[quote]Makavali wrote:
Despite the bible quotes, is there an actual reason for banning gay marriage? All I’ve seen is intolerance and fear of being “overrun” by the homos.[/quote]
…Have you missed this entire thread 
They’ve given their reasons already. Quite clearly.
I just happen to disagree with their conclusions.
Their reasons seem to be the destruction of marriage. But they forget marriage isn’t exclusively Christian or even a religious event. It’s the creation of a family unit - and thus far they have not clearly demonstrated how homosexual marriage is going to “destroy society”.
Marriage was around LONG before organized religion.
I propose that if you want to argue AGAINST gay marriage, you keep religion out of it. If they have a ceremony and are recognized by the government, I’m sure planes won’t fall out of the sky, and the anti-Christ won’t rise out of hell to smite mankind.
I could be wrong however.
But I doubt it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The CappedAndPlanIt answer-to-Sloth’s-polygamy-question watch continues.
Is it an act of BIGOTRY to deny people the right to engage in polygamous marriage relationships? Or any consenting adult relationship?
Should there be any boundaries to how marriage be recognized - and based on your definition, how could any boundaries be set that weren’t based in BIGOTRY?[/quote]
The government should allow polygamous marriage, however, that leaves open potentially messy legal situations (such as, if one member of the marriage goes into a coma and the remaining two disagree about what should be done, stuff like that). So, in those cases, agreements would have to be made in advance (hence the process may be a bit more complicated, but pragmatically so).
But for the government to disallow it because some people judge the type of relationship as wrong? Bigotry, yes. For the government to disallow it because some people think it will bring about doomsday with its evil and cause our social structure to disintegrate? Bigotry, yes.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Their reasons seem to be the destruction of marriage. But they forget marriage isn’t exclusively Christian or even a religious event. It’s the creation of a family unit - and thus far they have not clearly demonstrated how homosexual marriage is going to “destroy society”.
Marriage was around LONG before organized religion.
I propose that if you want to argue AGAINST gay marriage, you keep religion out of it. If they have a ceremony and are recognized by the government, I’m sure planes won’t fall out of the sky, and the anti-Christ won’t rise out of hell to smite mankind.
I could be wrong however.
But I doubt it.[/quote]
If you believe the bible, then marriage was around at the beginning of the world. And if you don’t believe the bible you would have to show how it was around before around 4,000 BC.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The CappedAndPlanIt answer-to-Sloth’s-polygamy-question watch continues.
Is it an act of BIGOTRY to deny people the right to engage in polygamous marriage relationships? Or any consenting adult relationship?
Should there be any boundaries to how marriage be recognized - and based on your definition, how could any boundaries be set that weren’t based in BIGOTRY?
The government should allow polygamous marriage, however, that leaves open potentially messy legal situations (such as, if one member of the marriage goes into a coma and the remaining two disagree about what should be done, stuff like that). So, in those cases, agreements would have to be made in advance (hence the process may be a bit more complicated, but pragmatically so).
But for the government to disallow it because some people judge the type of relationship as wrong? Bigotry, yes. For the government to disallow it because some people think it will bring about doomsday with its evil and cause our social structure to disintegrate? Bigotry, yes.[/quote]
The difference is that the polygamists do not have a strong lobby like the gays. The gays have been working on this since the mid 1970’s.
So maybe we should contribute to the polygamy lobbyists to help them stop this government sponsored bigotry.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If you believe the bible, then marriage was around at the beginning of the world. And if you don’t believe the bible you would have to show how it was around before around 4,000 BC.[/quote]
If I believed the bible, the world didn’t exist before 4,000 BC.
Marriage in the sense of the word was trading children between tribes to ensure an alliance and help create a family unit to raise young 'uns which would ensure the survival of the species.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The difference is that the polygamists do not have a strong lobby like the gays. The gays have been working on this since the mid 1970’s.
So maybe we should contribute to the polygamy lobbyists to help them stop this government sponsored bigotry.[/quote]
We should. I can’t say support gay marriage without saying support polygamy as well, that would just be hypocritical.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If you believe the bible, then marriage was around at the beginning of the world. And if you don’t believe the bible you would have to show how it was around before around 4,000 BC.
If I believed the bible, the world didn’t exist before 4,000 BC.
Marriage in the sense of the word was trading children between tribes to ensure an alliance and help create a family unit to raise young 'uns which would ensure the survival of the species.[/quote]
And do you have proof of how old the world is without the use of assumption?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
And do you have proof of how old the world is without the use of assumption?[/quote]
[i]Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
Historically, estimates of the age were based on either creation myths in religious texts, or philosophical interpretations of geologic features, most notably by the Greek philosophers Theophrastus and Xenophanes.
Biblical young earth creationists believe that the earth was formed as recently as 4004 BC, whereas Hindu beliefs have the universe enduring for billions of years before being destroyed and recreated in an endless cycle.[/i]
I like mathematical calculations. Based on assumptions, but logical ones at that. I prefer logic.
No, we haven’t. We just argue that it’s one of society’s most fundamental institutions, and it’s been defined a certain way in Western civilization for around 20 centuries.
But you don’t know the effect either way, and once we’ve changed the definition, there’s no going back.
This is a non-sequitur, but it’s also false. Organized religion has been around for as long as man has.
