Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 616 of 759 (702989)
07-13-2013 11:58 AM


You guys ought to take your bible study to a thread on bible studying. Gay marriage has fuck all to do with antiquated stories found in 2000 year old books, nor does it have fuck all to do with polygamy. Perhaps you could start a thread called "reasons why my version of christianity is bigoted" or some such.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-14-2013 6:23 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 617 of 759 (702990)
07-13-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 612 by Faith
07-13-2013 11:00 AM


Re: Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
Faith writes:
He always treats her with respect as his wife.
Faith writes:
we don't know for sure whether Hagar went back as Abraham's wife but her not having more children is a good sign she may not have
Do you not see the contradiction here?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:18 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 618 of 759 (702997)
07-13-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by NoNukes
07-13-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
What contradiction? Abraham didn't choose Hagar, Sarah gave her to him. The chances are she didn't go back as his wife but scripture doesn't say. If she did it would have been a duty of Abraham's to be a husband to her, but clearly his allegiance was always to Sarah. I think the fact that she had no more children is a very good sign she only went back as Sarah's maid. What's your problem?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2013 6:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 619 of 759 (703063)
07-14-2013 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by hooah212002
07-13-2013 11:58 AM


Attempt went far afield...
Yeah, at this point it is obvious that the attempt I was making to show Faith that her argument against gay marriage is not based on history but rather on Biblical reasons, therefore it should have no place in the laws of the United States, has failed.
That was the entire purpose of bringing up the history of polygamy, because it has a more widespread history than one man/one woman. I figure if a law can only be defended with biblical reasoning, it should be removed from society. This would mean that same sex marriage should be accepted everywere, because in the end, the only argument against it is religious.
This is why I attempted this method. However, my apologies that it has gone far afield of that goal.
At this point anyone reading this thread understands that Faith is basing her argument and condemnation of an entire class of people on her religious views and that history does not support the idea of one man/one woman as the preeminent form of marriage that has been practiced. Hopefully, those who understand this can see that it is merely religiously motivated bigotry and an unwillingness to not force religious ideals into politics that treats individuals as pariahs. If we want to have freedom of religion, than the shoe must go on the other foot. Religious bias is not a reason to demote other human beings and marriage equality simply is reasonable, logical, and right. I know Faith says she does not hate homosexuals, and I believe she means that. The church has confused its patrons with the use of "Love the sinner, hate the sin.", but the thing is sins to one, may not be sins to another. Laws should not be based on sins, although they may conincide at times.
Otherwise, I submit to the law, I picked up a stick yesterday...

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by hooah212002, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:30 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 620 of 759 (703064)
07-14-2013 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 619 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-14-2013 6:23 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Where did you actually prove that the argument is not based on history? I don't recall you succeeding at that either, seems to me the evidence was about "same sex unions," which are not the problem, and proved nothing at all about official state-sanctioned marriage beyond suggesting that there might have been a scanty few of them somewhere or other sometime or other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-14-2013 6:23 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-15-2013 1:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 627 by Taq, posted 08-14-2013 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 621 of 759 (703066)
07-14-2013 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Faith
07-13-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
I wrote a long post in which I agreed with you that Hagar did not return as Abrams wife. However delivering Hagar into Sarai tender mercies was not treating her like a wife in any way. What's your problem?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 8:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 622 of 759 (703067)
07-14-2013 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by NoNukes
07-14-2013 6:50 PM


Re: Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
However delivering Hagar into Sarai tender mercies was not treating her like a wife in any way. What's your problem?
Where did I say she was treated like a wife? I thought my point was that by being returned to Sarai and not to Abram she was NOT treated as his wife. So we agree about that too don't we?
AbE: With regard to Sarai's "tender mercies" by which you apparently mean to imply she would continue to mistreat her, there is no reason to think so. Hagar had had an encounter with God in the desert and no doubt came back meek and repentant. Sarah's reason for dealing severely with her before was that she had despised her for her infertility. If Hagar refrained from that behavior, there is every reason to suppose that Sarai resumed her earlier fair treatment of her as her maid.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2013 6:50 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by ringo, posted 07-15-2013 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 623 of 759 (703096)
07-15-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 622 by Faith
07-14-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
Faith writes:
I thought my point was that by being returned to Sarai and not to Abram she was NOT treated as his wife.
So your example doesn't endorse polygamy but it does endorse slavery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 8:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(2)
Message 624 of 759 (703097)
07-15-2013 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Faith
07-14-2013 6:30 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Faith writes:
Where did you actually prove that the argument is not based on history?
So, you are defending polygamous relationships? Because they fit neatly within the historical definition of marriage. This is my point, you are removing portions of history and then claiming that you are arguing for a definition of marriage based solely on history. Sorry, it does not work that way. If you want to claim historical arguments against allowing same sex couples to be wed, then you also need to defend the historical definition of marriage as it has been practiced, all throughout history.
As for the few same sex marriages that have occurred, this was a discussion with someone else. My argument is that you claim history so it appears that you have an argument based on secular reasoning against same sex marriage. However, when history is shown to favor multiple wives you fall back on your religious arguments against homosexuality. This shows that your entire premise is predicated upon by your religious views and therefore your opinion should be invalid when discussing legislation, which is required to remove religious reasoning from the discussion.
You have no good historical argument against same sex marriage without defending polygamy at the same time. Those of us who are looking at history see that there has been a constant redefinition of the word marriage throughout history, and allowing same sex couples the same freedoms as everyone else is simply another redefinition. More importantly, it is a redefinition that removes bigotry from our society and allows homosexual couples to no longer be treated as second class citizens who are not allowed to be with the one they love.
So, please one more time....How on Earth is your argument against same sex marriage based on the historical view of marriage that has occurred throughout history rather than the Iron Age text you bought into way too much?

