[quote]Makavali wrote:
And yet, Western society found slavery to be morally undesirable and cast it off.
Wait… is that… experimentation… and adaptation?[/quote]
It was an adaptation. And guess which moral standard was being used to determine that it (slavery) was wrong?
Can you imagine Wilberforce walking into Parliament with a copy of the Qur’an under his arm? How about “The Origin of Species”?
Where was I advocating religious political parties?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Makavali wrote:
And yet, Western society found slavery to be morally undesirable and cast it off.
Wait… is that… experimentation… and adaptation?
And was it worth the costs?[/quote]
Are you really asking if ending slavery was worth the costs? There is a question there? Really?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Adverse effects?
BostonBarrister wrote:
And not to be a pest, but have you read any of those links I posted to you? Or the articles?
Your argument boils down to: Irrespective of any possible problems, the simple goal of “equality”, which in this case means redefining marriage to include same-sex couples in a legal status to which they were previously “excluded” because gays have no desire to enter into a marriage as it is currently defined - to achieve the effect of governmental “recognition” and avoid hurting the feelings of gay people - should be pursued. And , if “experimentation” were suggested, no alternatives should be tried, such as providing a separate and unavailable-to-heterosexuals legal status - such as civil unions - because that might still hurt their feelings and not “legitimize” their relationships sufficiently.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a civil union is the same thing as a marriage, what would the point of giving it a different name be (other than to placate a homophobic society)?
Or, what would the legal differences between a marriage and a civil union be?
You could easily answer this for yourself (admittedly, this requires the large assumption that you’d comprehend and apply the material) if you put together information from articles you are refusing to read.
[/quote]
Ya know, BB, for all the ad homs y’all like ta throw at me about how I call everyone a bigot, I’ve noticed that all you do is claim that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and doesnt understand. Really, read back.
Does it ever cross your mind that perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone can understand the issue AND disagree with you?
Your argument boils down to this: extending marriage to gays is a risk that is not worth it. I’ve considered your points as to why it’s not, and still disagree; largely on the basis that the reason it’s such a risk in the first place is that we live in a homophobic society. As I said before, that makes the problem the society, not the homosexuals.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And was it worth the costs?[/quote]
I don’t know… does learning the value of human life and the meaning of racial equality count for anything?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It was an adaptation. And guess which moral standard was being used to determine that it (slavery) was wrong?
Can you imagine Wilberforce walking into Parliament with a copy of the Qur’an under his arm? How about “The Origin of Species”?[/quote]
And which force determined it to be right in the first place?
Christians regularly kept non-Christian slaves up until the abolition of slavery in general. Views on slavery of non-Christians, however, varied from place to place and person to person. Saint Patrick (415-493), himself a former slave, argued for the abolition of slavery. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) believed that slavery was “morally justifiable”. It is said the Teutonic Order opposed strongly the conversion of Lithuania into Christianity in the 14th century, since it meant the end of lucrative slave trading of captured Lithuanians to Tatars.
Hm.
[i]Throughout history, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible have been used as justification of the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done.
Therefore, when abolition was proposed, many Christians spoke vociferously against it, citing the Bible’s apparent acceptance of slavery as ‘proof’ that it was part of the normal condition.
In both Europe and the United States, many Christians went further, and argued that slavery was actually justified by the words and doctrines of the Bible.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
"Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor
And some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan (an organization dedicated to the “empowerment of the white race”), still argue that slavery is justified by Christian doctrine today.[/i]
Oh my.
Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Christians too were part of the Abolition movement. Just don’t try and imply that it was Christian vs. Atheists.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Absolutely incorrect.
The Constitution does not command a legislative invention for every predilection on the basis that some preferences are privileged over others. It is not that way for polygamy, and it is not that way for gay marriage. The issue is a democratic one, one that requires good old fashioned changing of minds on the naked merits of the issue, and the votes that follow.
Based on the puppet show we see in this thread, I am not so sure you are making much progress in that endeavor.
But it’s pointless to pursue - if pressed on the questions, you will you “get bored”, dodge the issue, and respond with “oh, look…a squirrel”.[/quote]
I’m bor-- Oh look! A squirrel!
