First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)

Thanks for that. That's weird, when I edit the post, the URL does show up correctly. Help, anyone? Here's the URL anyway: Shorthened a long sucker link. Use peek to learn how.Whoops, yeah, that's a misstatement. It should have been "their level of arousal was greater for images of the non-arousing sex than for neutral images." So a heterosexual male is aroused more by images of other males than images of, say, kittens. Not really surprising. That is of course true. However I would argue that self-reported orientation is going to be much more fluid and influenced by cultural norms than physical arousal. I mean, many homosexual individuals initially identified as heterosexual - but that doesn't mean that they were actually aroused by the opposite sex more than the same sex. Similarly, I bet you'd have a hard time finding anyone willing to refer to themselves as homosexual in countries where that carries the death penalty, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.My main point here was that sexual behaviour and sexual attraction are two different things, and that I believe sexual behaviour would be far more susceptible to cultural influence than attraction is. If you are going to define sexual orientation as who a person has sex with, then yes it is very dependent on culture and other factors. Exactly. Physical arousal is separate from actual sexual behaviour. If you are going to limit the term "sexual orientation" to sexual behaviour, then strictly speaking people would be born asexual. They would become hetero- homo- or bisexual when they become sexually active. However, I don't think this is really a very useful definition.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-20-2005 03:29 PM

It is funny how the folks who are most concerned about gay marriage leading to polygamy are the same folks that promote this supposed word of God that condones polygamy.

You kidding?

Not sure whether epiphany was kidding, but the poster was right. The literal wording in the Bible is polygamous positive. Only some limited and specific statements (iirc restricted to the New Testament) can be read to prefer monogamy, but never in a way that wholly denies polygamy.Of course religion is what you make of it. Fundie Xians are generally antipolygamy due to the history of their changing interpretations. Its just sort of ironic that they claim to demand absolute literalism, and yet ignore that rather obvious literal position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Only some limited and specific statements (iirc restricted to the New Testament) can be read to prefer monogamy....

---

And some of Paul's writings can be interpreted to prefer strict virginity for both sexes (a interpretation taken serious by some sects) over even monogamy.But polygamy doesn't make the cut, nor does strict chastity, among the modern hip Christian.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I have never really gotten my head around the Christian objections to homosexuality/gay marriage. I wish someone sensible (rather than the rabid homophobes that normally present their ideas in the media) could explain.I can follow the first step very easily - the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine. If that's true then Christians who believe that shouldn't be gay or get married to someone of the same sex.How does that then lead to trying to dictate what is legal/illegal for non-Christians? This is the part that I don't get at all. Is it a simple defence mechanism because they feel that millions of Christians would suddenly turn gay and get married if it was legal?Or do they really feel that by denying someone marriage they can turn them straight?Or is it simply that they feel anything non-Christian should be illegal?I wish someone could explain what exactly people hope to achieve?

They probably think that they will turn into pillars of salt. Quite right. They apparently believe that marriage is a religious matter, not a state matter. Therefore the state should pass laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and making marriage a state affair, so that marriage can remain a religious affair and not a state affair.If that does not seem logical, please don't blame me. These people are control freaks, provided that it is them controlling us and not us controlling them. A thousand years ago, or so, King Canute is said to have attempted to hold back the tide. He failed.As far as I can tell, these people want to repeat the experiment.

I wish I knew. As a Christian, this is the bit that frustrates the hell out of me. To be fair, it's seem to be largely a problem with right-wing Christianity in your country (assuming you are a US citizen). Over here in the UK, there are a couple of small vocal Christian groups that make some noise about these issues, and get laughed at in the press. The main issue reported over here concerns homosexual priests practising in the Church of England.

In short, they believe that secular gov't should reflect cultural values which to their mind is fundie Xian in the US. Of course they miss the point that a secular gov't, even if allowing for cultural values, should not support purely religious values. And further they miss that secular gov't shouldn't really even be handling cultural values.They like to bypass the fact that we have a Bill of Rights to concentrate on a few laws which sound similar to a few items in the 10 commandments in order to support their argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Nope, I'm serious.

You answered your own question, and this is it:"Or is it simply that they feel anything non-Christian should be illegal?"Fundy Christians believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do are going to Hell. Even they cannot explain why other "sins," such as fornication are more acceptable to them though.

To be fair many believe it is also unacceptable and are fighting it tooth an nail. They simply find homosexuality to be one of the signs of extreme loss of morality... it's a place to start.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

All marraige will be illegal here in Texas come November, when Proposition 2 passes overwhelmingly. See if you can find where they should have inserted the word "other" in the following ballot language:
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."Friggin' dolts that get elected around here.......

There's hope for us yet!!!!!!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lord I hope that passes!!! lol