| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2009 03:08:31 PM · #2376 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do think, however, that if their goal is the sanctity of marriage, they might best spend a bit more of their time and money on dealing with divorce and the issues that result from that particular threat. I'm thinking (without facts or 3x5 cards to back it up) that divorce is more prevalent, percentage wise, than gay marriage. |
The US divorce rate these days is right around 50%, though I'm sure some folks manage to get counted more than once. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:26:07 PM · #2377 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
if their goal is the sanctity of marriage, they might best spend a bit more of their time and money on dealing with divorce and the issues that result from that particular threat... |
Divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse, shotgun weddings, etc. Determining which couples should be allowed to love each other should be pretty far down the list of potential threats. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:33:37 PM · #2378 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I went back to that site. As far as I can tell, their whole "defense of marriage" pertains solely to preventing legislation allowing same-sex marriage. Am I missing something? |
YUp. "Defense of Marriage" is NewSpeak for "keep the fags in their place!"
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:53:31 PM · #2379 |
| Sincere thanks to whatever SC member/site overseer/whatever who removed that misleading post a couple of minutes ago. :-) |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:56:32 PM · #2380 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The US divorce rate these days is right around 50%, though I'm sure some folks manage to get counted more than once. |
:-) |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:24:28 PM · #2381 |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 06:03:36 PM · #2382 |
1. Are you a bigot? âWhy do you want to take away peopleâs rights?â
âIsnât it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?â
A: âDo you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think thatâs pretty offensive, donât you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isnât new; itâs not taking away anyoneâs rights. Itâs common sense.â
Well you know what they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. What! "I'm not racist, look, blacks don't want gays to get married either! Psshhhh"
This translation thing is fun. One more:
4. Whatâs the harm from SSM?
âIf courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.â
Translation: "I want to keep thinking its OK to not treat gays equally. If they are, that means I'm wrong. Can't we just stay ignorant and keep thinking its ok to hate gays? come onnnnn!" |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 06:55:19 PM · #2383 |
If I were a card-carrying "Defense of Marriage" type, I guess I'd have to be saying that if a woman, an attorney say, married a man and had a child, divorced her husband because he was a no-good drunk, and subsequently entered into a life partnership with another woman, who happens to be a physician, then, in order to "defend the institution of marriage", I'd have to say the child should be placed with its father, who has since remarried (to a woman who has borne 3 children out of wedlock), regardless of the fact that the father and his new bride are both substance addicts with subsistence lifestyles, whilst the mother, and her new life partner, are both successful, professional women?
It gets sort of ridiculous, doesn't it?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 18:55:59.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:10:25 PM · #2384 |
I had some great conversations over the weekend with a number of people and had two thoughts to share with yâall.
First, I talked with one of my pastors who I think is a reasonable guy and brought up this whole conversation. I found his answer about things to be interesting. He felt that too often a Christian is painted as being against something. Instead, we should be for something. Perhaps this puts the conversation in a slightly different light. I feel that a permanent, monogamous relationship between a man and woman to be the optimal arrangement on many levels including family and sexuality. This is what I am for and what I think should be strived for. So on an intellectual level, that may put my position in a more favorable light. Other arrangements can have good points and strengths, but I do not feel they are the optimal arrangement.
Now, I know the very first thing people are typing away. So what gives you the right to legislate what you view as optimal? And I think this is a very valid question. It is important, however, to remember that very few Christians are responsible for putting such initiatives on the ballot (or before congress). They are often simply left with the conflicted choice of voting their conscience and all the factors that play into it and many arenât even forced with that decision.
The second thing I want to discuss is the idea of Tolerance. What does Tolerance mean to you? Iâm not talking about Tolerance in easy situations. Itâs easy to let the guy down the street live his life any way he wants as long as your paths never cross. Thatâs cheap toleration. Iâm talking about when confrontation occurs. When someone asks you directly, âwhat do you think about this?â and you know your answer differs with theirs. How does this play out in everyday life? Christians, believe it or not, have a concept of tolerance although itâs simply called love. I am called to love everybody, but how that particularly looks is, at times, uncomfortable, awkward and even unclear as to how to proceed.
I would be curious to hear from people whether they view me as âtolerantâ. We can recall that I have never actually voted in one of these initiatives (no opportunity has presented itself). Iâve mainly just been having this conversation for seven months. I will be honest and declare that in my opinion I have seen posts that, to me, show a lot of intolerance. Certainly we can all lose our cool from time to time. I am guilty of that as much as the next guy and I can forgive this. But I wonder how many people would consider me to be the least tolerant person on this thread when I am no more guilty of anything than anybody else.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:15:38 PM · #2385 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is important, however, to remember that very few Christians are responsible for putting such initiatives on the ballot (or before congress). |
Who the heck do you think has been? This seems the most naive (or disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make.
