|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
So your example doesn't endorse polygamy but it does endorse slavery.
I thought my point was that by being returned to Sarai and not to Abram she was NOT treated as his wife.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024