Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 87 of 168 (365071)
11-21-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
11-21-2006 1:46 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
[deleted - wrong recipient]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 11-21-2006 1:46 AM Taz has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 88 of 168 (365072)
11-21-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nj writes:
You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage, in which case, is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman.
Marriage Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Not in Websters dictionary.
Marriage Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
nj writes:
If you want something along those lines, try a civil union. I have no ojections to that.
But "civil unions" are just "marriage" by another name! They are entirely equivalent in legal terms. The denial of legal status to gay couples is the crux of the argument.
So, with all this in mind, what exactly are you arguing against? If you accept gay "civil unions" then you accept gay "marriage". What's the difference? If this is a religious question, then how do you explain your acceptance of registry office, Hindu or Muslim marriages?
Oh, and by the way, are you purposefully avoiding your great debate with Jazzns?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 5:19 AM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 93 of 168 (365105)
11-21-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
11-21-2006 5:19 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Holmes writes:
The use of marriage to cover same-sex unions is NEW. It is RECENT. It is NONTRADITIONAL. And furthermore it isn't even accepted across the globe or the US.
So what? The term "gay" used to mean "joyous" after all. Meanings, like culture, change with the times.
Holmes writes:
Ahem. If they are entirely equivalent in legal terms then how can using them be a denial of legal status to gay couples?
You misread what I was trying to say. I didn't say civil unions were a denial of rights, I said the the denial of legal rights is the most pressing issue for homosexual couples.
In the U.S. the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) attempted to prevent the judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other "unmarried" persons. In 20 states even civil unions are disallowed.
Holmes writes:
For those that allow for legal unions, this is an issue of preserving a concept as it is, not necessarily a denial of others the same right.
Exactly - that's my point! The difference in practice lies only in the use of a single word/concept. However, if one accepts gay civil unions then one, in legal and practical terms, also accepts gay marriage. As I asked NJ, what's the difference?
The only conclusion that I can come to is that the difference lies in the religious connotations held by some with regard to the term "marriage". This gets us down the the REAL cause of the argument, most especially when one considers the fact that many Christians in the US believe that legal rights must flow from their own doctrines.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 5:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 9:13 AM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 96 of 168 (365121)
11-21-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Silent H
11-21-2006 9:13 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Holmes writes:
Yes, then I did get you right in that aspect. I simply turned the question around. If they are equal, there is no difference, then why can't gays accept civil unions instead of marriages?
Ah, fair enough. Well, I suppose that most would be more than happy with civil unions. This being denied in some states.
Holmes writes:
However I see the point that it is largely being argued by religious people in the US and many appeal to religious tradition. If that IS the case, that's when I argue we shouldn't be engaged in granting marriages in the first place.
Heh. It is strange how loaded term is for some sections of the community. Here in the UK the last two "marriages" (which is how everyone involved referred to them) I attended were held in registry offices! They were non-religious heterosexual civil ceremonies with many of the visual elements derived from traditonal weddings (white gown for the bride, etc). Ask either participant and they will certainly tell you that they consider themselves "married".
Holmes writes:
BUT... there certainly IS precedent for the gov't validating wholly religious labels. Should anyone be free to label their goods as "kosher", demanding that Jewish concepts should not be enforced on anyone wanting to use that term on foods being sold?
Maybe, but words do have the slippery habit of developing new associations. Here in London the term "kosher" also means "genuine". Indeed this slang meaning is probably more widely understood! Legislating for the sake of a word seems fruitless at best....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 9:13 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:19 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 100 of 168 (365142)
11-21-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
[deleted]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 101 of 168 (365145)
11-21-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nj writes:
I am of the belief that no man, woman, or child can choose their race or their gender. I feel differnetly about their sexual preference.
So when did you "decide" you were attracted to women? Or, like Haggard perhaps, do you "choose" a female partner for the sake of your Christian morals?
nj writes:
Apparently, there are homosexuals who view their lifestyle as a choice and not some innate sexual preference that dictates the outcome.
Tell me, do you think Haggard's "choice" was a lifestyle choice? Seems to me that he tried to be heterosexual and couldn't carry it off....
Also, as homosexuality is just a choice and all, am I right to assume that you'd happily become sexually aroused riding another guy if you "decided" to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 109 of 168 (365172)
11-21-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Answers?
Hi NJ,
Message 101 awaits your attention (as does your great debate with Jazzns).
When did you "decide" you were attracted to women?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:41 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 110 of 168 (365176)
11-21-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
11-21-2006 1:19 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Holmes writes:
Marriage was to identify a specific kind of union.
Was. The defintion has since broadened in many communities. For better or worse there's little anyone can do about this.
But words aside, I feel that the fuss over the term "marriage" is a smokescreen designed to obscure the purely religous motives of those who feel homosexuality is immoral/unnatural and as such should in no way be condoned even by secular law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:19 PM Silent H has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 118 of 168 (365299)
11-22-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Answers?
nj writes:
I already shared with another member that I'm going to leave this thread alone for the sake of being inoffensive.
And not for the sake of avoiding questions you'd rather not tackle, I assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 119 of 168 (365300)
11-22-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by nator
11-21-2006 6:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
To NJ Schraf writes:
So, when did you choose to be sexually attracted to women and not men?
Hi Schraf,
I already tried this back in Message 101! NJ danced away into the night without a response....
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:52 PM nator has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 138 of 168 (365539)
11-23-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 1:03 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:
I can't exactly identify the moment of attraction for members of the opposite sex. It was a slow progression. I was pretty young though.
It's no different for gay people.
NJ writes:
Having desire for members of the same sex is the same as having a sexual desire for members of the opposite sex.
You've backtracked here, so I assume you concede my point as far a attraction is concerned.
NJ writes:
It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand?
No. This analogy is utterly flawed because you've introduced a third party. How can adultery be equated with the behaviour of two consenting people? Furthermore, do you not think that a man in a long term relationship with another man would be upset if his partner played away?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 139 of 168 (365540)
11-23-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 9:09 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:
Alright then. For the sake of the argument, suppose they aren't married. Suppose a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is disrupted when the boyfriend decides to cheat on his girlfriend with one of her friends. There is nothing illegal about that, but we might be all in agreement that its messed up to cheat on your significant other with one of her friends.
This makes no sense at all! What on earth does this have to do with homosexuality? How does homosexuality equate to adultery?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 144 of 168 (365594)
11-23-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 11:11 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:
NAMbLA makes the argument that they are just loving the children and feel that sexuality is just an expression of love. I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it.
So, as there are heterosexual paedophiles should heterosexual sex be outlawed? Of course not. Such an argument makes no sense, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Therefore all arguments on this subject should be limited to the dicussion of relationships between consenting adults.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024