Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

I'm not sure why I decided to stop in today of all days, or why I happened to catch this last post in this thread. However, that I did, I for some reason feel compelled to reply.Before I start, I do agree that most gays will not buy into the traditional Xian (or abrahamic) position on homosexuality. Though any who do would not be short of company. Plenty of people practicing "sin" continue to go to church, sometimes precisely because they view their conduct as sinful. I'm sorry, but if this is where American "freedom" and "tolerance" are headed, then we are in sad shape. It is not hate speech to announce you dislike something or someone, nor even to advocate a political position about the definition of marriage.If this were true it would be hard to establish what wouldn't count as hate speech to someone. I think that's precisely why the founders put in the amendment on free speech and not establishing religious doctrine into law... it lets all forms of what you call "hate speech" flourish. What it truly is, is free speech... you just don't like it. Morality cannot be based on rational determinations. All moral action is based on subjective premises. You go on to almost realize that point yourself... You appear to be claiming authority on the ethics of atheists. I am an atheist and can tell you that you do not speak for me. My own system is subjective, totally. In fact, it holds no weight beyond myself. The difference between me and anyone believing their judgments hold beyond themselves, is that I'm a bit more intellectually honest on that point. What's funny is that may sound arrogant. Yet I am appealing to a concept that I do not know what is right for others, and fighting the concept that anyone else can say such things. Which is truly more arrogant? Human rights are based on an appeal to authority. In that case it is the authority of a state or states which enshrine a specific list of rights, they happen to call "human rights".You will find this is true whenever a right you happen to hold has been violated. If it is not recognized by such authorities, your claim is not considered about "human rights". Heck, many humans were not able to appeal to such lists of rights up until this last century, and had to fight for such recognition by the powers that be.You yourself may appeal to a so called "human right" as listed by a state, that many humans in fact do not agree with at all.Finally, you may find new "human rights" adopted as a way to proscribe your behavior, though it interferes with no other person's rights at all. In this you find how external that authority is, and artificial those rights are.Thus the concept of human rights is not only an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to a subjective authority. The Democratic State has become like a new monotheistic God, and human rights its new commandments.You next mention benefit/detriment to society. Who but authorities can you appeal to in such a case? Can anyone determine what action acts as a benefit or detriment to society?In fact, can't there be atheists who believe that homosexuality is a detriment to society? Given that it has been disliked in many cultures besides abrahamic ones, and in some states that are atheist in nature, you'd have a hard time arguing atheists couldn't.If you truly believe that morality is subjective, then you shouldn't have a problem with Xians appealing to God as an authority for their morality. The only problem you should have is whether their ethics hold for you. If it's not your God, then you don't have to believe that set of ethics. That does not, however, argue that they cannot. From your point of view, yes. And I might agree from my own perspective. But that does not invalidate iano's point. Internal to his system, such concepts may be consistent and fine. It really IS a moral system.Ironically I can take your own statement and apply it to much within the liberal and atheistic community. How much self-hatred and sexual suppression can you find there? Heavens, that's where traditional feminist theory runs rampant and I don't believe I've seen any worse self-hating and suppressive concepts than traditional feminism.But rather than run through a catalog, let's look at one single point in particular. Gays want to get married. What freethinking homosexual would feel the need to do that? Based on what? That is a case of a whole mass of people hating themselves and repressing their sexuality to fit within a traditional religious concept meant to bind nasty ol' sex. Ironically it was an institution which only pertained to heterosexuality, and now liberals are clamoring for that yoke as a right. Sheesh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Given your concessions the rest might not be on topic enough to stick with in this thread. I should note, I'm using your term "concession", but am not trying to make it sound like I beat you at anything. It is just that we agree on those points. Okay, that's good to hear. But in a way my point remains. If what you mentioned counts as hate speech, most speech pretty much would. For me that term should have a very restricted definition, if in fact it should be used at all. It seems to me a way to demonize an opponent, rather than address a position. Ah, this may be a differences in definition then. While it might be rational to formulate an ethic from subjective premises, when there are no absolute rules, the resulting ethic is not a rational determination. To my way of defining things anyway. They all must come down to wholly irrational foundations.On Human Rights. Empathy is not rational, neither is reciprocation. That is emotional, and there is no logical backing to any of it. Heck, even if it sounds good and lots of people say it, many do not follow it. That is why societies usually invest in police and military.The founders came up with that concept as a way to create a framework for forming laws. It was legal, not moral. If anything, when read in context it is more descriptive than normative. In