is? If you actually look at the stats, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. I would never have sex with a kid, nor do I sanction anyone else doing it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
An attack on traditional marriage. I guess they do have an agenda.
Not an attack on traditional marriage, but an attack on the argument that traditional marriage has exclusively been the domain of one man and one woman.[/quote]
wah…Maybe you should just get over it. It has been put to the people of these here States United and shot down in flames in even to most liberal of places.
If you want compromise then I will support legislation that gives yall a discount on Fleet enemas and KY Jelly and we can all stop talking about this horseshit.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
What exactly do you think the domain of traditional marriage has been?[/quote]
Read the original quote. “Traditional marriage” is a misnomer, because polygamy and other forms of marriage have been around at least as long as the idea of marriage between one man and one woman.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Personally, I don’t see why they care what we think. But they sure do. [/quote]
Get over yourself. I couldn’t care less what you think about gay marriage as long as my partner, myself, and our children can benefit from the legal rights associated with marriage. Disapprove all you want, but stop discriminating against us.
Heterosexual marriage does seem to be traditional in our tradition. Not really concerned with what ancient tribes or foreign states have, or are, doing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
if progression means “moving forward” in some manner or fashion…explain to me how homosexuality is even remotely related to progression.
“Moving forward” as in granting equal rights to people that have historically been discriminated against due to outdated cultural or religious beliefs.
It happened with racial minorities, it happened with women, and it is happening with gays.[/quote]
This is absurd. Name one group of people that is not descriminated against in some fasion. There are different rules for different groups of people. Always have been, always will be.
I don’t know what the obsession is with making abnormalities some how normal. How about we accept abnormalities as being abnormal? Not inherently good or bad, just different.
Quit trying to stuff yourself into a mold you were not intended for. Enjoy your uniqueness. Why anyone would care who recognized their private union with another person, is beyond me.
[quote]pat wrote:
wah…Maybe you should just get over it. It has been put to the people of these here States United and shot down in flames in even to most liberal of places. [/quote]
You mean places like Massachusetts and Connecticut, not to mention the 10 other states that allow civil unions/domestic partnerships?
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
What exactly do you think the domain of traditional marriage has been?
Read the original quote. “Traditional marriage” is a misnomer, because polygamy and other forms of marriage have been around at least as long as the idea of marriage between one man and one woman.
[/quote]
Are we talking about polygamy? What other forms? Does this list include gay marriage? If not, then what’s your point?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heterosexual marriage does seem to be traditional in our tradition. Not really concerned with what ancient tribes or foreign states have, or are, doing.[/quote]
Maybe you consider heterosexual marriage traditional, but your bible specifically and repeatedly sanctions polygamy and other forms of marriage. That was the point.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
This is absurd. Name one group of people that is not descriminated against in some fasion. There are different rules for different groups of people. Always have been, always will be.[/quote]
By that argument, equal civil rights never should have been granted to blacks and women. Brilliant.
It’s not about recognition, it is about receiving equal civil rights.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
wah…Maybe you should just get over it. It has been put to the people of these here States United and shot down in flames in even to most liberal of places.
You mean places like Massachusetts and Connecticut, not to mention the 10 other states that allow civil unions/domestic partnerships?[/quote]
Then why not be happy with a civil union or domestic partnership? Anyone opposed to this is a bit of a weiner in my book.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
This is absurd. Name one group of people that is not descriminated against in some fasion. There are different rules for different groups of people. Always have been, always will be.
By that argument, equal civil rights never should have been granted to blacks and women. Brilliant.
Why anyone would care who recognized their private union with another person, is beyond me.
It’s not about recognition, it is about receiving equal civil rights.[/quote]
Then get married. Who cares if the state or church don’t recognize it? You just said you didn’t care about recognition.
Where is marriage defined as a civil right? If we can all just make up civil rights, I would like the state to recognize my right to join a women only gym, use the women’s showers and use women’s rest rooms when I feel I should be able to.
I would like the state to recognized Irish/Italian/French Americans’ right to be included in any affimative action programs.
I would like the state to recognize my right to the same scholarships that the very brightest in country get. Why should I be discriminated for not being born as bright?
I would like the state to recognize my right to work at Hooters.
I would like the state to recognize my right to handicap parking spaces.
I would like the state to recognize my right to collect medicare now.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Heterosexual marriage does seem to be traditional in our tradition. Not really concerned with what ancient tribes or foreign states have, or are, doing.
Maybe you consider heterosexual marriage traditional, but your bible specifically and repeatedly sanctions polygamy and other forms of marriage. That was the point.[/quote]
The old testament isn’t as new to Christians as you think it is. We’ve read it. Just as divorce had been tolerated, so were other earthly things.
Q: A Mormon recently challenged me: Where in the Bible does it say that polygamy is wrong?
A: Be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that every point of faith and morals has to be explicitly attested in Scripture. That isn?t the case. It?s an advantage if one can show Scripture clearly supporting a position, but it isn?t required.
On the subject of polygamy, Scripture indicates that for a time God did tolerate this practice during the Old Testament. However, it was portrayed even then as a negative thing. When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamy?jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritism?as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29?30, 1 Sam. 1).
The problems were so clearly recognized that, even if there was not then a flat-out prohibition on the practice, there had to be special legislation concerning polygamy. Thus a husband playing favorites among his wives was not allowed to deprive the children of his first wife their inheritance rights in favor of the children of a more recent wife (Deut. 21:15?16). Kings in particular were forbidden to multiply wives to themselves (Deut. 17:17). Unfortunately, this prohibition was often not followed.
As time progressed, the problems with polygamy became more and more obvious, and it stopped being practiced.
The clincher came in the time of Christ, when Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2. Thus Jesus prohibits divorce (Mark 10:2?9) on the grounds that it was not provided for in God?s original plan. God made one man and one woman to be together. Polygamy is ruled out by the same logic. God?s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time
[quote]forlife wrote:
By that argument, equal civil rights never should have been granted to blacks and women. Brilliant.
[/quote]
Civil rights that effect ones ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness…yep, good idea.
Forcing others to recognized a act is not a right. Again, you want to get married, go ahead. Your right to freedom of association does not involve anyone else being forced to recognize it. If it make you feel any better, I will gladdly recognize it. I would not support any measure that forced someone else to recognize it.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Are we talking about polygamy? What other forms? Does this list include gay marriage? If not, then what’s your point?[/quote]
Yes, we’re talking about polygamy and other forms of marriage (again, see the original quote).
The point is that fundamentalist Christians oppose gay marriage in the name of preserving “traditional marriage”, as if “traditional marriage” really were a 5,000 year old institution exclusively including the one-man, one-woman model.