Unless you're going to get into that whole sectarian divide of denying that the LDS (and many other organizations) aren't "Christians" ... |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:16:53 PM · #2386 |
| Promoting your view of "optimal" (sans taxpayer money) is fine, establishing your view as solely legitimate is not. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:19:41 PM · #2387 |
Well, two thoughts come to mind:
One, for a conservative Christian (which is how I perceive you) you're pretty tolerant.
Two, as far as "optimal" goes, I'd love to see you try to convince Mousie, or Tooz, that your version os "sexuality" is optimum for them...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 20:21:05.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:20:04 PM · #2388 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is important, however, to remember that very few Christians are responsible for putting such initiatives on the ballot (or before congress). |
Who the heck do you think has been? This seems the most naive (or disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make.
Unless you're going to get into that whole sectarian divide of denying that the LDS (and many other organizations) aren't "Christians" ... |
You misunderstand me Paul. Of all the Christians in the country, how many were responsible for putting an initiative on a ballot somewhere? 2%? 1%? 10%? Whatever it is, most have had nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:22:54 PM · #2389 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Two, as far as "optimal" goes, I'd love to see you try to convinve Mousire, or Tooz, that your version os "sexuality" is optimum for them...
R. |
I hear you loud and clear. I'm not necessarily trying to. I'm expression my own opinion. The whole issue is even more complicated when you believe that the heterosexual version is "optimal", but you also understand many/most gays did not make an active decision on how they are. I'm not advocating that they necessarily need to fit into a hetero marriage. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:24:56 PM · #2390 |
I think things get a lot easier when we perceive that the political process doesn't necessarily involve telling people what's the optimum approach to their personal lives.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:36:48 PM · #2391 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Two, as far as "optimal" goes, I'd love to see you try to convinve Mousire, or Tooz, that your version os "sexuality" is optimum for them...
R. |
I hear you loud and clear. I'm not necessarily trying to. I'm expression my own opinion. The whole issue is even more complicated when you believe that the heterosexual version is "optimal", but you also understand many/most gays did not make an active decision on how they are. I'm not advocating that they necessarily need to fit into a hetero marriage. |
I think "optimal" is not about gender, it is about the people involved. Look at bears example of the really messed up hetero parents vs the gay parents that are put together, loving, and with careers. It could go the other way as well. The point is, the gender is of little importance.
I could actually make a pretty good argument for homo relationships actually being optimal but I won't. :) What is optimal to me, again, is the health of a relationship. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:41:04 PM · #2392 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Two, as far as "optimal" goes, I'd love to see you try to convinve Mousire, or Tooz, that your version os "sexuality" is optimum for them...
R. |
I hear you loud and clear. I'm not necessarily trying to. I'm expression my own opinion. The whole issue is even more complicated when you believe that the heterosexual version is "optimal", but you also understand many/most gays did not make an active decision on how they are. I'm not advocating that they necessarily need to fit into a hetero marriage. |
You always rely too much on your semantics, and this is no exception.
'optimal' for whom?
'optimal' for what?
You seem to being using the term 'optimal' as if it has to remain the exclusive choice as well, which is a little bit unrealistic.
A man and a woman can procreate, but we have a major over-population problem on earth that cannot be denied, so it has been less than optimal.
A man and a woman can provide a unique form of balance for child raising, but human history has shown that children raised in traditional families rarely turn out 'optimal'.
Monogamy can be 'optimal' if everything comes together right and people have the right tools to make things work, but again, human history has shown that this is a very unlikely and very unrealistic, and the dangers of staying together simply because it's viewed as the 'optimal' choice are sadly real and we see them every day in domestic abuse, murder/suicides, depression, and many other negatives. The happy family that lasts and perseveres is the anomaly, not the other way around.
Optimal is just an idea, and like all ideas, isn't exclusive to the human experience. It isn't based in reality, and because humanity is so diverse and individual, there can be no one optimum.
All we can do is try our very best to deal with life with what we've been given, and try to move forward and grow as a species and as a society, and if that means that a same-sex couple needs to find and fight for rights that opposite-sex couples already have, in order to contribute to humanity to the best of their abilities the best way that they know how, then so be it.
Fight with your life for your optimum. Work on your family and your marriage and make it the best it can be. Make it optimal.
