Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/16/2009 02:43:46 PM · #2251

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their â��marriageâ��.

After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ...

No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ...

Shannon's going to have to provide some citation or meaning to what he said as obviously the concept of marriage existed in Jesus' day by the passage cited and even earlier since he was quoting the Old Testament.

Existed long before Jesus' day as well. What is your point? Marriage has existed before, during, along side with, and in conjunction with Christianity. That does not make it a Christian concept.

I'm pointing out that Shannon's quote " marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545" is directly contradicted by evidence presented. I'm guessing his statement remains true in the semantics of "religious ceremony" (at least in his mind), but the concept of marriage only originating in the 1500s among Christians is patently ridiculous.

04/16/2009 02:51:37 PM · #2252

Hmm. Ok I figured out what is so obvious.

The very basis of Christianity is that one group (the Christians) is superior to another (everyone else, at their discretion, by their rules, that to them are unarguable). We are all God's children? Well no... only if you fit into box A,B, C, D, etc. Jesus loves everyone? Well no... only if you fit into box A, B, C, D...

So when anyone (blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, gays etc) try to say... NO NO! We are just as good as you. We have just as much right to live our life the way we choose, this takes the Christians aback. What! Nuh uh! God said I'm special. You can't be special too! If everyone is special, then no one is (and yes, I stole that quote from The Incredibles)

So... if "sinners" get to get married, the "non-sinners" (which is a non-existent group of delusional people) think... well how come they get what I get without all the "work"?

So its this childish game of foot dragging. You mean I'm not inherently better than a black person? NOOOOOO!!! BUT BUT BUT!!! GOD SAID!!! He said I'm more special!! Oh I'm not?... ok. Fine.

WHAT?? You mean I'm not inherently better than a gay person? NOOOOOOO!!!! BUT BUT BUT!!! GOD SAID!!! He said I'm more special!! You trying to say I'm not?

Now we are just waiting for the "ok fine" this time around. Although most people will say it outright that we are all equal and then stick bubble gum in their gay neighbors hair.

It's all about ego. Not God.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/16/2009 03:01:51 PM · #2253

Peggy McIntosh's famous essay on white privilege:

White Privilege Checklist

I especially liked this quote:

"I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group"

McIntosh's essay inspired this imitation on male privilege:

Male Privilege Checklist

And I wanted to write this one myself but someone beat me to it:

Heterosexual Privilege Checklist

My point is, the privileged do not even realize how they are so and get all huffy when anyone tries to claim that they are. In other words, though they don't realize they are privileged, the second someone else tries to be privileged as well, there is a fight.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/16/2009 03:07:57 PM · #2254

Originally posted by escapetooz:

I see it is much easier to win a debate when you get to frame the arguement supposedly being made by the other side.

04/16/2009 03:15:34 PM · #2255

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by FireBird:
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ...

No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ...

Shannon's going to have to provide some citation or meaning to what he said as obviously the concept of marriage existed in Jesus' day by the passage cited and even earlier since he was quoting the Old Testament.

Shannon already did. See my original post on the matter from 04/14/2009 11:26:28 AM.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545" is directly contradicted by evidence presented... the concept of marriage only originating in the 1500s among Christians is patently ridiculous.

The idea that marriage originated AT ALL with the Christians is patently ridiculous since Greeks, Egyptians and other pre-Christian cultures practiced marriage. The fact that they bore no official church authority for 1500+ years should make it obvious that even Christians didn't consider it a particularly religious matter throughout most of history (or at best that it was a private matter between the individuals and God). If not for a Roman Catholic decree in 1545, actual weddings might never have existed at all. The parties would simply declare themselves married and that'd be the end of it.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 15:39:06.

04/16/2009 03:19:50 PM · #2256

Originally posted by scalvert:

On this thread? I don't see it. Does DPC list times in some local reference? I don't see any post with that timestamp.

EDIT: Found it.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 15:21:15.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/16/2009 03:30:04 PM · #2257

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I guess I've been absolved of my alleged hate-mongering, then?

On a lighter note, my marriage is evolving from a 5D to a 5D II today, with the husband's enthusiastic consent! Boosh!

04/16/2009 03:35:51 PM · #2258

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by FireBird:
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ...

No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ...

Shannon's going to have to provide some citation or meaning to what he said as obviously the concept of marriage existed in Jesus' day by the passage cited and even earlier since he was quoting the Old Testament.

Shannon already did. See my original post on the matter from 04/14/2009 11:26:28 AM.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545" is directly contradicted by evidence presented... the concept of marriage only originating in the 1500s among Christians is patently ridiculous.

