10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[MisterMike]

So...

If it is left for the churches, and they all said no.

What would stop a large group from forming a new church which defined marriage as the union of two members of the same sex?

Nothing. There are other ideas almost as retarded, like churches that believe in spaceships and worshiping Satan. But the State still does not define marriage as such.

Marriage may have origins as a religious thing, but it's moved out of that into the secular world.

No. IT hasn't. IT is still very well alive in the "religous world." IT may have been changed, or watered down, like a lot of martial arts, but IT aint the same in the "secular world."

And it's not gonna be a viable solution to suddenly tell everyone that got married by a JP that they aren't married anymore...

Nope. JP's operate on behalf of the state, so the "State Marriage" holds.

Or would athiests no longer allowed to be "married" either?

Depends on whose eyes you're looking through I guess. By the end of the thread, we'll have to call Merriam Webster and give them 20 new definitions.

 

[heretic888]

Nothing. There are other ideas almost as retarded, like churches that believe in spaceships and worshiping Satan.

Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him, dividing the human species into "clean" and "unclean", believing that the world was created in six days just over 5,000 years ago, believing the mythical accounts of a Divine Redeemer is the only valid approach to life when said Redeemer is clearly a hybridized derivation of pre-existing myths and religious schools (re: the intertestamental Books of Enoch), and so on.

I guess extending God's graces and supposedly unconditional love to all of humanity without judgement or condemnation must be one of these silly things that "retards" do.

No. IT hasn't. IT is still very well alive in the "religous world." IT may have been changed, or watered down, like a lot of martial arts, but IT aint the same in the "secular world."

Mike is correct, in a sense.

The "marriage" institution we have presently inherited is by and large an archaic holdover from before the separation of Church and State within a democratic paradigm. Where this separation leaves "marriage" has never really been debated or discussed in our country's history to any significant degree --- only side issues like what sexual orientations can marry or what married couples can "do" to one another in the privacy of their bedrooms (or kitchens, or living rooms, or garages, or, you get the idea ).

As such, I feel a debate concerning the role of "marriage" in a world where Church and State are no longer the same thing is something that should most definitely be explored.

Depends on whose eyes you're looking through I guess.

In this context, only the law's eyes matter.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

I guess extending God's graces and supposedly unconditional love to all of humanity without judgement or condemnation must be one of these silly things that "retards" do.

I, as a parent, unconditionally love my children although I do not endorse inappropriate actions. What "blessings" (or good things) my children receive from me are contingent upon their ability to receive and use them ("worthiness"); And my children are sometimes reminded of these things through discipline.

Do you believe that God, as a Father, would do less for his children?
[/QUOTE]

 

[MisterMike]

Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him,

I think the term is "reject".

 

[heretic888]

Do you believe that God, as a Father, would do less for his children?

No. I believe God, as Father mythos, is a deified projection of the contents of an individual's superego. Namely, a manifestation of said individual's own values, ideals, and high beliefs given cosmologized importance.

This is why any person's "God" always looks and sounds a helluva lot like the person that believes in "him".

In any event, the context I was using that line in was specifically addressing the apparently "retarded" notion that human beings and human institutions like churches are not supposed to be doing the judging and condemning here --- about sexual orientation or anything else ---that that sorta thing is left up to God or Karma or Shiva or whatever.

Apparently, though, some people apparently feel they know better than God and have just cause to "intervene" on his behalf. Funny. When I was raised Baptist, that kinda thinking was never tossed about.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I think the term is "reject".

Actually, given the grammatical context of that sentence, "believe" is the correct wording. Please note the "not" placed in front of said word to qualify its semantical meaning in said sentence.

Ta.

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually, given the grammatical context of that sentence, "believe" is the correct wording. Please note the "not" placed in front of said word to qualify its semantical meaning in said sentence.

Ta.

I believe that Mike is implying that folks who are denied the kingdom of God and are relegated to burn for all eternity are "rejects". Or have somehow been found unworthy and "deserve" eternal torment.

btw - has anyone ever visited a burn center? Does anyone have any idea what kind of pain people who have been burned live with every day? Can you imagine that for all eternity? This seems like a pretty steep price to pay for loving someone!

 

[heretic888]

I believe that Mike is implying that folks who are denied the kingdom of God and are relegated to burn for all eternity are "rejects". Or have somehow been found unworthy and "deserve" eternal torment.

Oh, I clearly understood Mike's intent in his last post. He is reiterating the typical evangelical line that those who "God" sends to "Hell" are there because of their own doing, because they "rejected" the "Word" (which, supposedly, was clearly laid out to them by people that believe what Mike does). In essence, it is a philosophical sleight-of-hand used to absolve "God" of being anything less than "Love".

Don't forget, I was raised on this garbage myself.

I was simply reiterating my point that what I said was explicitly what I meant, and that there was no confusion of terminology or semantics whatsoever. And, also, because I don't buy into such hypocritical bovine feces for one second.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Kane in bold:

By the way what to you is progress Flatlander? I really hate it when libs bring up that they are that there way is the only progressive way. Progress to a lib is defined as progress that belongs in liberal philosophy. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to most of the population or not, it must be liberal


Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.

Liberlism isn't monolithic. We liberals don't always agree on certain topics. I am about as liberal as anyone can get here on MT, yet I'm pro-gun. Let's look at some definitions gleaned from the web on what a liberal is in order to illuminate you:


# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

# having political or social views favoring reform and progress

# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

# big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

# a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

# free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"


Note that the second from last is often rejected by many liberals, and is often allied with conservative viewpoints. That might be considered classic liberalism.