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali…how many times must your lunch be eaten before you walk away from the table?[/quote]
You should probably make and argument without the words homo and fag first. Then get back to me.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It was an adaptation. And guess which moral standard was being used to determine that it (slavery) was wrong?
Can you imagine Wilberforce walking into Parliament with a copy of the Qur’an under his arm? How about “The Origin of Species”?
And which force determined it to be right in the first place?
Christians regularly kept non-Christian slaves up until the abolition of slavery in general. Views on slavery of non-Christians, however, varied from place to place and person to person. Saint Patrick (415-493), himself a former slave, argued for the abolition of slavery. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) believed that slavery was “morally justifiable”. It is said the Teutonic Order opposed strongly the conversion of Lithuania into Christianity in the 14th century, since it meant the end of lucrative slave trading of captured Lithuanians to Tatars.
Hm.
[i]Throughout history, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible have been used as justification of the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done.
Therefore, when abolition was proposed, many Christians spoke vociferously against it, citing the Bible’s apparent acceptance of slavery as ‘proof’ that it was part of the normal condition.
In both Europe and the United States, many Christians went further, and argued that slavery was actually justified by the words and doctrines of the Bible.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
"Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor
And some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan (an organization dedicated to the “empowerment of the white race”), still argue that slavery is justified by Christian doctrine today.[/i]
Oh my.
Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Christians too were part of the Abolition movement. Just don’t try and imply that it was Christian vs. Atheists.[/quote]
Once again, you’ve misunderstood. The argument about slavery amongst Christians was about which interpretation was correct. Were the OT laws regarding slavery applicable to only Israel, or was that no longer in effect due to the person and work of Jesus? The Bible was still being used as a normative WEstern standard, not the Qur’an or the “Origin of Species,” which has been my whole point.
Wilberforce wasn’t walking into Parliament and saying, “It says right here in the Qur’an (or “The Origin of Species”) that slavery is wrong according to this interpretation of it, which I believe is right for reasons X and Y.” It turns out that the proper understanding of the Bible prevailed regarding that issue, but it was still used as a cultural norm either way.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And not to be a pest, but have you read any of those links I posted to you? Or the articles?[/quote]
Not all of them. That’s why I copy and paste into my posts, I try to make the information as easy to see as possible.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Once again, you’ve misunderstood. The argument about slavery amongst Christians was about which interpretation was correct. Were the OT laws regarding slavery applicable to only Israel, or was that no longer in effect due to the person and work of Jesus? The Bible was still being used as a normative WEstern standard, not the Qur’an or the “Origin of Species,” which has been my whole point.
Wilberforce wasn’t walking into Parliament and saying, “It says right here in the Qur’an (or “The Origin of Species”) that slavery is wrong according to this interpretation of it, which I believe is right for reasons X and Y.” It turns out that the proper understanding of the Bible prevailed regarding that issue, but it was still used as a cultural norm either way. [/quote]
In that case, why is it so wrong to try and look for different interpretations in the Bible about homosexuality? Or maybe years and years of re-translation has resulted in biased translations?
Wilberforce succeeded because he was able to open people minds to the idea that a common interpretation was wrong.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Once again, you’ve misunderstood. The argument about slavery amongst Christians was about which interpretation was correct. Were the OT laws regarding slavery applicable to only Israel, or was that no longer in effect due to the person and work of Jesus? The Bible was still being used as a normative WEstern standard, not the Qur’an or the “Origin of Species,” which has been my whole point.
Wilberforce wasn’t walking into Parliament and saying, “It says right here in the Qur’an (or “The Origin of Species”) that slavery is wrong according to this interpretation of it, which I believe is right for reasons X and Y.” It turns out that the proper understanding of the Bible prevailed regarding that issue, but it was still used as a cultural norm either way.
In that case, why is it so wrong to try and look for different interpretations in the Bible about homosexuality? Or maybe years and years of re-translation has resulted in biased translations?
Wilberforce succeeded because he was able to open people minds to the idea that a common interpretation was wrong.[/quote]
As I’ve stated numerous times, I don’t care what the homosexuals do in their bedrooms. It’s none of my business. Sure, the Bible condemns it, but it also condemns disobeying your parents amongst numerous other things.