The idea that marriage originated AT ALL with the Christians is patently ridiculous since Greeks, Egyptians and other pre-Christian cultures practiced marriage. The fact that they bore no official church authority for 1500+ years should make it obvious that even Christians didn't consider it a particularly religious matter throughout most of history (or at best that it was a private matter between the individuals and God).

I don't believe I said it originated with Judeo-Christians. In my post I said they had a "co-claim" to the term. Your wiki link seems both irrelevant to my point and I disagree with it anyway. Clearly Leviticus has laws governing marriage and divorce (so it isn't a "private matter") and clearly we see ceremony in examples like the Marriage at Cana. There are Pslams listed as "wedding psalms". Sampson talks about a man who "attended his wedding". We have certificates of divorce so I would assume (although they aren't patently mentioned) we have certificates of marriage. It is all actually unecessary to my point which is to say that Judeo-Christians have considered marriage to a sacred bond of God for literally millenia. That is the central point and the rest doesn't matter.

04/16/2009 03:40:25 PM · #2259

This is for tooz

" You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

04/16/2009 03:44:45 PM · #2260

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't believe I said it originated with Judeo-Christians...

Hey, I can play that game, too... I don't believe the Wiki said early Christian marriage couldn't involve a church ceremony, only that it wasn't required since the "official" part was merely the verbal commitment between individuals. Sure Leviticus had rules, as did the Greeks, Egyptians, and every other society that defined the obligations of married parties. It is all actually unnecessary to my point which is to say that if Muslim or interracial marriages can be acknowledged as valid by Christians without harming the sanctity of their their own marriage, then what's the difference? They're all out of biblical bounds anyway, so clearly marriage is NOT defined by Christian ideals.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 15:49:23.

04/16/2009 04:10:40 PM · #2261

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't believe I said it originated with Judeo-Christians...

Hey, I can play that game, too... I don't believe the Wiki said early Christian marriage couldn't involve a church ceremony, only that it wasn't required since the "official" part was merely the verbal commitment between individuals. Sure Leviticus had rules, as did the Greeks, Egyptians, and every other society that defined the obligations of married parties. It is all actually unnecessary to my point which is to say that if Muslim or interracial marriages can be acknowledged as valid by Christians without harming the sanctity of their their own marriage, then what's the difference? They're all out of biblical bounds anyway, so clearly marriage is NOT defined by Christian ideals.

Can you drop the interracial thing? We've discussed it and I am not aware of the bible condemning it. Interreligious? Perhaps. Interracial. No. Didn't we talk about the passage in Numbers where Moses' brother and sister complain that he has an Egyptian wife and God basically says, "stuff it. Moses is my guy."?

Read my post as to an explanation as to why I have a problem with the concept. It may make no sense within your own construct. I was explaining it for me.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 16:12:58.

04/16/2009 04:28:11 PM · #2262

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And those that don't believe in God? There is still an issue of superiority being that sure, theoretically you are all equal within the confines of your religion and believing the same thing... even though this doesn't seem to be true since some claim gays can't be "real" Christians, and some Christians still think they are more right than other Christians. But presuming ALL CHRISTIANS actually were seen as equal, that still leaves those that those without faith are inferior. I mean, you'd have to be pretty dumb to cast of the most powerful being in existence right? And to not love Jesus? I mean you are just asking for it then. Pshh.

04/16/2009 04:30:54 PM · #2263

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Can you drop the interracial thing? We've discussed it and I am not aware of the bible condemning it. Interreligious? Perhaps. Interracial. No.

"God's will" against interracial marriage was famously the basis for the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1959, later overturned by the Supreme Court. It's not really important to the argument though. Muslims will suffice. If marriage is a Christian covenant, then any non-Christian marriage should be just as invalid as gay marriage. I don't see any Prop 8-style rallies to deny atheists or Hindus the right to marry. Why aren't ALL people who don't follow Christian moral ideals prohibited from marriage?

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 16:38:21.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/16/2009 04:33:53 PM · #2264

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is for tooz

" You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

And those that don't believe in God? There is still an issue of superiority being that sure, theoretically you are all equal within the confines of your religion and believing the same thing... even though this doesn't seem to be true since some claim gays can't be "real" Christians, and some Christians still think they are more right than other Christians. But presuming ALL CHRISTIANS actually were seen as equal, that still leaves those that those without faith are inferior. I mean, you'd have to be pretty dumb to cast of the most powerful being in existence right? And to not love Jesus? I mean you are just asking for it then. Pshh.