the very document you quote, they detail that people may very well allow their so-called "rights" to be trampled, for sake of continuity. It would be rational to do so... according to them.You even concede the point that they are not universal in nature, then what exactly do you mean by Human Rights? And why could someone like Iano not claim that his are the actual set of Human Rights? That he base it on comments by God, rather than what you call reason and empathy (though your determinations may be equally disputed) seems to be very little difference logically speaking. The fact that you left out "our creator" when discussing the founders for "obvious reasons", only underlines my point.I think the conviction that morality can be rationally determined, lies at the heart of most problems related to bigotry. Once you claim it, so reasonably can Iano. Neither are rational, neither are superior. Your real question would be how long would a specific form of society last. It is possible for an anarchy to exist. As long as everyone isn't hot for each other's blood, why not? Even no laws against random murder could be in place. How long would such a murderer exist?But you ignored the weight of my point. If you say that benefits/detriments to society can be determined, I ask again how that would be done without an appeal to an authority of some kind?Defend homosexuality as not being harmful to society. Someone could make an obvious case that they are a very small minority and upset the vast majority. Thus it is less detrimental to society to allow their actions to be limited. Would that argument appeal to you? Quantitatively it might be true.Nazis could very well, and essentially did, appeal to your very arguments. The jews weren't really human and so did not deserve rights reserved for the rest of humanity, and anyway their presence did not benefit society. Their existence was a detriment, and their removal a great benefit.Are they human? Based on what appeal... is it to an authority? Do they cause problems, or add benefits? Based on what criteria? If they believe their God exists then it does involve reasoning to follow his statutes, just as much as it would to defy them. If you mean there is a lack of consistency in their application by some denominations, or that there is no reasoning being done to believe in that God... that's something else.Then again, Human Rights are the same fictional entity. They do not exist outside of what we recognize and take for ourselves, as if they exist. There ya go, proving my point about liberal oppression. Your example has not been demonstrated harmful by anyone, and has plenty of counter evidence. But rather than light that powder keg, how is homosexuality not demonstrably harmful? Particularly if you mean to society as a whole? It was shown to be such for many years. Its "harm" identification was changed based on a political movement, not by any change in evidence. Ironically, that puts it in the same category as your example. Masturbation went the same route.Most modern liberals are just as bigoted as hardcore Xians, and just as irrational. They just discriminate against one less sexual group. How is that not identical to some person wanting to be treated as a sinner, just like all the rest? (which you called ridiculous) I mean, why did heterosexuals get married? It is about sexual-repression. The institution of marriage itself means that those who choose to love and have sex without official sanction to another (singular) person, are considered less. Call me strange for not understanding how allowing homosexuals to alienate others, as "moral" heterosexuals do now under the law, makes for actual equality for anyone.p.s.-- I do support marriage laws for homosexuals. I see no reason why they shouldn't have that ability. I just don't see it as a right, much less something a freethinking homosexual should desire. It's a yoke we should leave to the religious.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thought of something else, perhaps more pointed. You say this... And yet... Most modern liberal groups, including gay rights orgs, run hand in hand with the hardcore Xians in denouncing polygamy, and most certainly polygamous marriage. It is routinely touted as some offensive degradation of women (though obviously a woman could also have more than one husband under the same scheme), and not a "traditional" concept of marriage.Truly, one of the most irritating spectacles to me are gay rights advocates who argue that homosexuals have nothing in common with polygamists (rights wise) and that homosexual marriage would not lead to giving polygamists the right to such arrangements. They simply want to remove the rule of "opposite sex", arguing that tradition is not important and marriage can be viewed as legitimate without that rule. Yet demand that "one person" is an important rule and tradition should be maintained on that score.Feh.Edited by Silent H, : is/are

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Just to let you know, I'm not saying all gay rights activists or liberals do the things I am discussing. After all I'd consider myself a g.r.a. and most would call me liberal (with regard to social issues), and I CERTAINLY support polygamy (relationships and marriage). These are all hazy compartmentalizations. In other words I'm not labeling anyone in particular, just describing the majority (as I have experienced). I agree that homosexuality itself has no physical similarities to polygamy, except as any within the latter have homosexual sex. Homosexuality does not denote a mental state of monogamous or polygamous, though there is A LOT of polygamous sexuality within the homosexual community.That said, I still have problems thinking either group is being denied a basic human right, in not being able to be married. Marriage itself is a form of caste-creation, based on religious traditions, which denies rights to those who are not "marriage-ists". I think it is a human right to be able to form relationships as you will. But gays have that ability at this