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 625 of 759 (703309)
07-18-2013 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2013 12:36 AM


I can think of exceptions. For example, consider the time popularly known as "now" and the societies of Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, France, Uruguay, New Zealand ...
And now the UK.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 626 of 759 (704712)
08-14-2013 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 11:58 AM


Pentagon to give military benefits to all married service people.
Will the changes to DOMA take effect toward the individuals who receive a same sex civil union in the city of Bisbee or will the Federal Government rely upon the laws of the State of Arizona to determine whether or not to pay federal benefits to those with same sex civil unions?
Looks like, for now at least, the executive branch is taking the lead on addressing this question.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...o-same-sex-military-spouses
"Pentagon extends benefits to same-sex military spouses"
quote:
The Pentagon on Wednesday announced it would extend federal benefits to same-sex spouses of military personnel and civilian defense employees, following up on a Supreme Court decision that overturned a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The benefits will be available to all legally married spouses regardless of sexual orientation beginning no later than Sept. 3, according to a Defense Department announcement.
Looks like showing a legal marriage license is enough to get benefits. But look at what the Washington Post says the Pentagon had planned to do before the SC decision (emphasis added by me):
quote:
Before the Supreme Court decision this year, the Defense Department had planned to allow same-sex spouses and domestic partners to sign a relationship declaration in order to receive limited benefits such as access to commissaries and certain health programs.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 11:58 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(8)
Message 627 of 759 (704713)
08-14-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Faith
07-14-2013 6:30 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Where did you actually prove that the argument is not based on history?
Why does history even matter? Why do we have to do something a certain way just because we have always done it that way? If we are going to use the history argument, then we wouldn't have democracies or modern western culture at all.
So why can't we change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by Rahvin, posted 08-14-2013 5:55 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 628 of 759 (704714)
08-14-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by Taq
08-14-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Why does history even matter? Why do we have to do something a certain way just because we have always done it that way? If we are going to use the history argument, then we wouldn't have democracies or modern western culture at all.
So why can't we change?
Indeed - not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change. If we are afraid to do differently from those who came before us, we condemn ourselves to never do better.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Taq, posted 08-14-2013 5:44 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by xongsmith, posted 08-14-2013 11:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 629 of 759 (704722)
08-14-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Rahvin
08-14-2013 5:55 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Rahvin puts it succinctly:
Indeed - not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change. If we are afraid to do differently from those who came before us, we condemn ourselves to never do better.
This of course also resonates with the old adage that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it - alas infamously recalled in the wrong way by Reverend Jim Jones. Now, that was different - but most definitely NOT an improvement.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Rahvin, posted 08-14-2013 5:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 630 of 759 (714249)
12-20-2013 8:35 PM


Utah
So, more gay marriage. You can read the judge's decision here.
One amusing bit:
At oral argument, the State attempted to distinguish post-menopausal women from gay men and lesbians by arguing that older women were more likely to find themselves in the position of caring for a grandchild or other relative.
You can almost imagine the scene at Homophobe HQ:
A: We need a reason to ban gay marriage.
B: Er ... we hate fags?
A: No, no, no.
B: No?
A: Well yes, of course, but we don't say that in public.
B: Ah, you mean a reason we can tell a judge.
A: Yes.
B: Silly of me, for a moment there I thought you meant the real reason.
A: No, just something to give a veneer of rationality to our pointless hatred.
B: Ooh, I know. How about only straight couples can have children?
A: Is that an important difference?
B: It's a difference.
A: But ... wouldn't we then logically have to be against post-menopausal women being allowed to marry?
B: Since when did we give a damn about logic?
A: Er ...
B: As I recall, we burned Logic in effigy at the last company picnic.
A: Yes, yes ...
B: You said it would make a nice change from the Bill of Rights.
A: Yes, yes, but once again we have to look logical. For the judge.
B: Well ... a post-menopausal woman can have grandchildren, right?
A: Yes ... go on.
B: And sometimes she might babysit them.
A: Yes ... ?
B: And grandchildren can be a bit of a handful, so she'd need to marry a man to help her.
A: And not a woman, because ---
B: Because anyone who's ever got pregnant is completely 100% heterosexual.
A: Ah, good.
B: Todd Aiken has some interesting data on that subject.
A: Right. Another question ...
B: What now?
A: Well, what if the post-menopausal woman doesn't have grandchildren?
B: True ... but she's more likely to if she's not a lesbian.
A: Ah, but playing devil's advocate here, lesbians can have nephews and nieces and such, some of whom might need babysitting.
B: They're not grandchildren. I think we have to focus on grandchildren rather than the babysitting.
A: Ok. So, where are we now, what's our argument?
B: Well. Marriage is either a sacred bond between a man and a woman ordained for the procreation of children, or, alternatively, it's a sacred bond between a man and a woman, but not two women, ordained for babysitting a heterosexual woman's statistically probable grandchildren, but not her nephews or nieces.
A: So we're going to ask the judge to uphold the ban on gay marriage because ...
B: Because the statistically probable grandchildren of heterosexual women need step-grandfathers to help with the babysitting!
A: Excellent. No judge could argue with the logic of that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2013 12:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 632 by subbie, posted 12-21-2013 1:15 AM Dr Adequate 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