| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2008 02:58:30 PM · #801 |
Another example of the evolution of the definition of the term 'marriage'
This is not to say that Americans came to encourage or even endorse them enthusiastically, but rather that they recognized that people from differing faiths would fall in love and marry each other--and that this search for personal happiness and fulfillment trumped religious affiliation. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:58:42 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.
How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?
|
It isn't and that's why when we step into the religious argument realm it doesn't matter what arguments are presented the answer is simply "it's wrong". That's not nearly as fun a conversation, but it still stands. The majority of Christianity (just speaking about the religion I'm most versed in) views homosexuality as wrong and thus the idea of "gay marriage" is simply a non sequitur. Marriage is a sacred union between man, woman and God and the idea of altering this to allow a relationship viewed as wrong would indeed destroy the sacredness of the concept.
You'll have to again divorce this line of thought from the rest of my argument which has come from a secular point of view where marriage is not sacred but rather a legal institution. "Sacred" ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." per dictionary.com's first definition) doesn't make sense in this realm. |
Sorry, your train of thought is not the only one on the rails. I am asking my own questions and hilighting my own issues of interest.
And I am telling you that my marriage is sacred because I believe it is, having providing two dictionary definitions that support my assertion. The only thing I have left out is an explicit deference to any higher power.
You seem to be suggesting that I do not have the right or ability to make a sacred vow, because other people say so. That is not freedom of religion.
So, instead of trying to refocus me on the civil aspects, you will have to address my direct questions and explain why 'sacred' is at the whim of popular appeal, justify why I should not be allowed to make a sacred vow because I'm gay, concede that I have an argument that completely undermines the conservative claim on the sanctity of marriage, or beg off answering me entirely.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:02:02. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:00:40 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just gave you an example, using your own dialogue, of how the definition itself contains the bias. Saying it's not bias because it's a definition is absurd, as I've just shown. Particularly since the "man and a woman" part was specifically added to the definition in order to disallow homosexuals from participating in it. But even if it wasn't, definitions can contain the same intolerance that history does. |
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. I used the "man and woman" part because many state constitutions now read that way (I was trying to "keep it real").
Perhaps this is why we haven't engaged much. We just keep going back and forth.
Is anybody else having trouble with this thread and when you click on it it takes you to the first post instead of the last one? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:02:31 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The person who is arguing that marriage has always been between man and woman is not stopped by having interracial bans pointed out to them. They can simply agree, "ya, that was discriminatory". When the opposition says, "well, this is the same thing" the reply is simply, "no it's not, this is about defining the word 'marriage'".
Look at it this way. Loving and her husband were hauled before the court for marrying each other. Nobody disagreed they were married. They were arguing that such a marriage was illegal. In our current dilemma everybody is arguing if such a union (a gay one) should even be considered marriage or should it be called something else. I see the two issues as quite different. |
The means used to discriminate isn't pertinent. It's still discrimination.
It's the same thing as a black man in the 60's going to drink out of a drinking fountain and being told, "Hey, that's a White drinking fountain. You can get a drink out of the hose out back." Only there's no hose out back. Just saying that the drinking fountain is for Whites only doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:05:05 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just gave you an example, using your own dialogue, of how the definition itself contains the bias. Saying it's not bias because it's a definition is absurd, as I've just shown. Particularly since the "man and a woman" part was specifically added to the definition in order to disallow homosexuals from participating in it. But even if it wasn't, definitions can contain the same intolerance that history does. |
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. I used the "man and woman" part because many state constitutions now read that way (I was trying to "keep it real").
Perhaps this is why we haven't engaged much. We just keep going back and forth.
Is anybody else having trouble with this thread and when you click on it it takes you to the first post instead of the last one? |
You're not going back and forth, people are putting up extremely poignant arguments, and you're sticking tooth and nail to a belief that is leaking relevance like a sieve. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:06:20 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just gave you an example, using your own dialogue, of how the definition itself contains the bias. Saying it's not bias because it's a definition is absurd, as I've just shown. Particularly since the "man and a woman" part was specifically added to the definition in order to disallow homosexuals from participating in it. But even if it wasn't, definitions can contain the same intolerance that history does. |
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. I used the "man and woman" part because many state constitutions now read that way (I was trying to "keep it real").
Perhaps this is why we haven't engaged much. We just keep going back and forth.
Is anybody else having trouble with this thread and when you click on it it takes you to the first post instead of the last one? |
You're not going back and forth, people are putting up extremely poignant arguments, and you're sticking tooth and nail to a belief that is leaking relevance like a sieve. |
Who are you? Howard Cosell? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:06:32 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just gave you an example, using your own dialogue, of how the definition itself contains the bias. Saying it's not bias because it's a definition is absurd, as I've just shown. Particularly since the "man and a woman" part was specifically added to the definition in order to disallow homosexuals from participating in it. But even if it wasn't, definitions can contain the same intolerance that history does. |
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. I used the "man and woman" part because many state constitutions now read that way (I was trying to "keep it real").
Perhaps this is why we haven't engaged much. We just keep going back and forth.
Is anybody else having trouble with this thread and when you click on it it takes you to the first post instead of the last one? |
Blacks were defined as inferior to Whites for a long time. Does that make it so?
People regarded the earth as flat and held that the sun and the heavens revolved around the earth too, does that make those beliefs true?
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:08:45. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:10:15 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You're not going back and forth, people are putting up extremely poignant arguments, and you're sticking tooth and nail to a belief that is leaking relevance like a sieve. |
Who are you? Howard Cosell? |
I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:10:50. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:11:35 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. |
Are you INSANE? Marriage NOW AND THEN has had MANY different definitions across all cultures, for millennia!
Gay marriage is leagal in many countries! People in India get married to dogs for good luck! Polygamy is legal and practiced in many countries, and has been for millennnia. Marriage was not for serfs in the middle ages, it was for royalty! Serfs jumped a broom! Some cultues don't even HAVE marriage!
To make such a preposterous claim after discussing this issue with us for so long...
I just died a little inside. Earlier today I was sorely tempted to post, wondering out loud if you were about to break and shift your position on gay marriage, based on a number of reasoned posts you made. My illusions have just been shattered.
Stop insisting that marriage has always been the same. This is PATENTLY AND PROVABLY FALSE, and that you could even suggest it is incredibly distressing... it makes me think that I'm not dealing with reason, but as posthumous said, your anti-gay bias.
Marriage is NOT a universal standard dictated by one god! STOP IT!
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:14:59. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:13:40 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Some cultures don't even HAVE marriage!
|
That'd be a good way to lower the divorce rate. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:14:34 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference. |
It seemed like you were merely commentating rather than contributing.
But we'll let you contribute. So I'll ask you K10, if a society wants to say, "Look, marriage has always meant "man and woman" so we're going to officially define it as such. However, we understand that lately men and women want to declare unions within their gender and be granted the legal rights accorded to married people like hospital visitation. We will create a new legal entity called "domestic partnership" and declare gays and lesbians can enter this union and be given the same rights as those granted by marriage."
Why, in your words, does the society not have the right to do such a thing? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:15:53 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if a society wants to say, "Look, marriage has always meant "man and woman" so we're going to officially define it as such. |
Then they would be WRONG, because their rationale would be provably FALSE.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:17:12. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:24:04 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference. |
It seemed like you were merely commentating rather than contributing.
But we'll let you contribute. So I'll ask you K10, if a society wants to say, "Look, marriage has always meant "man and woman" so we're going to officially define it as such. However, we understand that lately men and women want to declare unions within their gender and be granted the legal rights accorded to married people like hospital visitation. We will create a new legal entity called "domestic partnership" and declare gays and lesbians can enter this union and be given the same rights as those granted by marriage."
Why, in your words, does the society not have the right to do such a thing? |
Because the entire premise relies on fallacies and arrogance, that's why. If you can't, or refuse, to see this, there's nothing else to say really. That's the problem with beliefs, they are generally unswayable, even in the face of almost utterly convincing evidence to the contrary.
You're right, I was just commenting, because as far as I'm concerned, you've left little reason to do anything but. You've entrenched yourself, that's fine, but I'm not going to pretend that you have any kind of foot to stand on anymore. The future will set the stage, and it's showing that your stance is on the way out, no matter how clever or erudite you believe yourself to be. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:26:25 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why, in your words, does the society not have the right to do such a thing? |
No, because it's wrong.
Society wanted slavery, then Jim Crow laws too. Just because a majority wants something, doesn't make it right.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:27:11. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:29:05 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures. |
That's a standard reply from those opposing same-sex marriage, but it's simply not true. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:30:05 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures.
|
The argument of maintaining an historic practice has limited value when it comes into conflict with current notions of justice and equality. The history of the legitimacy of slavery is very deep in our cultural history stretching back as far as history itself. It was an accepted institution, and seen as natural and in accord with scripture, and rejected by very few cultures, until just a few hundred years ago. In parts of the world it still goes on, on a very secret marginal level.
Today the notion of owning another person is so jarring to our sensibilities that we can't even imaging such a thing, let alone being forced into the role of being another person's property. This is a good thing.
Times change, usually for the better, and when history comes into conflict with justice, it is time to accept change. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:33:05 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why, in your words, does the society not have the right to do such a thing? |
It does have that right, but the right to something does not make it moral. Society can demand the right to so many heinous things. Society once reserved the right to burn heretics alive, and to commit outrages of reason and morality in support of this right. Few would defend past societies' moral outrages simply because they had decided to act immorally, questions of relativism aside. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:35:07 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference. |
"Look, marriage has always meant "man and woman" so we're going to officially define it as such. However, we understand that lately men and women want to declare unions within their gender and be granted the legal rights accorded to married people like hospital visitation. We will create a new legal entity called "domestic partnership" and declare gays and lesbians can enter this union and be given the same rights as those granted by marriage."
Why, in your words, does the society not have the right to do such a thing? |
If you are willing to give the exact same rights to a domestic partnership as is given to a hetro marriage then why call it anything different than what it really is which is a marriage? The reason being, at least it seems to me, is that there are those who look down on homosexual marriages yet they don't want to discriminate against homosexuals per se, yet are still finding a way to incorporate a way to distinguish/separate/discriminate by naming it something different.
"Well, we'll give you the same rights but we'll call it something different just so you know it's not the same thing that we have"
If they had decided to call interracial marriages "Interracial partnerships" instead of a marraige b/c for most individuals marriage was always between people of the same race, would you have been ok with that definition? I hope not. I say that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck.
edit grammer
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:37:14. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:37:19 PM · #819 |
I am waiting with bated breath for DrAchoo to concede that his 'constancy of marriage' argument is completely false. If he can't bring himself to do it, I'm no longer going to debate him, and that's a shame, because all the other conservatives seem to have been run off.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:41:44 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=K10DGuy]I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference. |
It seemed like you were merely commentating rather than contributing.
If you can't, or refuse, to see this, there's nothing else to say really. That's the problem with beliefs, they are generally unswayable, even in the face of almost utterly convincing evidence to the contrary.
You're right, I was just commenting, because as far as I'm concerned, you've left little reason to do anything but. You've entrenched yourself, that's fine, but I'm not going to pretend that you have any kind of foot to stand on anymore. The future will set the stage, and it's showing that your stance is on the way out, no matter how clever or erudite you believe yourself to be. |
While I disagree with the good doctor on this subject, I respect the way he has stood up for his opinions and calmly argued for them in the face of so many of us arguing the other side. The easy thing to do would be to stay silent and let it roll past him, but he has answered questions about a viewpoint that is the majority viewpoint in our nation if not in this forum, and done so with grace and logic, and we ought to be thanking him for his contributions, attacking his arguments not him.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 15:42:58. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:47:16 PM · #821 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=K10DGuy]I've been called worse, although I don't exactly understand the reference. |
It seemed like you were merely commentating rather than contributing.
If you can't, or refuse, to see this, there's nothing else to say really. That's the problem with beliefs, they are generally unswayable, even in the face of almost utterly convincing evidence to the contrary.
You're right, I was just commenting, because as far as I'm concerned, you've left little reason to do anything but. You've entrenched yourself, that's fine, but I'm not going to pretend that you have any kind of foot to stand on anymore. The future will set the stage, and it's showing that your stance is on the way out, no matter how clever or erudite you believe yourself to be. |
While I disagree with the good doctor on this subject, I respect the way he has stood up for his opinions and calmly argued for them in the face of so many of us arguing the other side. The easy thing to do would be to stay silent and let it roll past him, but he has answered questions about a viewpoint that is the majority viewpoint in our nation if not in this forum, and done so with grace and logic, and we ought to be thanking him for his contributions, attacking his arguments not him. |
No, you're right, and I apologize for the last line. It was uncalled for and a product of frustration.
I just simply cannot fathom a stance like his in today's world. It's simply beyond my understanding, and I guess it pushes the anger circuits because of that. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:47:18 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if a society wants to say, "Look, marriage has always meant "man and woman" so we're going to officially define it as such. |
I'm not a Mormon, nor do I know many, though I've worked with some I suppose. It never really came up. Anyway, how does it differ from that Church defining it as 'man and woman and woman and woman and woman'
That would appear to be a different definition of marriage. I suppose they had to form their own state to get away with it, but still, it seems to be mostly accepted in the US.
Anyone also care to explain why the Mormon church was one of the main supporters of Prob 8?
I don't know much about this so if I'm being offensive in some way - point it out too. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:48:20 PM · #823 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.
How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?
|
It isn't and that's why when we step into the religious argument realm it doesn't matter what arguments are presented the answer is simply "it's wrong". That's not nearly as fun a conversation, but it still stands. The majority of Christianity (just speaking about the religion I'm most versed in) views homosexuality as wrong and thus the idea of "gay marriage" is simply a non sequitur. Marriage is a sacred union between man, woman and God and the idea of altering this to allow a relationship viewed as wrong would indeed destroy the sacredness of the concept.
You'll have to again divorce this line of thought from the rest of my argument which has come from a secular point of view where marriage is not sacred but rather a legal institution. "Sacred" ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." per dictionary.com's first definition) doesn't make sense in this realm. |
And yet the United Church of Canada, this country's largest Protestant organisation, accepts gays and works for their legal rights.
UCofC-Biblical References to Homosexuality
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 03:55:08 PM · #824 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Anyone also care to explain why the Mormon church was one of the main supporters of Prob 8?
I don't know much about this so if I'm being offensive in some way - point it out too. |
The official Mormon Church (Church of Latter-Day Saints) renounced polygamy some time ago, probably to achieve statehood. Various breakaway "fundamentalist Mormon" sects still try to practice it -- you usually find out about those by reading reports of FBI raids.
The Mormons believe homosexuality to be a sin, so can't support it in any way. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:01:06 PM · #825 |
From Yale Professor John Boswell
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 19th century. |
|