point... even polygamists do to a large extent.If we are going to legally sanctify this religious concept, then gays should not be blocked (and neither should any other group) from having similar institutions. But a right? If we want to discuss rights, it ought to be about ending marriage altogether. Heheheh, exactly. I do find it ironic when the same GRAs appealing to racial rights to support their quest, announce that such appeals end with them. No other group currently reviled can make such appeals in the future. Then some racial rights orgs turn around and denounce gays, saying their own fight should have marked the end of the march for freedom.My personal feeling is that some GRAs understand their fallacy, but don't want to scare the majority and so not get their rights. For the RRAs, they already have it so they don't want to lose what they have. Wow, I never saw anything like that. The most I've seen are arguments that all other sexual minorities would also have to get a shot: incestuous, polygamous, intergenerational, and perhaps bestial.Who said murder and rape? I thought Scalia's rant was a hoot, but that oughta be a fun read.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I did not make myself clear enough. I understand that marriage is a secular institution now. I did not say otherwise. When I mentioned religion it was to point out that it is an institution based on religious tradition.It is an anachronism at this point in time. If anyone wants to get married they sure can, and should do so if that makes them happy.HOWEVER, the system of granting special recognition to those who go through ceremonies (civil or other), that some people would be opposed to going through, is inherently a system of prejudice.That is why I don't see this as a rights issue. Removing marriage altogether (reducing it to merely a social function) would be the only way to do that. What logical reason would you need the state to sanctify relationships for? If there is no need, let it go.Obviously I know that won't happen. People are too stuck on their traditions and biases... ridiculous as they may be. So yeah if we are going to have marriages, why not gays? Or anyone else? Who really cares? I honestly never saw Xians do this. I'm wondering if you have a link to someone doing that, as I think that would be interesting to read. I'm not challenging you (as if I doubt you), just interested.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You got hung up on a word and missed my point. Obtaining a license for legitimating a relationship (having it recognized by the state) is a civil ceremony.The problem is that the state should not be in the business of recognizing/legitimating relationships at all. It originally did this because state and religion were one, and in order to legally have sex people had to do such in the confines of religious marriage. In that time sex between unmarried heterosexual couples was deemed just as immoral, and equally as illegal as homosexual sex. There was a time when it was just as enforced.This is straight history and you can look it up.Partly because of this legal institution's existence (which created documents), and partly to encourage marriage as a practice, benefits were given to those who would seek recognition/legitimization.If we are going to take this issue seriously, then we ought to just remove the anachronism altogether. Why continue this odd bureaucratic appendix of a religious practice, especially when it does discriminate against those who choose not to partake in it? You do agree that those who refuse to do such a thing, are discriminated against, right?You can point to all the people crying because they want to do something that you want. That does not make the institution they want to take part in less discriminatory a practice should they get to do so, nor argue for its continuation by the state.Your analogy to the public school system is entirely flawed. That is an assistance to anyone's education. It creates a factual change in one's level of knowledge and ability.All marriage does is create an honorary position, without any factual change in properties by which to judge a relationship, and excludes those people in relationships who do not choose to seek religiously founded state recognition/legitimization. It is no longer necessary to be married to have sex, hence there is no more reason to have the state handing out such licenses... nor granting benefits to those who toe that pseudo-religious line.It is easy to understand what would happen without a public education system. There would be no real change if we disbanded state recognition of relationships. People could still get married, just as easily. Indeed I could very well argue they could more easily get married.Why could those crying to get married, not do so if we removed state sanction altogether? Isn't it that it is state sanctioned that they are having these problems in the first place?I get weepy for relationships. Public announcements/celebrations of one's happiness is also exciting (though perhaps hubristic and semi-nauseating to those not in the relationship). Getting a legal certificate for a relationship is going green blooded. Where is the sentiment in a contract? You said homosexual marriage, not homosexuality. I thought you were saying someone claimed such marriages were akin to, or would lead to, murder and rape. You are right that Xians lump all sin together. One is in sin or not. I'm not sure what your problem is with that concept, other than not agreeing with what their "sin rules" are.Despite not agreeing with their concepts, I can't say the system you described is "bullshit". Why can't someone hate something about a person (what they do), yet love the person?It seems to me that happens a lot in any long term relationship, especially marriages.