Well, if you need me to tell you that I do not see a difference between Christians and non-christians, I can't oblige. Obviously I feel a difference exists. Your "inferior" as I see you using it, does not describe the relationship well so I reject it.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/16/2009 04:34:22 PM · #2265

Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't see any Prop 8-style rallies to deny atheists or Hindus the right to marry.

Unless they're gay athiests or gay Hindus.

04/16/2009 04:47:41 PM · #2266

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you drop the interracial thing? We've discussed it and I am not aware of the bible condemning it. Interreligious? Perhaps. Interracial. No.

"God's will" against interracial marriage was famously the basis for the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1959, later overturned by the Supreme Court. It's not really important to the argument though. Muslims will suffice. If marriage is a Christian covenant, then any non-Christian marriage should be just as invalid as gay marriage. I don't see any Prop 8-style rallies to deny atheists or Hindus the right to marry. Why aren't ALL people who don't follow Christian moral ideals prohibited from marriage?

I suppose that in the eyes of Christianity two atheiests are not "married". I suppose I would consider that a civil union as well. I suppose it is harder to undo something than to keep it from being done. I suppose two atheists probably couldn't care less whether a Christian sees their marriage as sacred or not. I suppose it would all be solved if we called everything a civil union.

04/16/2009 04:49:45 PM · #2267

Here is another source about homosexuals and the bible. Since you gave no credit to my first because you viewed his arguments as flawed. If you don't want to read it all, the 4th premise is a good one, as well as the 5th. "The Bible is a book about God -- not a book about human sexuality."

The Bible and Homosexuality

this part is good:

"For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder."

ETA this Gem too: "Shakespeare said it this way: 'Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.'"

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 16:53:02.

04/16/2009 04:50:16 PM · #2268

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you drop the interracial thing? We've discussed it and I am not aware of the bible condemning it. Interreligious? Perhaps. Interracial. No.

"God's will" against interracial marriage was famously the basis for the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1959, later overturned by the Supreme Court. It's not really important to the argument though. Muslims will suffice. If marriage is a Christian covenant, then any non-Christian marriage should be just as invalid as gay marriage. I don't see any Prop 8-style rallies to deny atheists or Hindus the right to marry. Why aren't ALL people who don't follow Christian moral ideals prohibited from marriage?

I suppose that in the eyes of Christianity two atheiests are not "married". I suppose I would consider that a civil union as well. I suppose it is harder to undo something than to keep it from being done. I suppose two atheists probably couldn't care less whether a Christian sees their marriage as sacred or not. I suppose it would all be solved if we called everything a civil union.

Or called everything a marriage.

04/16/2009 04:55:05 PM · #2269

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Exactly... but it's a legal marriage, and no more valid in Christian terms than that of a Hindu or homosexual. Can you not see that you're literally asking for only Christian marriages to be recognized as such, not just within the eyes of Christianity, but in the eyes of the law?

04/16/2009 04:58:43 PM · #2270

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I suppose that in the eyes of Christianity two atheiests are not "married". I suppose I would consider that a civil union as well. I suppose it is harder to undo something than to keep it from being done. I suppose two atheists probably couldn't care less whether a Christian sees their marriage as sacred or not. I suppose it would all be solved if we called everything a civil union.

Exactly... but it's a legal marriage, and no more valid in Christian terms than that of a Hindu or homosexual. Can you not see that you're literally asking for only Christian marriages to be recognized as such, not just within the eyes of Christianity, but in the eyes of the law?

And this is where we get back to my "but I'm ssppppeeeccciiiaalll! This book says so!!! And if I can't be special, no one can! I don't wanna share this word. It's mine."

Talking like that makes me want cookies... :P

04/16/2009 04:58:44 PM · #2271

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Or called everything a marriage.

Perish the thought! Oh, and Monica... you're going to have to stop using the word "sex" because it doesn't fall within accepted Christian definitions. From now on you must use the term, "physical union."

04/16/2009 04:59:26 PM · #2272

Originally posted by scalvert:

So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. Of course it works the other way too and I get a vote about which way it's gonna go. The only reason you want it recognized is to confer legal protections and I have always said I am in support of that. And legal protection can be established no matter whether the legal union happens to be the "marriage" or the "shazmat".

04/16/2009 05:01:07 PM · #2273

Originally posted by escapetooz:

I can certainly see how you make your life harder than it need be. I bet the chip on your shoulder grows every year because somehow people don't respond well to your "in your face" style. How dare they?!?