Some identifying as liberals are often quite intolerant of other's opinions, which goes against the spirit of liberalism as defined above. Liberals are often as intolerant of, say for example, pornography--yet the motivations for being so intolerant are usually for far different reasons than the conservative's.


Now for a definition of conservative, again from the net:

# resistant to change

# opposed to liberal reforms

# cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

# button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek

# a person who has conservative ideas or opinions

# bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"


Many liberals, however, are very resistant to change, embracing a reactionary (if not ludditic) stance to technology and yearning for an idyllic pastoral society that never existed. Conservatives also fit this mold, but their vision of that "long lost society" and its values is far different.


Once past all the stereotypes, I tend to prefer the general definitions of a liberal. Being a liberal seems much more exciting. Conservativism, though also stereotyped at times, seems when all is said and done to be rather boring.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to burn incense on my shrine to Noam Chomsky, and then go subvert the values of traditional American society.

Flatlander? Have you shipped those fourteen crates of "The Communist Manifesto" I asked you to send from Canada? The Che Guevara posters were a big hit, and all the children down here are now wearing little berets and pumping their fists in the air shouting "Viva la Revolucion!"

Ah...brings joy to my heart...if not tears to my eyes.


Regards,


Steve

 

[MisterMike]

Was the Bible written in English? Now I am just confused.....


Oh, Upnorth, I wuddn't implyin'g that.

 

[MisterMike]

Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.

You see Kane, you have to define every word you use for others to follow along. Could you please make every word you type into a hyperlink to HHJH's favorite online dictionary? It's somewhere near MSN's Slate page.

 

[arnisador]

2) I'm with upnorthkyosa on polygamy. The "guilt by association" arguments just don't do it for me.

I wasn't taking a stance on the matter. That is my understanding of why it's illegal, plus any religious reasons.

3) Sorry, domestic abuse doesn't fit my stance. I repeat, "something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults [...] and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else". Physically abusing or assaulting someone certainly falls into the category of violating the legal rights of another person.

I gathered by the "else" in "anyone else" that you meant anyone outside the pair (or more) of adults involved. Perhaps it would be clearer without the "else" part.

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh, Upnorth, I wuddn't implyin'g that.

Pardon me, then, for my assumption. However, I think that others might have implied that...

 

[MisterMike]

Pardon me, then, for my assumption. However, I think that others might have implied that...

It's alright. I did get a chuckle out of it - I used to work in the manufacturing industry.

 

[heretic888]

Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.

Personally, I prefer the definition of "liberalism" outlined independently by Ken Wilber and Cornell West (as well as being later adopted by others). Namely, a "liberal" is one who tends to see both the causes and solutions to human suffering to be primarily external.

In other words, if any given person is "poor", the liberal argues, it is most likely due to unfair and inequal distributions of material-economic channels for opportunity and success. Therefore, the liberal argues, we must address the problem of "poverty" by adopting programs and policies that address this inequality of material advantage: social security, welfare programs, affirmative action, socialist economic systems, or others all being perfectly valid examples (although not all "liberals" necessarily believe any or all of these is a practical or necessary solution).

This definition applies to the whole spectrum of the Left --- from Rousseau to Marx to Paine to Jefferson to Chomsky to Gore to Biden.

In any event, its a certainly more valid definition than "America-haters" or atheists" or "moral relativists".

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Was the Bible written in English? Now I am just confused.....

The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the Septugaint. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.

The language the Bible was written in is irrelevant to this context, however, as I was specifically addressing the semantical content of wording you attempted to correct me on. Both my statements and yours were in English.

In any event, what the Bible does or does not say or what language it was or was not written in is rather secondary to "Christianity" as a whole --- at least as it exists today. The religion has a history, tradition, and set of rituals quite independent of any one literary source.

This, of course, is upsetting to most Biblical literalists --- but nonetheless its the truth.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

You see Kane, you have to define every word you use for others to follow along. Could you please make every word you type into a hyperlink to HHJH's favorite online dictionary? It's somewhere near MSN's Slate page.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

 

[MisterMike]

The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the Septugaint. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.

The language the Bible was written in is irrelevant to this context, however, as I was specifically addressing the semantical content of wording you attempted to correct me on. Both my statements and yours were in English.

In any event, what the Bible does or does not say or what language it was or was not written in is rather secondary to "Christianity" as a whole --- at least as it exists today. The religion has a history, tradition, and set of rituals quite independent of any one literary source.

This, of course, is upsetting to most Biblical literalists --- but nonetheless its the truth.

Laterz.

OK. I was under the assumption you actually made a statement, something like:

Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him,

and that the quoted words were from some original text.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[heretic888]

I wasn't taking a stance on the matter. That is my understanding of why it's illegal, plus any religious reasons.

My take is that polygamy's current legal status is based almost completely on religious objections --- even if those doing the objecting aren't religious themselves. Anything else attached to it is really just a smokescreen for this underlying central objection.

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up the objections against same-sex marriage, too.

I gathered by the "else" in "anyone else" that you meant anyone outside the pair (or more) of adults involved. Perhaps it would be clearer without the "else" part.

My apologies if I wasn't clear enough on my original post.

Laterz.

 

[MisterMike]

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

I must have forgot my [SARCASM] tags. Woopsies.