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You are still not understanding my position. In fact you seemed to repeat some of my own statements back at me. I will try this one more time...Yes, the civil practice of marriage by the State is currently a secular institution (ie, secular tradition). It is no longer a factual license for sexual activity, as required under religious traditions. What remains are merely the emotional desires for marriage, based on traditional symbolism for relationships, and the benefits accorded those who follow that ritual/sanction. Those remnants are not necessary for the state, and I would argue discriminatory.As far as desire to be married goes, I have not said that marriage as an institution (secular or other) should be abolished, just that it should no longer be a function of the government. You have not explained why a person's desires for marriage could not be fulfilled by weddings not sanctioned by the state. Is such a desire about being with another person, or the array of bureaucrats and lawyers that come with legal contracts?It would seem to me that removing the gov't from the picture would not effect anyone's ability to have or celebrate a marriage. And as I have already explained it would also end the current structure which prevents certain groups (like gays) from getting married.Regarding benefits accorded those that follow tradition, the removal of them would end discrimination against those who choose not to follow tradition.Your public education analogy is bankrupt in that schools provide a specific service. Inequities of service based on regional distribution of funds, is not comparable to discriminating against people who choose not to follow cultural traditions which are prescribed by law... traditions that provide no service besides promoting a tradition.Your home school analogy was pointedly errant. Public education is a service provided for those that cannot home school. That some people can and do teach at home would not construct an argument to end it for everyone else who cannot. However, all people, anywhere, at any time, can get married. It is simply a tradition you make up. Or if its a legal contract you desire, go to your lawyer's office and draw one up.Let me give you two analogies in return...1) Let's say that in order to promote abstinence the Church rewarded girls with money, or some form of status, for proven virginity before their wedding. Then this became promoted by the State, with girls being tested on graduation (or before marriage), after which "pure" girls receive a certificate of purity, money, and some additional rights. After many years the religious significance of abstinence was lost, but it remained part of secular culture to show one's "specialness" over those who had not abstained. Wholly nonreligious girls couldn't wait to prove this thing, and get their reward.Gay marriage advocacy would be analogous to a section of girls arguing that if they can prove their hymen was broken from something other than sex, they should still receive their certificate of purity and legal benefits, or girls arguing that having been raped should not count against them, or boys arguing that such a title and benefits should be extended to them too... equal rights after all!!!While I might say, yeah okay I can see the arguments these people are making. I might even see them bawling their eyes out waiting to be called "pure", and feel sad for them. At the same time I see no argument that it is a right, nor that it should be continued. What I do see is that there are a section of girls (and boys) who feel their sexuality is no business of any government. That they do not care to be tested in such a way, even if they are virgins, and do not deserve the social recriminations of not bowing to such a tradition. In fact, it is much more a credible rights issue that the State no longer be involved in creating caste distinctions, and handing out rewards, to perpetuate that cultural tradition... no matter how popular.Removing the State's role in that institution would not end it. People could be tested for purity and get their certificates from the people they used to get them from originally. And what's more the controversy of all those other camps would be solved as they can set up their own churches, or secular orgs, which hand out same based on those other criteria. Win win win.2) In Nazi Germany many groups were targeted for persecution. Those who were of specific characteristics retained rights, the rest lost them. This was a purely secular activity, though it had roots in some religious uhmmm "traditions".In this case, gay marriage advocacy would be analogous to Poles, or indeed homosexuals, arguing that they should be treated equal as the rest of the "good" Germans. Let others such as Jews and Gypsies remain un-empowered, but let Poles and Gays join the ranks of true Nazis and help Germany thrive. Can't I see that they really would like that? To wear the uniform and serve the Fuhrer, honorably?Before you dismiss this as ludicrous, it essentially did occur. You could even find some Jews turning to work for Nazis.To my mind, the State should not have been involved in picking out "good" Germans at all. It was not an issue of equal rights, to broaden that category to a few more types. It was rather an issue of equal rights to remove such categorizing altogether.Perhaps this is more analogous, as it points up the obvious oddity that I see going on with gay marriage advocacy. What would (or did) Nazis make of inferior people making such requests? Ludicrous. They missed the whole point of the original definitions. Same goes for gays getting married. THE TRADITION of MARRIAGE, IS between opposite sexes. That really is the definition. Until now it has never been otherwise. And the major religious tradition of the US does not like homosexuality. So what on earth are these people asking to be made a part of?I just shake my head and think, okay if you really want to dress up and be a Nazi because it has become broadened, whatever floats your boat pal. But lets not pretend it is otherwise, and forget that it still leaves many other people out in the cold. Some are still not allowed to practice the tradition, and worse still people who refuse to take part in it are discriminated against by the State.You seem to only be concerned with some people's desires and tears. My solution allows those people you are talking about to have equality, and have their ceremonies. Your solution keeps the discrimination of those who do not honor an archaic tradition (albeit accepted by secularists after years of promotion).A bit preachy, but I'm going for the Moore provocateur angle.Edited by Silent H, : new subbie