I’m saying, that as a building block of society, we ought to leave the definition of marriage alone that we’ve been using for 15 or so centuries unless there’s solid data showing that it will have no adverse effects on society. By adverse, I mean that it will not drive normal marriage rates down, normal birthrates down, and that the children raised in these gay marriages won’t be more ill-adjusted than the heterosexual mean.
Since civil unions already provide for most, if not all, of the property, inheritance, and adoption rights of normal marriages, there is little reason for a change in the definition of marriage other than that the gays want to push their norms on us.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
As I’ve stated numerous times, I don’t care what the homosexuals do in their bedrooms. It’s none of my business. Sure, the Bible condemns it, but it also condemns disobeying your parents amongst numerous other things.
[/quote]
It also condemns eating shellfish (another abomination), and wearing clothes made up of mixed fibers.
I think its equally important to look at the cause behind whatever changes may occur. If the reasoning is “People are homophobic and letting gays have equal marriage rights will scare/anger/confuse/defeat them that they’ll (insert reaction here)”… then, again, the problem is the homophobia, not gay marriage.
What you end up with is people who are not homophobic or anti-gay supporting a system that is.
[quote]
Since civil unions already provide for most, if not all, of the property, inheritance, and adoption rights of normal marriages, there is little reason for a change in the definition of marriage other than that the gays want to push their norms on us. [/quote]
Again, whats the point, if the contracts are the same, of giving them different names, other than to push heterosexual norms on homosexuals (by forcing them into a “seperate but equal” type of contract)?
Wrong. It condemned the OT Israelites from doing so.
The term “homophobia” is an idiotic liberal buzzword and has no meaning.
I dunno, what’s the point of them pushing it on us?
That’s one interpretation. Kinda like how slavery was one interpretation.
We have over 6 billion people, if ever there was a time to experiment with birth rates, it would be now.
Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.
Hm. Sounds equal to me.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It also condemns eating shellfish (another abomination), and wearing clothes made up of mixed fibers.
Wrong. It condemned the OT Israelites from doing so.
[/quote]
I’m sorry. I forget what parts still count and what dont. Didn’t I hear recently that the catholic church no longer endorses the idea of purgatory?
Liberal is an idiotic buzzword that has no meaning.
But way to dodge the content, there. When you’re ready to admit that your whole argument is based on society being anti-gay (that better?), let me know.
[quote]
Again, whats the point, if the contracts are the same, of giving them different names, other than to push heterosexual norms on homosexuals (by forcing them into a “seperate but equal” type of contract)?
I dunno, what’s the point of them pushing it on us?[/quote]
You dont know? Seems to me you’ve just got a case of “My team is winning so I want to keep it that way.”
In reality it isnt even a fact of them “pushing” anything on you, but getting you to stop pushing your agenda on them.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali…how many times must your lunch be eaten before you walk away from the table?
This retard again?
You ever come up with anything useful other than “fags” this and “homos” that, idiot?
Thought not.
I sense a little hostility…that’s okay…it can’t be easy taking the sort of pounding that you’ve taken on this thread. I guess you have to learn to pick and choose your battles with more care.
Oh well, keep smiling man…:)[/quote]
Hostile? Nah. Annoyed? A little.
You’ve never made any meaninful contribution to any of these threads. Any. Ever. I’m fairly sure this trend extends to the rest of your life. But, I digress.
Oh, except for gems in logic such as “If you can’t prove something doesn’t happen, it does”.
Again, idiot.
You don’t know the first thing about the Bible, and I don’t feel the need to wisen you up.
Too bad, so sad. It’s not a value of our society.
I think you should try reading it yourself, then maybe you’ll come to an understanding.
There was no content to dodge - my point. You’re “content” was based entirely on a word without meaning.
[quote]You dont know? Seems to me you’ve just got a case of “My team is winning so I want to keep it that way.”
In reality it isnt even a fact of them “pushing” anything on you, but getting you to stop pushing your agenda on them. [/quote]
Or them pushing it on us.