But you have no right, as a christian or as a person, to make any judgments about what the optimal is for anyone else.
Period. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:54:36 PM · #2393 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
But you have no right, as a christian or as a person, to make any judgments about what the optimal is for anyone else.
|
And have I? Am I guilty of this any more than Oz or Mousie or anybody else? I'm curious why you think I am. I haven't voted for anything. I'm just having a conversation about where I'm coming from, yet I suspect you don't think it's valid I do so.
Semantics aside, I clearly mean that if I could invent a marriage any way I want, if I could for the ideal dream marriage, what would it look like? Reality often falls short of optimal, but it doesn't make it less worthy of discussion. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 08:57:24 PM · #2394 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
But you have no right, as a christian or as a person, to make any judgments about what the optimal is for anyone else.
|
And have I? Am I guilty of this any more than Oz or Mousie or anybody else? I'm curious why you think I am. I haven't voted for anything. I'm just having a conversation about where I'm coming from, yet I suspect you don't think it's valid I do so.
Semantics aside, I clearly mean that if I could invent a marriage any way I want, if I could for the ideal dream marriage, what would it look like? Reality often falls short of optimal, but it doesn't make it less worthy of discussion. |
Sorry, I should have been more clear. That last line I meant 'you' as plurality, and meant it to include groups like the one that has led to this current discussion.
YOU yourself I just don't understand much at all. ;D |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:01:31 PM · #2395 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I guilty of this any more than Oz or Mousie or anybody else? I'm curious why you think I am. I haven't voted for anything. I'm just having a conversation about where I'm coming from, yet I suspect you don't think it's valid I do so. |
"Semantics aside", you have attempted to make a case for your "marriage" being more valid than Mousie's... But Mousie isn't trying to argue that your union is not a "marriage"...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:01:37 PM · #2396 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
YOU yourself I just don't understand much at all. ;D |
Well, THAT I can respect.
But let me ask you this. Leaving aside any sort of legislation, how do you view toleration playing out when two people meet who fundamentally disagree about something? and the follow-up is to ask if this thread has played out in-line with your view or not? |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:02:25 PM · #2397 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I guilty of this any more than Oz or Mousie or anybody else? I'm curious why you think I am. I haven't voted for anything. I'm just having a conversation about where I'm coming from, yet I suspect you don't think it's valid I do so. |
"Semantics aside", you have attempted to make a case for your "marriage" being more valid than Mousie's... But Mousie isn't trying to argue that your union is not a "marriage"...
R. |
maybe I'm not arguing that anymore...
BTW Robert, it was mentioned a few times by others but I would not consider myself a conservative Christian. I have lots of views which would be met with nervous silence among their stereotype...
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 21:03:50. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:03:48 PM · #2398 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
maybe I'm not arguing that anymore... |
Then make that clear: concede the point. Don't make us beg.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:09:38 PM · #2399 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
maybe I'm not arguing that anymore... |
Then make that clear: concede the point. Don't make us beg.
R. |
Haha. Conceding and not arguing are two different things. Frankly, in 47 states Mousie's union isn't a marriage by anything other than opinion.
I think what I'm saying is perhaps I was going down the wrong path by wholeheartedly defending what I think marriage isn't. It is probably more positive to state what I think, in a perfect world, marriage ought to be. Ultimately I can also see how legislating such a concept carries difficulties, but having a conversation doesn't and that's what we're all doing. Nobody has been voting on anything. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:17:28 PM · #2400 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I feel that a permanent, monogamous relationship between a man and woman to be the optimal arrangement on many levels including family and sexuality. This is what I am for and what I think should be strived for. |
You are free to value whatever you like, of course, but personal values apply only to you. I feel that children should be properly nourished and educated as the optimal arrangement, but I cannot ban poor people in remote areas from having kids. Yes, you already acknowledged this regarding legislation, but it's really a bigger problem than laws alone. It's an attitude that presupposes any alternative cannot possibly be as good as your own ideal, literally judging people you don't even know by stereotypes and misconceptions. It is the very definition of prejudice, and directly analogous to declaring (or simply believing) marriage to be optimally between two whites.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I wonder how many people would consider me to be the least tolerant person on this thread when I am no more guilty of anything than anybody else. |
Probably zero, and the bolded generalization is indicative of the reason. The opinions you've expressed demonstrate intolerant attitudes, whether you openly act upon them or not. By those words, you are very much "more guilty" of intolerance than some others. Not the worst offender, to be sure, and you've recently shown signs of a softening stance which is encouraging.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 21:18:26. |
|