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm going to save some time by pointing out the obvious. If you cannot answer this question yourself, then you have undercut any arguments gays have for discrimination based on not being allowed to get married.I believe you yourself recognized rights assigned to people in marriages in an earlier post.And indeed, if there are no benefits provided by that change in legal status, then that is even less reason to continue it as a legal procedure run by the State. Clearly we already cut out its original use, which was providing the ability to have legal sex. But more remain. If you don't believe this, you have reset your entire argument to zero, and need to rebuild.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The "other imperfect systems" you have mentioned deliver necessary products/services to the entire civil public.Marriage is not necessary at all. You have yet to mention any reason to have it, except that it is a cultural tradition many people like. Okay, so why would the state not operating it in any way end that tradition? It merely pulls the bureaucracy out of it, as well as ending perks for traditionalists. I totally agree that making a patchwork quilt of laws to try to support a tradition is possible. In fact I have already stated that I recognize that is the most likely approach people will take with respect to gay marriage, and support those efforts.I am simply not in the habit of dumbing down in order to create rationalizations for an archaic, outmoded, discriminatory practice that should never have been part of government in the first place.It is not a "right" gays are asking for. They are asking to be part of a traditional practice of discrimination related to relationships. Most freely admit if allowed, they will help enforce discrimination against the remaining groups... and institute new persecutions such as raising the age limit on existing marriage laws.I feel no pity for those types. I am not arguing from a theoretical absolute. I am talking about the practical, secular function of States as related to personal rights.As far as culture goes, I will repeat my point. Removing the state from that tradition, does not in any way mean the destruction of that tradition. And it will have the immediate effect of freeing every single person, granting complete equality on that score.Frankly I'd have more belief in your stated position (rights and culture), if you did not argue for gay marriage alone, but argued for equal rights altogether, fixing the marriage laws in one go.On culture in specific... if we were to base it in culture then there would be no gay marriage. Marriage, as a cultural artifact, is between members of the opposite sex. It has been such throughout all of history and cultures, including those where homosexuality was totally free. Moreover, the majority of the people in our nation (and the world) do not like the idea of gay marriage. Hence you are asking about a legal action to change culture, not uphold it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is patently false. Slavery was also a cultural tradition. There may have even been millions of slave holders. What difference would that make?The role of gov't, particularly the US gov't, is not to prop up traditions, particularly discriminatory ones. It is a practical instrument supposed to address public secular needs, not imitate a church. Find me those people, or advance their arguments. You have yet to suggest why pulling the State out of marriage would effect it one iota as a tradition. I have produced an argument that if it removed itself, all gays could get married. Am I wrong? Why?If you are married, how would you personally be effected by the removal of a State bureaucracy holding your records? Or giving you benefits? Would you love your spouse less? My point was that I would take your position more seriously (arguing from rights and culture) if you did not take it in a piecemeal, or patchwork fashion. Which is to say the fact that you say the reason you back gay marriage vocally is because it is most visible and most achievable is why I do not find your argument credible. And here then is the question you must address: how would removal of state control prevent everyone from being married as they wish? Wouldn't gays immediately be able to get married? If not, why not? This is my point, not yours. If we had removed the State, interracial marriages and homosexual marriages would BOTH have become possible at the same time. And as per your example, extending the benefits to interracial couples left many more still stranded. It answered nothing and now were having to face the same type of problem all over again.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You have just shifted the goal post. I fully agree that marriage is deeply rooted in our culture. You said some claim that state sanctioning of marriage is the "deepest root of our tradition".I would point out that people get married when state sanction is not available, perhaps not ever. It is the act which is important, not the legislation. The problem right now is that because there ARE marriage laws, and they are restricted, some people's marriages are not treated the same as other people's marriages by the state. The disenfranchised want equality on that basis. But in doing so, the fact that others are also left disenfranchised, is ignored.Remember this argument started about rights. You keep trying to bring it back to what we are most likely to do, or what we likely should do based on the desire most people have. I have already given that it is unlikely state's will remove