Several of us DID keep religion out of it, but you’re not one for thorough reading of posts. Planes MAY fall out of the sky depending on how many new Muslims we create here thanks to THEIR definition of marriage and its effects.
[quote]If I believed the bible, the world didn’t exist before 4,000 BC.
[/quote]
So how are you on Kline’s framework view?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No, we haven’t. We just argue that it’s one of society’s most fundamental institutions, and it’s been defined a certain way in Western civilization for around 20 centuries.[/quote]
So you own marriage now, do you? Again you fail to realize that Christianity isn’t the cornerstone of Western civilization. And if I’m not mistaken, the definition of marriage has changed a LOT since the time of Jesus.
Rubbish, you just claimed the definition has been changed to suit your beliefs. It can be changed again to suit everyone except the bigots.
The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins. The first religious behaviour appeared in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language.
Yeah, I’m sure the family unit didn’t exist before religion.
Hm. From the first page:
“Like it or not, Western civilization grew out of a certain Judeo-Christian moral consensus, (with the Enlightenment borrowing considerable Judeo-Christian intellectual capital), up until about the mid to late 1800s.”
Further on: “Again, direct appeals to the Bible were probably not made during the Enlightenment amongst many fashionable philosophers of the time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t borrow Christian capital, wittingly or unwittingly. Our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution are probably good examples of this.”
“It’s about the word marriage and an attempt by one group of society (gays) to try and force another (Christians) to redefine the meaning of marriage. It is this attempt to redefine marriage that has Christians and others pissed off.”
“Not really the word, the concept of marriage. They are trying to change the meaning or concept of marriage being one man and one woman as stated in the bible.”
It’s pretty clear to me that you consider marriage to be the exclusive property of Christianity.
And like it or not, the difference between Islam and Christianity is like comparing Catholics and Protestants. I wish you would stop trying to slip these Islamophobic comments into every discussion.
Have you ever been to a museum and looked at a Western art exhibit?
No, I said that it has been a certain way for centuries, it has worked, and we should leave it alone. There’s no divorcing the Judeo-Christian aspect of the Western intellectual or moral traditions from the civilization itself, unless you’re willing to throw out quite a few artistic, literary, and philosophical works. It can’t be done.
[quote]“It’s about the word marriage and an attempt by one group of society (gays) to try and force another (Christians) to redefine the meaning of marriage. It is this attempt to redefine marriage that has Christians and others pissed off.”
“Not really the word, the concept of marriage. They are trying to change the meaning or concept of marriage being one man and one woman as stated in the bible.”[/quote]
Lorisco made this argument, not me, so kindly correct yourself:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2212530&pageNo=2
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Lorisco made this argument, not me, so kindly correct yourself:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2212530&pageNo=2[/quote]
I never said it was you saying it.
My apologies. I just saw my statements stacked on top of his as though they were mine and then you said this.
I got a bit confused.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Have you ever been to a museum and looked at a Western art exhibit?[/quote]
I see some Christian art sometimes, yes, but that hardly proves anything.
And now you come back to religion despite saying you don’t bring it into your arguments. It CAN be done, the issue is the people who can’t handle change or feel threatened (for whatever reason) by equal rights.
But, for the hell of it, why don’t you tell me exactly what needs to be throw out?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
My apologies. I just saw my statements stacked on top of his as though they were mine and then you said this.
I got a bit confused.[/quote]
Kinda my bad too, I should really have added who said what.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The government should allow polygamous marriage, however, that leaves open potentially messy legal situations (such as, if one member of the marriage goes into a coma and the remaining two disagree about what should be done, stuff like that). So, in those cases, agreements would have to be made in advance (hence the process may be a bit more complicated, but pragmatically so).
But for the government to disallow it because some people judge the type of relationship as wrong? Bigotry, yes. For the government to disallow it because some people think it will bring about doomsday with its evil and cause our social structure to disintegrate? Bigotry, yes.[/quote]
Homosexual binary marriage? Check. Polygamous marriage? Check.
So, is there a consenting adult relationship that you would not allow a marriage certificate? If not, why not?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The government should allow polygamous marriage, however, that leaves open potentially messy legal situations (such as, if one member of the marriage goes into a coma and the remaining two disagree about what should be done, stuff like that). So, in those cases, agreements would have to be made in advance (hence the process may be a bit more complicated, but pragmatically so).
But for the government to disallow it because some people judge the type of relationship as wrong? Bigotry, yes. For the government to disallow it because some people think it will bring about doomsday with its evil and cause our social structure to disintegrate? Bigotry, yes.
Homosexual binary marriage? Check. Polygamous marriage? Check.
So, is there a consenting adult relationship that you would not allow a marriage certificate? If not, why not?[/quote]
Nope, can’t really think of any. By that point, though, marriage may return to just being something religious/personal to the people involved, and the government wouldnt be involved in it (and could find other ways to incentivize reproduction).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Nope, can’t really think of any. By that point, though, marriage may return to just being something religious/personal to the people involved, and the government wouldnt be involved in it (and could find other ways to incentivize reproduction).[/quote]
Precisely, so it’s not so much that you support gay marriage as such, but ultimately, the dissolution of marriage as any kind of public institution.
Duly noted.
And as a footnote, marriage wouldn’t “return” to some previous utopia where it was merely an arrangement of private relationships - no such place.