themselves from marriage, and that if the laws are going to be kept one of the most logical fixes would be to amend the laws.None of your arguments show that gay marriage is about rights, rather it is just a practical solution if we decide to keep an impractical state practice. And when you argue for practical reasons other groups can wait, everyone opposed to gay marriage can say that about gays now. It would not effect anyone else either. Unless you want to make that argument. That people might like or prefer something else, does not indicate anyone's relationships have actually been effected. I can't stress how wrong you are on this point. I disagree with you because of the above. I do not find your argument credible, because of its formulation. While you advance strong language regarding why gays should be allowed to marry, the actual premises do not support your language.If you stuck to the wholly practical argument you have also advanced, I'd just disagree (in theory), but would find it credible. In other words it has nothing to do with rights, or supporting an important cultural institution. It is about trying to change the cultural institution, via State laws designed to promote that institution. Since most do not want to remove State control, the practical answer is to expand its mechanisms in some way such that gays have an identical State promotion of their version of that same institution. Again, this falls to the virgin and Nazi reductios. Yeah, it can be kept and broadened, but it is a bit silly (and somewhat delusional). I am single, I have been oppressed. But to your point above, I once again point out your inconsistency. If people who choose not to participate have no ground to feel oppressed, than neither do gays who simply don't fill the traditional criteria for marriage and so cannot participate.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

When I said the goal post had been shifted I was referring to the claim, not the amount of people ascribed to be making it. You had shifted from state sanctioning of marriage being the deepest root of our tradition, to simply that marriage itself was a deeply rooted tradition in our culture.I do not believe that the legal aspects of marriage are the deepest root of our traditions. If you (or anyone else) wants to make such a claim, I'd like to see the argument unpacked. Yes, apparently we will need to do this, if you are going to argue the credibility of your claim gay marriage has anything to do with defending equal rights, or human rights.As far as your lack of knowledge of polygamists asking to have their marriages allowed, that would simply be a matter of ignorance on your part, or perhaps one might suggest a conspiracy of lack of press supporting that movement. Polygamy has existed in the world as long as people have been around, polygamous marriage since the advent of marriages. Within the US, polygamists have been fighting for the right since the 1800s (perhaps longer). They were chased across the US at the point of cannon.Right now the only solid group of poly-ists is generally in the western US. They have been engaging in "illegal" polygamous marriages, while hoping the gov't will eventually recognize them. With not just a little irony, when this came up at EvC some years back, gay marriage supporters criticized these people for breaking the law. This was in part to discredit them, holding gays up as the positive counterexample. Yet when gays more recently decided to do the exact same thing I asked the gay marriage crowd who had lambasted the polyists what they had to say about that... Dead silence. Yeah, and that said everything.I'm sorry, polygamists have been asking for that right longer than gays. They not only exist within the US, but many outside the US seeking to come in have also been disenfranchised on that score. There are more such marriages in the world, than gay marriages.So your argument falls flat. Or rather, conservatives could just as easily say they don't know of many gays that really want to get married. If you can do it, so can they. I freely apologize for the misunderstanding on that point. I didn't get what you meant by oppressed. You are right I have no similarity to a slave.I would say that neither do gays have any similarity to such, if we are discussing gay marriage.I think we can come to a conclusion on some points so we don't have to keep repeating them. You have conceded the logical argument to me, I have conceded the practical argument to you, regarding what the State ought to do or will likely do regarding marriage.I think my only deviation with your practical argument, is to state that there are further options available. We could make all State recognitions of relationships "civil unions", after which people may then have their own ceremonies under whatever they want to call them. Before you jump on that option, I'd note that some nations already do that and have done that for a very long time. I'm not sure what generated the distinction, but my guess might be bigotry between different religious groups. Like Catholics didn't want to recognize Protestant marriages and vice versa, so the nations said okay the state will have a neutral secular service, after which people may do as they please. Just throwing that out there.I think our only remaining point of contention is my statement that I don't find your position credible when you argue that gay marriage is an issue of rights, or that it is protecting (or continuing) a cultural tradition. Those claims do not have a factual basis, and your limited focus (i.e. gays) seems to undercut them. I totally get that you are open to others, but as the call for change is not coming as one package, limited only to the group you say exists in any real numbers... that seems convenient and not credible.Oh yes, I will also dispute your position that I am being green blooded on this. Logic might be "cold", but I am arguing to keep lawyers and legalisms out of marriage. That means my logic acts to strain out much greater logical intrusions into the practice of marriage. Hence my position is a bit more red-blooded... and hot blooded!For clarity, according to my position, people wishing to get married at most need some rings (if that). According to yours, they need a the emotionally desirable items known as "legal contracts". When people want to break up, in my system they need only toss the rings aside in a fit of anger (perhaps at each other), in yours they need to get some attorneys and a judge so as to ask permission of the State.If yours is not the green-blooded position, I don't know what is. That people have gotten used to such a cold system, to the extent they might prefer it because they don't like change, does not argue my system would be green-blooded. Change happens all the time. You are calling for change. If change is going to happen, and some people are going to be upset anyway, my change makes more people free and removes the green-blooded vultures who have long preyed on that institution.Edited by Silent H, : addition for clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hahaha... well if you do, it will be for nearly the same reason. It appears you answered line by line, and then ignored what I said later which would have undercut most of your angry response. Or maybe you simply missed my later comment. Whichever. Take a deep breath and lets do this a step at a time (it may be out of order).Although you did not respond, I hope that I was correct in my statement that we are in agreement that I have the logical ground, and you have the practical ground.If so then the only contention is about whether the logical position is green-blooded with regard to marriage, and whether I find your position's statements tacking rights and culture onto the gay marriage issue credible.We'll start with the easier of the two, my Vulcanism... Not only does your argument avoid addressing my argument, it is merely an assertion leading to a personal insult.All I did was explain how the logical position was not "Vulcan" in the sense that it was unfeeling. I argued that the practical solution entailed more intrusions of both cold-unfeeling logic and mechanisms into the actual practice of marriage. That the logical position might be practically impossible, does not effect the analysis of which solution is more "Vulcan" towards marriage enthusiasts.As it is I wasn't making the argument that the less "Vulcan" solution is the better choice, and so the one that should be chosen. That appeared to be your position and argument, not mine. All I did was undercut your claim regarding which was more unfeeling.On the assertion of impossibility... why is it impossible? That many people might not want to do it does not make something impossible. Your argument is in fact the tactic for no change, not mine.Remember my position and argument is that the logical solution is better and ought to be done, however the practical reality is that so many people are wound up with preventing change (and instituting actual human rights) that it likely will remain (people will not do anything) and the most that will happen is that some amendments are made to entitle another group. In other words, I agree that if we aren't going to do anything real, the next best step is to make those amendments.I do support gay rights in general, and gay marriage in specific. I just don't rely on hyperbolic commentary to advance the position. My main pressing point to you would be to remove the hyperbolic portions and stick with the practical stuff.Now for the credibility problem... I'm not sure how this gets measured. There doesn't need to be a worldwide movement for polygamy because it is accepted in much of the world. Quite the opposite, there are many movements to crush the practice of polygamy worldwide. It is usually advanced as a form of cruelty to women.And while there are people clamoring for such rights, it has no real friends in the western world and media. It does not get equal airplay, nor the same treatment as gay rights.Yet for the relatively small proportion of gays that exist, as well as the small percentage of people supporting gays in general, there is a huge amount of activity to boost their cause. Public activity. Does that make it a huge movement? Bigger than polygamy which has many more nations which accept it than gay marriage? That may even have more people seeking it in the US than gay marriage?Its like when people believe that a horrific crime wave is sweeping the nation because of all the crime they keep hearing about on the television. Publicity =/= reality.Gay rights is a more popular movement right now. That is all.I might add that none of your arguments explain why they cannot be added at the same time with gays and that we simply make this an equal marriage rights amendment. Why must it be one group at a time?And this is where we get to the crux of credibility. If you can recognize that other groups exist which ought to be added, what difference does it make if their movement is not large enough? Why couldn't the gay movement tack the other people on with themselves? If they are going to appeal to their movement as being something involving rights, then they ought to be roping in everyone else they find in the same boat. Otherwise it is hypocrisy.The only possible counter would be to say that they fear bringing that other group on would weaken their chances. But if that were true, then what kind of movement do they actually have? How big could it possibly be? And, indeed why couldn't other people make the argument that the gay movement just isn't big enough (relatively), and trying to bring gays in would weaken the rights of other groups (like say black orgs who actually HAVE used this argument against gay rights)? Well that is a tired argument. No, actually they have been persecuted for just plain being polygamous. Your denial of this is either from strict ignorance, or convenience. What is happening is that the recent hysteria about child sexuality has allowed people to link the two practices together, because SOME polygamists have married girls that are young. Its called guilt by association.Indeed, even here you introduce a nice bit of bigotry. They got the young wives to replace the older ones? Based on what knowledge is that? Have you ever studied polygamists in the US? Hmmmm. The fact is in the groups where young girls are married, they might not be the last wives in and later ones much older than the younger ones. But I guess its easy to make O'Reilly-ish claims, while blasting me with that label.This exact kind of maneuver has been used against gays and is still being used against gays. Okay, yes, you are clearly a hypocrite. Of course, on top of that you are also wrong. I wrote a long piece explaining my position, but will cut it down to this...I do not "support having sex with children". Quite opposite from your idea, I 100% support parents who seek to prevent their children from having sex. I think they have that right and the laws should be on their side. What I do support, and you might not like, is changing current laws regarding Age of Consent, because they are useless, counter-factual, arbitrary anachronisms from the same progressive movement that gave us the laws and practices related to: prohibition, anti-masturbation, anti-homosexuality, and anti-women's orgasm.The most you can argue is that I do not believe it is inherently harmful, and that I don't believe all kinds of such activity should be prosecuted by the State using the mechanisms we have today. To call that "supporting" it, is like saying I support drug use because I claim most drugs do not have the adverse effects most people claim they have, and should not be prosecuted as we do today. In fact, I don't use drugs and tend to dismiss them as a waste of time, not to mention some having pretty bad side effects (even if not as bad as claimed). I'm actually quite un-supportive of drug use.Against stupid laws and bad information =/= support for any specific activity addressed by such laws and bad information. Do you get the picture now? You are simply picking and choosing. What more does one have to do to add polygamy as a possibility under marriage law, if one is having to alter them for gays anyway?If we were discussing laws, or legal actions, regarding genocide and I ignored Cambodia, yet address it in say Europe or the US (near where I live), then you would have a right to question whether my arguments were really about genocide, or about a specific group. That would be particularly so if it was pointed out how if we were to institute change it could just as easily be done for Cambodia at the same time as addressing the case I am advocating.I hope there won't be more name-calling and insinuations that I am undercutting gay rights or gay marriage by making my arguments against your position. I think I make them stronger by cutting out the use less portions that are not only logically flawed, but unfair to others, and worse still easily spotted by opponents of gay rights and marriage. Many gay rights activists operate in an echo chamber, and then don't understand why their "compelling" arguments aren't winning over as many people as they'd like. Internal critique is healthy, not detrimental.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

How would you know? Are you claiming there is no situation iano could enter where something iano practices (or is) is reviled and persecuted?Minorities are all relative to where one is. And despite being a persecuted minority, I have never believe the BS line that other people "cannot understand prejudice I face". Whether they do right at this moment is one thing, whether they will make the effort to do so is another, and whether they can at all is another still. Is there anything that you find wrong that other people might not? Does that make speaking your opinion a message of hate?Despite disagreeing with iano's metaphysics and ethics 100%, all iano is doing is describing that system of metaphysics and ethics, and no singular system is likely to leave some group unjudged in some way. This is particularly true for ethical systems that maintain "right" and "wrong" judgments.My guess is that you find certain things "wrong" or "sinful". If so, the only difference between you two are your metaphysics and resultant ethical rules... and there is no way to really judge between them except personal preference. Heheheh... nothing like hypocrisy in action.Why can't people just say they don't agree with and so do not accept iano's labels as real? And more important for the context of rights, argue that religious systems have no place in the legal system?There is no need to bash iano so personally to make your case. It is the personalization by both sides which makes it harder to come to rational/practical solutions.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I don't wish to start a debate with you, but I would like to understand what you are trying to say to iano. Currently you seem to be talking past him.I understand an idea that only God can judge, or determine what is a sin or who is truly being a sinner. I also understand how people are not supposed to be taking on that role.However, iano seems to be making a valid point that there is a difference between judging others, or what should be a sin, and noting that according to God's rule book X is a sin. Hence if someone is doing X and God's rulebook says it is a sin, iano would not be judging someone who openly claims to be doing X, by pointing out they are committing a sin.The Bible is pretty clear in its statements of what is right and wrong, and it tells adherents they must practice these rules, remind others of them, and in some cases act against those who violate the rules. While iano should refrain from acting as God, telling others what God does think of them, or what will happen to them, what is incorrect in iano stating that according to God's rule book X is a sin, and if they want to follow Xianity, they need to keep that in mind?Again, you don't have to debate me on this. I'm more or less asking for a clarification of your position.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard