Political protests are always a little more fun when the protesters are a little more fabulous. Yesterday's vote to put a gay marriage ban in North Carolina's constitution was a depressing setback, only to be followed by today's far more encouraging, long-awaited support for same-sex marriage by President Obama. The writing appears to be on the wall for opponents of marriage equality. That's a little bittersweet, since the writing on these pro-gay marriage protest signs is entertaining enough that we're definitely going to miss them when the battle is finally over nationwide.
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
-
Vanessa | yesterday flag |
My boyfriend is a bible expert, so let me clear some things up, in the old testament God looks on men with men as an abomination,, not a sin. Elsewhere in the bible Jesus explains to a disciple that there will be people who are "different", if he wasn't asleep I'd ask which chapter and verse that is in. The admonition against homosexuality is included in old Mosaic law, a guideline for Jewish people to help them navigate the times. I would venture to guess no anti gay marriage advocate who throws the Leviticus passage around as proof to disallow gay marriage (which you can't do in secular society anyway, which is what we are, and we are a republic, so majority doesn't rule),lives by the other tenets of these laws, wouldn't even consider following them. Therefore, quit being a hypocrite and throwing this around. As for a slippery slope argument, yes it is a logical fallacy, look it up. This argument is stupid and juvenile at best. Quit using it.
-
newblogger | 05/24/2012 flag |
I'm not gay and I support gay marriage. Who seriously cares. People, if you don't support it, I think you are ridiculous and don't deserve to be married or get married yourself.
-
Brian | 05/24/2012 flag |
@Albert "I have not been insulting to you." Yes, you have. If I told you that anyone who opposes equality should not be allowed to marry, let alone raise kids, because parenting should be left to people who can raise healthy kids, you'd be insulted. That's what you're telling me when you say that I shouldn't be allowed to marry because it'll destroy society. But, being an INTP, I've been willing to hear why you believe that. I've heard why you believe that. It is so poorly thought out, internally inconsistent, and full of illogic, that I'd be embarrassed to lay claim to that train of thought if I were you. "in Canada right in front us today is something that is possible to occur here in the USA if we allow marriage to be redefined" And what would that be? Polygamy is illegal in Canada. What is it in Canada that you fear and despise so much, free speech? "Love, is not a concern for the government in marriage." You base that assertion on what? The reality is that lack of love is permissible grounds for divorce. If lack of love is not a concern for the government in marriage, then lack of love would not be a legally acceptable reason for divorce. This is just more of your illogic.
-
Brian | 05/24/2012 flag |
@Albert, "Redefining marriage will open the door for others to redefine it again and again until marriage no longer means anything specific." As I already pointed out, marriage has gone through a continual redefinition (eg. anti-miscegenation laws). The door you fear being opened came open a long time ago (probably when the US passed its first laws allowing interracial marriage) and society has not fallen apart as a result - in fact, society is better off for it. "Would it be acceptable to you to restructure civil unions to allow the same provisions that marriage accounts for? So not gay military men can come home to their partner and be heir to their estate, be allowed medical compensation in case of death of their partner and so on?" Separate but equal has been tried before, it doesn't work. But, if the government got completely out of the marriage business and granted -only- civil unions (regardless of straight or gay marriage), then that would be acceptable to me. Marriages (including gay marriage) could be done in churches (which they already are) or other private places. But the anti-equality bigots are opposed to that. As for your question, the answer is that the US government recognizes that marriage provides stability to a society. That's why it grants marriage regardless of the fertility or desire to raise children of the people being married.
-
Albert | 05/24/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "It bothers me that a person could be -so- full of bigotry that they'd rather see harm brought to a person then see equality brought to someone else. If a gay person could only marry someone they don't love, then what of the person they marry (who discovers, maybe not right away, but eventually) that its a marriage where the love only goes in one direction? Is divorce or a loveless marriage truly preferable to equality? How can a person be so full of hate as to believe that to be true?"
This isn't bigotry, wishing harm on others or keeping people from being equal.
These are attempts on your part to divert from the real issues and pretend that I am such a bad person when in reality I am attempting to discuss the issues. I have not been insulting to you. I have not, to the best of my ability, trying to put your views down but rather I have tried to show that what I believe to be a slippery slope. If this does not fit your view that's fine. But I am not saying you are stupid, ignorant or clueless.
I have asked you repeatedly to define how or why you believe that my slippery slope argument is, as you put it, a logical fallacy when I have clearly shown you the situation that is happening in Canada right in front us today is something that is possible to occur here in the USA if we allow marriage to be redefined. But instead of showing how they are not connected, you just make the claim that slippery slopes are an illogical fallacy. While it's easy to say that, it's more important to explain why you believe that.
The definition of equal is to mean that it's the same for everyone. That means that if you say everyone gets equal taxes, then we need to make sure that everyone gets equal taxes. No one gets more and no one gets less. The same for marriage. If the USA says that everyone that isn't already marriage, is a citizen of the US and is of the right age can chose to marry means that everyone has that right. And we all do. Just because gays don't want to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean that can't marry. It's no different then saying that just because someone wants to drive that they have the right to drive. There are restrictions on driving just as there are on marriage. Love, is not a concern for the government in marriage. They could care less if you love the person you marry. As long as you chose to sign that document, you have chosen to get married. If you deceive the other person then that's up to you.
Every person that is a US citizen has the equal prerogative to get married within the limits of the law.
If you believe that this law is wrong, then you have the right to get a bill into the system and have it voted on to get it to be law. That is also your right, and mine as well.
So please, help me understand what your take is on this question: According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages? -
Albert | 05/24/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "@Albert, once again, you're all over the place. "
How am I all over the place? I'm asking you the same question the last three posts. I'm still speaking the slippery slope. I haven't left this argument, you have gone on tangents with insults and mockery.
You said, "You think any change to the definition of marriage creates chaos (so, you don't like any such changes), yet, you're glad that the definition of marriage changes (forex. to get rid of anti-miscegenation laws, underage marriage, bought wives, etc.)."
Redefining marriage will open the door for others to redefine it again and again until marriage no longer means anything specific.
The US Government has a definition that they are using currently that is what I consider to be the right definition for this country. It isn't anti-miscegenation. It doesn't allow under age marriages, without parental consent. And there is no allowance for wives to be bought for the purpose of marriage. I would think you would agree that all three of those situations are not good for people or marriage in general. I know I consider it not good.
You said, "Will you embrace a change to US law to allow gay marriage (which will create more stable, loving, healthy environments which can provide homes to the half a million children in foster care)? "
No. I don't believe that we should embrace any change to the definition of marriage to allow any such thing.
Would it be acceptable to you to restructure civil unions to allow the same provisions that marriage accounts for? So not gay military men can come home to their partner and be heir to their estate, be allowed medical compensation in case of death of their partner and so on?
This way, they can be with the partner they want to be with in whatever committed relationship they want to be in and also get the same provisions of married couples without redefining what marriage means.
And you have avoided answering my question again. Is there a reason why you are refusing to answer this question?
According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages? -
Albert | 05/24/2012 flag |
Jerilyn, You said, "Albert, you worry about the slippery slope you fear."
You are correct. It concerns me greatly what could possibly happen if we don't take into consideration the possible things that could happen.
You said, "You fail to acknowledge the slippery slope the rest of the world fell into when they let Christians define science!"
What do you mean by that? I'm not sure I understand when Christians ever defined science. Could you help me understand where you got your information? Should I have Binged this instead of Googled it? :)
You said, "By giving the Christians the right to define Marriage without regard to certain Native American tribes, Certain Buddhists who define Marriage as a union between two people based on mutual love and respect!"
So I'm not too clear on what you are saying here because the first part seems like an incomplete thought. But I will try and answer you.
When did Christians define marriage? According to the USA government there is a separation of church and state, right? So I would think that the USA government is the one that defined marriage for within it's borders. What happens outside of it really isn't my concern because I have no say in what Canada, Europe or any other country does.
You said, "Only beginners Google. Try Bing and if you have trouble"
Love it!
You said, "try Mathura and Krishna! But that might be a bit much for you! Mathura was a city a god much like your own tried to burn. Krishna( Aka Buddha saved the city and turned the demon on its masters! I think we should preach this more often!"
Does Krishna have any influence on what the USA defines as marriage? Because if they do, it is news to me. Besides, isn't Buddhism considered a religion as well as Christianity? The US government can't adopt their belief's directly anymore than they can with Christianity, right?
Never the less, I'm curious about Mathura so I will look into that. Thanks for that tidbit of information.
You said, "Because that is what you are doing when you tell me that just because Christians believe a certain way doesn't give them the right to force what they believe on others right? There is contradiction on your words"
Well, I don't believe so. I think this is a misunderstanding of what I was getting at. What I'm saying is that each person that is a legal US citizen has the right to vote on what they believe should be the laws that govern over the whole US or at the state level. Because each person has their own belief's whether they are Christian or Buddhism or something else, they each vote their conscience. And whatever the majority votes on becomes the law. Or, by voting in the Senator or Congress person that holds your same views helps your chances of having your voice heard. Does that make more sense? The only way that a Christian view point would become law is if that majority of people vote in that manor.
You said, "I said the right to your beliefs not your right to impose them on others! There is that Christian Arrogance again!"
How is this arrogance? If I believe that Christianity is true then I believe it's true. If you believe the Buddhism is true, do you preach something different? Of course not, you preach that Buddhism is true. What's the difference?
How is it that I am imposing my beliefs on you?
I can't make you believe what I believe. I can only share what I believe to be true and then it's up to you to decide if what I have said is true or not, right?
You said, "Nor do I respect your disrespect for other beliefs! If that is hard for you then I suggest you isolate yourself in a Christian enclave!"
No, it's not hard for me. I completely understand. You believe what you believe. And you fight for what you believe is true. I do the same thing. No harm no foul. I respect your right to believe as you want even though I might not agree with what you believe. And that's okay.
You said, "Hint, this country is no longer it! "
Just curious, what, to you, would make this a Christian country?
Would it be that Christians are in charge or something like that? Is there something that made it a Christian country in the past? -
Brian | 05/24/2012 flag |
@Albert, once again, you're all over the place. You think any change to the definition of marriage creates chaos (so, you don't like any such changes), yet, you're glad that the definition of marriage changes (forex. to get rid of anti-miscegenation laws, underage marriage, bought wives, etc.).
Will you embrace a change to US law to allow gay marriage (which will create more stable, loving, healthy environments which can provide homes to the half a million children in foster care)? -
Albert | 05/24/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "@Albert, maybe I gave you too much credit. You insist that marriage should be the way it was in the past. Interracial marriage was illegal in the past. Marriage with underage children was legal. Wives were bought. Polygamy was legal. You want to purchase multiple underage girls for you to marry. Your position is a lot clearer now."
When did I ever say or imply any of this? You know this is not my view based on all that I have said.
In fact, if you would really read what I have said then you would understand my concerns are exactly the opposite of what you wrote. My whole argument has been that if we redefine the word marriage that polygamists will also have the chance to do the same thing. Which I am against, not for.
So instead of trying to go off on a tangent or insulting me, please answer the question I posed to you instead of avoiding it. you have claimed that I don't have any knowledge so I'm asking you to educate me on what you believe is true. So please, answer the question.
Question: According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages? -
Brian | 05/23/2012 flag |
It bothers me that a person could be -so- full of bigotry that they'd rather see harm brought to a person then see equality brought to someone else. If a gay person could only marry someone they don't love, then what of the person they marry (who discovers, maybe not right away, but eventually) that its a marriage where the love only goes in one direction? Is divorce or a loveless marriage truly preferable to equality? How can a person be so full of hate as to believe that to be true?
-
Jerilyn | 05/23/2012 flag |
Albert, you worry about the slippery slope you fear. You fail to acknowledge the slippery slope the rest of the world fell into when they let Christians define science!
By giving the Christians the right to define Marriage without regard to certain Native American tribes, Certain Buddhists who define Marriage as a union between two people based on mutual love and respect!
Only beginners Google. Try Bing and if you have trouble try Mathura and Krishna! But that might be a bit much for you!
Mathura was a city a god much like your own tried to burn. Krishna( Aka Buddha saved the city and turned the demon on its masters! I think we should preach this more often!
"ou mean as you respect my rights as a Christian, right? Because that is what you are doing when you tell me that just because Christians believe a certain way doesn't give them the right to force what they believe on others right? There is contradiction on your words
I said the right to your beliefs not your right to impose them on others! There is that Christian Arrogance again! Nor do I respect your disrespect for other beliefs! If that is hard for you then I suggest you isolate yourself in a Christian enclave!
Hint, this country is no longer it! -
Brian | 05/23/2012 flag |
@Albert, maybe I gave you too much credit. You insist that marriage should be the way it was in the past. Interracial marriage was illegal in the past. Marriage with underage children was legal. Wives were bought. Polygamy was legal. You want to purchase multiple underage girls for you to marry. Your position is a lot clearer now.
-
Albert | 05/23/2012 flag |
Brian,
So help me to have better knowledge, as you claim I don't have, can you answer the questions I asked?
According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages?
In regard to the bible, I didn't bring up the bible. Someone else did and I was responding to a reference they made. I have never made the bible my stance for not wanting the redefinition of the word marriage. My stance all along has been the slippery slope which you still do not seem to make the connection there. If it has begun to happen in Canada, it could happen in the USA too.
One thing that we do agree on is that we do, as a nation, need to think deeply about these issues. We can't make light of them. That is exactly why I am on here.
It's amazing how you can read my mind and know that I am not thinking for myself. These arguments are mine and they are presented here based on things I have seen, read, heard and the like. I have considered all sides and have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of the country to not allow the redefinition of the word marriage as it will open the door to be redefined over and over again and again. -
Brian | 05/23/2012 flag |
@Albert, its clear that we aren't going to agree. You claim that 'marriage' should be defined the way it has been defined in the past, but you oppose the way it has been defined in the past (anti-miscegenation laws, laws allowing marriage to underage children, marriage that allows polygamy, etc.). You brought up the Bible, but then asserted that your position isn't based on the Bible when I showed you that the Bible has nothing to say against gay marriage (at least nothing any stronger than it says against Hamburger Helper). All in all, its clear that your position is poorly thought out, poorly researched, and internally inconsistent. This indicates that you've never really thought much about your position regarding gay marriage, you've just thoughtlessly accepted what you were told by someone else. I hope that you think about the issue more, even if, in the end, you decide not to agree with me, our nation needs people to dig in deeply into thinking about human rights issues, not just thoughtlessly accept what you've been told by someone else.
-
Albert | 05/23/2012 flag |
Brian, I'm not going to reiterate all that I have already said. It seems we are at odds on these issues so to save time and effort on both of our parts, lets agree to disagree on these points for now, shall we?
And if you are okay with it, can I ask you a couple of question?
According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages?
I'm asking so that I have a better understanding of your point of view, if you are okay with that? -
Brian | 05/22/2012 flag |
@Albert, honestly I can't figure out what your point is
1.) You've not proven that there's any connection between polygamy and gay marriage. Nor have you proven that, if there is, that means that gay marriage should be prevented. It used to be that marriage between a white person and a black person wasn't possible. Was it wrong to make marriage between a white and a black possible? Again, slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. They aren't legitimate arguments.
2.) Polygamy in Canada is illegal. So, what's your problem with polygamy and Canada? That some people have talked about it? The best defense of social justice is free speech. How is your position NOT a criticism of free speech? -
Albert | 05/22/2012 flag |
Brian, It seems that you missed my last comment or something because I explained in that redefining the word marriage to mean what homosexual supporters want will open the door for other groups, such as polygamists, and possibly later pedophiles, to redefine it to mean what they want it to mean.
You are missing the progression for some reason. The slippery slope is shown in Canada:
around 6 years ago, they passed equality marriages for same sex couples. Now polygamists have been to court to get equality marriages to include them. I don't know how you don't see the connection there.
If it's happening in Canada now, it's VERY possible that the same progression will happen in the US later.
I'm not trying to explain what WILL happen but what MIGHT happen. And if we use our brains and look around us we can see the evidence of it happening in other countries.
You being educated should be able to follow that connection, I would think.
It's not like I just made it up or something, I'm looking at events that have happened elsewhere and I'm applying that logic to this situation.
It seems apparent that there will never be sufficient evidence for you to want to see what I'm asserting. You have chosen to ignore current events in light of your own agenda.
And as I have said, I have seen what has been happening in the world and am just applying history to like events and extrapolating out what could possibly happen. And that scientifically speaking, shows itself to be very possible in light of what is happening in Canada right now. -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert, sure pedophiles want pedophilia 'relationships' made legal. They've wanted it long before gay marriage became a possibility. The same with polygamists. What you've not done is prove that making gay marriage legal will end up making pedophilia or polygamist marriages legal. Nor have you proven that that is a sufficient reason to be against gay marriages. For example,, we want to reduce black violence, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep blacks in chains.
-
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE, You said, "What? I can't hear you!!"
Great! Now I don't have to worry about you being so concerned about me being on my soap box. Since you can't hear me, I need not worry anymore. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Brian, "I'm still waiting for you to post a good argument against gay marriage. Your Biblical arguments show how little you know about the Bible. Your slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy."
I haven't been presenting a biblical argument. I have said that several times. So I'm not sure how little you can tell I know or don't know based on my arguments. Sure, I have said that there are things that I need to look into more, such as how some words are used or what they mean, but that doesn't mean I don't know the bible, that just means I still have some things to learn. I'm guessing you don't know everything about the bible either, right? For instance, how to carry on a conversation about the bible without using scripture references from the NIV which you have said is flawed. I would presume that you would have read the manuscripts yourself and then told us what it meant straight from the manuscripts and not relied on a flawed translation that you have been using in your arguments to other people.
As far as my slippery slope argument, how is it a logical fallacy?
Your examples before are pretty weak in explaining why a slippery slope would be a logical fallacy.
Slippery slope means that it is a downward motion. Something is done and there is a logical progression of what might happen next.
I have not just stated that it's a slippery slope, I have provided evidence that shows what has been happening in Canada with them having equality marriages for the past 6 years and then polygamists coming on the scene wanting the same thing for them. That's not a slippery slope there, that is a reality that is happening as we speak.
Because that is happening there, the logical aspect of it is that if it could happen there, then it's very possible that it can happen here.
And I mentioned about pedophilia because homosexual supporters have said that if they are their own sexual orientation, like heterosexuals, then they should be set at equal standing with heterosexuals. So the logical aspect of this is that if pedophiles get defined as their own sexual orientation, then they too will want equal standing.
So you see, I'm not just making empty claims, I'm actually backing it up with valid reasons to believe that this could happen. That is why my slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.
Just because you say a slippery slope is a logical fallacy does not make it so. You need to show WHY it's a logical fallacy.
Isn't it possible that what is happening in Canada right now(with polygamists wanting to be accepted just as the homosexual community has been accepted), could very well happen here in the US?
Isn't it possible that if pedophilia could be defined as it's own sexual orientation(the links I provided you shows that people are attempting to do this right now), that it's very possible that they might want to be on equal ground as heterosexuals and now homosexuals?
You see, these are not empty assumptions. These are taking facts that are happening right now and showing that they could very well lead to something down the road. Not in one year or two but several. Even Canada has enjoyed equality marriages for 6 years before polygamists attempted to get their day in court.
So how is this illogical? Don't just say it is, show me how it is. -
Sandstone | 05/17/2012 flag |
Albert, thank you for your thoughtful questions, although this may not be the answers you were seeking.
It is not my intention to convince or coerce others into accepting the "rightness" of my beliefs as their own. Each of us must confront for ourselves what seems genuine or truthful, although I would suggest that most "truths" have indefinite borders. This can cause conflicts, but also foster diversity. Some people prefer absolute answers to everything. Others are content with multiple shades of grey in their lives. Einstein, for example, rejected today's accepted theory of Quantum Mechanics because of it's fuzzy premise that not everything about the the structure of matter is determinable, prompting his famous remark, "God does not play dice with the universe." Well, maybe he does.
Organized religions have communities of members who hold common beliefs. Which religion is the true faith? "Just tell me what to believe!" From Adventists to Zoroastrianism they all share elements of truth as well as dogmatic tenets. Nothing's perfect, neither religions nor people. We're all a little "fuzzy." Life is messy.
Three quotes help me keep things in perspective:
Max Planck (Nobel Prize winning physicist): "All matter exists by virtue of a force. We must assume that behind this force is a conscious and intelligent mind, a mind that is the matrix of all matter."
Bertrand Russell (British philosopher): "The whole problem with the world is you've got a bunch of fools and fanatics who are so sure of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt."
Marcel Proust (French writer): "All final decisions are made in a state of mind that will not last." -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert. "I am telling you that I don't want same-sex marriage. I am telling you that it's not a smart path to go down" Then don't have one. I'm sure no one wants to have a same-sex marriage with you anyway. You're totally free to have your opinion, right up until it conflicts with someone else's rights, just like you have the right to swing your arm, but not to punch anyone in the face. I'm still waiting for you to post a good argument against gay marriage. Your Biblical arguments show how little you know about the Bible. Your slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
What? I can't hear you!!
-
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE
You said, "And considering you've been answering every freaking person here since these pictures have been posted, I'm thinking your equal time has expired!"
There is no rule or law that states we can't answer every freaking person on this thread.
You said, "I don't want to stop reading what other people have to say, I just think that what YOU have to say is moronic!!"
And you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else. And I have not in anyway tried to stop you from speaking.
You said, "You are so one sided. You won't let us be and think what we want to think."
But you're different? Are you not one sided? Have you even considered anything I have said? If not, then I would consider you one sided.
I have considered the other side. And that is why I post here. Because I see problems with what I see. And I have not seen any one suggest solutions in any form or fashion. All I get is the same thing that you post. Contradictions to how you really feel. You don't want equality, you want your agenda and that's it. At least I'm consistent with my view point. I am telling you that I don't want same-sex marriage. I am telling you that it's not a smart path to go down but you cry for equality but you don't really mean it.
you have ignored most, if not all I have said, because you choose to be apathetic to the issues.
You said, "No one is asking for your opinion and yet you feel the need to give it."
And who asked you for your opinion? Right.
You said, "Who the hell do you think you are? "
My name is Albert. I live in the US of A and I have the same rights as every other individual citizen that is legal in this country. I have the right to vote for laws I want passed and vote against laws that I don't want passed, just like every other citizen. I have freedom of speech just as every other legal citizen does. I respect your right to have these rights as well and I will fight for them if I have to. That is who I am.
Who are you? -
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA you said, you said, you said, you said... You're such a freaking idiot!!! I am treating you just like I treat all other idiots equally!!! And considering you've been answering every freaking person here since these pictures have been posted, I'm thinking your equal time has expired!
I don't want to stop reading what other people have to say, I just think that what YOU have to say is moronic!!You are so one sided. You won't let us be and think what we want to think. No one is asking for your opinion and yet you feel the need to give it. Who the hell do you think you are? -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE You said, "Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!! "
What happen to equality there NMANDINE? Don't we all get a voice? Shouldn't we all have equal right to say what we feel or think? Or is the only equality you are seeking is equality that fits your agenda?
You know that there is a link at the bottom of your email's that you receive that says, "To stop receiving mail from Happy Place click here.". right?
If you don't like what I have to say, please feel free to click there. But I have the same rights are you and everyone else to speak my voice. -
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!!
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!!
-
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert. "Slippery Slope" arguments are logical fallacies. You do realize that don't you? Oh, you don't? Then clearly we must not allow people to eat meat, else they'll start eating humans. Clearly, we must not teach minorities to read, else they'll put the rest of us in chains. Clearly, we must not allow children out of the house, else they'll get ran over by cars. Clearly, we must not allow gay marriage, else we'll have to allow pedophiles to marry children. Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. Now, why are you debating using logical fallacies? Its either because you didn't know that slippery slopes are logical fallacies or you didn't care. I assume its the former, so now you know.
"There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry. So love is not a good argument to use." In every single one of those examples, there is demonstrable harm. That's true whether we're talking about the "lost boys" problem of polygamy, the genetic problem with incest, etc. The one case that does not have any demonstrable harm is gay marriage.
"Heterosexual unions by nature produce the next generation." That's not true. Heterosexual unions produce babies. To produce the next generation, babies have to be raised to adulthood. There are half a million kids in the foster care system each year. That proves that our dependence on heterosexual unions is failing us. And speaking anthropologically, parents dying is not a new problem. That's how the gay gene evolved - so that the children in our family/band/tribe would be provided for instead of growing up to be a problem for our people. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
John, You said, "What did Jesus say about homosexuals...absolutely nothing"
I could say, "John, I haven't seen you say anything against pedophilia or murder so that must mean you believe it to be okay!"
See what I did there?
We can not in anyway assert that just because someone doesn't say something about a particular subject that they either accept it or deny it.
What we would have to look at other evidence to try and assess what they possibly believed.
So lets look at Jesus:
1) We know the Jesus was a Jewish male that lived according to the Torah and the Prophets.
2) We know that he kept all the precepts of what the Torah and the Prophets spoke of.
3) We know that the Torah condemned homosexuality in Leviticus if no where else. (this to remove contention)
Therefore we could actually conclude that Jesus believed the bible to be the true word of God and that he believed what was written in the Torah and the Prophets. This would indicate that he believed that homosexuality was an abomination to the Lord. And if Jesus was who He claimed to be, then it would make more sense that Jesus believed that homosexuality was actually a sin. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Sandstone, You said, "Am I saying there is no God? Of course not."
So do you believe there is the God of the bible or a different god?
You said, "Is the earth flat, motionless, and at the center of the universe as the Bible's authors apparently would have had us believe based upon their limited knowledge of science? Should women have the status of chattel or mere slaves? Was there really a flood that covered the entire earth in five miles of water? Did Christ actually walk on water? Is homosexuality truly an abomination before God? My own sense to each of these questions, and to many other Biblical precepts, is no."
How did you come to the conclusion that the answer to all of these are no?
You said, "Others must decide for themselves what they choose to believe."
Shouldn't we all believe what is true and not just what we want to be true for ourselves?
You said, "I choose to be open to new ideas that challenge my perception of reality, "When the facts change so does the educated mind."
If these new ideas showed you that your above questions were true, would you change your mind to believe them to be true?
You said, "There are some great ideas in the Bible that everyone ought to personally consider as they form their own moral code. But I believe it should be interpreted in a modern cultural context, rather than as a set of hard and fast rules for all time."
Why is that? What is wrong with them being hard fast rules if they are true and fit even for today?
You said, "And in my view of reality, by what authority can I deny gays the same rights?"
Do you feel the same way about polygamous marriages? -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Brian
You said, "Are you attempting to assert that hetero people do not have the right to marry the people they love?"
I said nothing of the sort. If anything, I was saying that love is not a factor that the government takes into consideration. There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry. So love is not a good argument to use.
You said, "That's becoming increasingly obvious. You base your position that gays shouldn't have the right to marry, at least in part, on the Bible. Yet, you barely know the book."
Actually, I have said countless times that I'm not basing any of this on the bible. I am looking at this from a logical point of view.
It's logical to extend the fact that if one group can change the definition of a word that other groups will have the same ability to change it as well.
Same-sex supporters can not use arguments like 'equal rights', 'consenting adults', or that 'love is involved' and expect to keep polygamy from using the same arguments when they want their day in court.
You said, "Then you have no problems with the US government changing the law to include gay marriage?"
Actually, no, I do, and I would still have a problem with it if it was changed. That is why I am speaking up now, before it happens. Because, as I have said countless times, this opens the door for other groups to redefine it as they see fit. If the law can be changed to suit same-sex marriage, it can be changed again to suit polygamy and again for whatever else is next. This is my point about it being a slippery slope.
To think that it will just stop after there is same-sex marriage is to be closed minded to possible future events.
I said, "The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations."
And then you said, "Then your wrong. Creating a child is easy and takes about nine months. Raising that child can take anywhere from 18 to 24 years. A gay uncle can help raise that child without the distractions of his own children."
How am I wrong? How do two males create a child? How to two women create a child?
Heterosexual unions by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They pass on what have been nourished so that society is stabilized. These relationships make society possible in the first place.
Homosexual relationships are not designed to produce the next generation. They can raise children, sure, but that is the exception not the rule in those relationships. The government has no reason to support a relationship that it can't benefit from any more than to brothers, who love each other, who live in the same house.
And though a gay uncle could be very capable of raising a child, and there are many that are, this is the exception not the rule. The government has no reason to base laws on the exceptions.
You said, "And you know that the polygamy argument is ludicrous. Children can't enter contracts. Marriage is a contract. So, children can't marry. You are completely impotent when it comes to stating clearly what manner of harm would come to society if gays were allowed to marry. I can easily point to the harm that would come to society if children were allowed to enter contracts. "
I think you meant my pedophile argument was ludicrous, right?
But I ask why do you think that? Just because children can't enter into contracts now, doesn't mean that wont be able to in the future.
More and more we see contracts with children for a multitude of reasons, child stars to be protected from greedy guardians, emancipation contracts that divorce children from their parents, contracts for marriage with parental consent. So contracts do already happen for children. There is no reason this can't happen more in the future for many more things.
We see countless problems in our society where individuals, companies and the government have made choices without looking towards the future and it has caused major problems. The housing market, the national debt, the continual borrowing from the reserve and so on. All of these actions have had consequences. And for us to continue to sit back and just be concerned for step one is not learning from the mistakes of the past.
All I am doing is trying to look ahead to what could happen. And I believe there is plenty of evidence here and now that shows that a slippery slope is very possible, if not already happening. -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@John, you said "The original bible actually only says sex is for procreation so anyone having sex for other than that is living in sin." I am not aware of that verse. 1 Corinthians 7:5 says, "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." This suggests that sex should be done regularly in a committed relationship (whether gay or straight) so as to reduce sex done in a destructive and/or unhealthy manner.
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Sandstone, well said. Thank you.
-
Sandstone | 05/17/2012 flag |
My personal belief frames the Bible as written by people, societal cultures really, who blended actual and apocryphal events, along with their current (though dynamic) views of morality, in an effort to make sense of the human condition and all of creation. Am I saying there is no God? Of course not. Is the earth flat, motionless, and at the center of the universe as the Bible's authors apparently would have had us believe based upon their limited knowledge of science? Should women have the status of chattel or mere slaves? Was there really a flood that covered the entire earth in five miles of water? Did Christ actually walk on water? Is homosexuality truly an abomination before God? My own sense to each of these questions, and to many other Biblical precepts, is no. Others must decide for themselves what they choose to believe. I choose to be open to new ideas that challenge my perception of reality, "When the facts change so does the educated mind." That's how my brain try's to make sense of disparate events or conflicts in values, unconstrained by the beliefs of others who've been dead for thousands of years. There are some great ideas in the Bible that everyone ought to personally consider as they form their own moral code. But I believe it should be interpreted in a modern cultural context, rather than as a set of hard and fast rules for all time. I hope that the inherent sarcasm of my original blog posting was not too subtle. By the way, I have been happily married to an oppositely gendered person for many years and we have two great children. And in my view of reality, by what authority can I deny gays the same rights?
-
John | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Brian,, Funny how only parts of the bible are used and other parts are ignored when it suits the Christian Agenda. The original bible actually only says sex is for procreation so anyone having sex for other than that is living in sin. What did Jesus say about homosexuals...absolutely nothing.
-
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Will,, do you really think that asserting that the Bible is a 2000 year old faerie tale that we shouldn't base law o, is going to cause people to not base law on it? Its not. If you want to achieve that gaol, you're using the wrong tactic. The issue I'm concerned with is why so many people who want to base law on the Bible know so little about the Bible.
-
Will | 05/17/2012 flag |
Why is anything in 2012 being decided based on a badly written 2000 year old fairytale? There is no god. So the Bible is just a book of stories. So if a guy is with another guy it only offends people who don't like the idea. That's it. Notice says nothing about two girls, apparently according to Leviticus there's nothing wrong with that. You just want to take the rights of others based on a silly notion, just like your grandfather wanted to keep blacks from voting and his father wanted to keep women from voting. Sorry, that's just the facts. Stop hiding behind your dusty book of lies.
-
Sandstone | 05/16/2012 flag |
Let's send Mitt a rock!!
Mailmittarock.blogspot.com -
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
@Candie, "for those who do not know Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the acts going on in the cities" That's true. Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Sodom was NOT destroyed because its men were homosexual (NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that). Sodom was destroyed because its men did not help the poor and needy (such as the strangers - angels - who visited).
-
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
@Candie, the fact that you studied to be a pastor doesn't mean much unless you also tell me which Divinity school you attended and which degree program. There are a lot of Divinity schools out there whose academic credentials are lacking. Further, if you think that I've gotten something wrong, tell me what it is. I can tell you what my sources are. You can tell me what yours are. That's how scholarship works.
-
Candie | 05/16/2012 flag |
Brian read the Bible a little more. I went to school to be a pastor I have studied many different religions and went into the history of they sorties in that book do your research before you start shooting off you mouth about the bible. And for those who do not know Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the acts going on in the cities, not only that if you research it like I did some religions believe that the names of the cities actually stand for Sodomy and gonorrhea, which is why they were "bad cities" and destroyed. Jehovah's Witnesses believe this and so other religions.
-
Candie | 05/16/2012 flag |
I"M SAYING GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. READ MY POST AGAIN. I'M FOR GAY MARRIAGE I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS.
-
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
"The government states that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is nothing in the government definition that states that the couple have to love each other."
Are you attempting to assert that hetero people do not have the right to marry the people they love?
"I won't be able to speak to this too much as I will have to do more studying to speak intelligently with hermeneutics in mind." That's becoming increasingly obvious. You base your position that gays shouldn't have the right to marry, at least in part, on the Bible. Yet, you barely know the book.
The fact is that the Bible has nothing to say against homosexuals (other than in Leviticus where it is as bad as and no worse than eating Hamburger Helper).
"Do you read the bible in it's original languages?" I do. I have a degree in anthropology (in which I learned archaeology, cultural studies, linguistics, and human biological variation) from the University of Kentucky. I taught myself Biblical history and hermeneutics (though the critical reading skills I picked up in my degree were certainly helpful) and Bible scholarship.
"My issue isn't with how the bible defines marriage, but how the USA government does. They currently define it as a union between one man and one woman." Then you have no problems with the US government changing the law to include gay marriage? Or does your argument that "we should stick to what the USA government law says about marriage" stand only as long as the USA government does not support gay marriage (ie. will you assert, when gay marriage is made legal, that the US government law is wrong?)
"The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations. " Then your wrong. Creating a child is easy and takes about nine months. Raising that child can take anywhere from 18 to 24 years. A gay uncle can help raise that child without the distractions of his own children.
And you know that the polygamy argument is ludicrous. Children can't enter contracts. Marriage is a contract. So, children can't marry. You are completely impotent when it comes to stating clearly what manner of harm would come to society if gays were allowed to marry. I can easily point to the harm that would come to society if children were allowed to enter contracts. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Candie,
You said, "It's love, they want to spend their lives with the person they love."
Who says they can't spend their lives with the person they love? They can do that now, without a marriage license.
You said, "They should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as straights."
They do have the same rights as straights. Every individual has exactly the same rights. The rights, restrictions and the privileges are the same for every citizen of the USA.
Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
You say a lot about separation of church and state, but it's not the church that has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it is the US government that has done that. DOMA (1996) has declared that the actual definition that the Union abides by.
If you want that changed, you will have to go to court and get the Senate, and Congress to submit that there should be a change. But as of yet, it's strictly the governments idea of what marriage is defined as. The church has nothing to do about it. It is truly separate as you have said it should be.
You said, "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Therefore gay marriage should allowed."
I agree. And it hasn't. but just because something that the government has defined as a law aligns itself with a particular religious group doesn't mean that it was influenced by that group. The government agrees that it is wrong for someone to premeditated murder. If the Christian church agrees with that does that mean we need to allow premeditated murder because it has to be separate from the church? I would suggest you think this one through a little more. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
NMANDINE, I apologize for the explanations being so long. But I have found that it's the only way to communicate what I am meaning without having a back and forth of 'he said, she said', if that makes sense. I will do my best to shorten them if that will help.
Congrats on the dual citizenship!
And please, consider what I have said. I understand that we disagree. But I hope that I have brought something to the table for you to think about. I value your thoughts and comments. I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my long winded novels. -
NMANDINE | 05/16/2012 flag |
Albert, stop giving long winded explanations that verge on exasperation. Just know that I disagree with you and should I have the opportunity and privilege to vote so this becomes a federal law, I will vote for it. You can try all you want to give me this way or that way of thinking about it, my mind is as made up as yours. By the way... I can vote in France. I have dual citizenship!
-
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Jerilyn
I think I answered several of these in my recent posts to Brian and NMANDINE
I'm not taking a Christian view point of this argument. I am taking the view point that the slippery slope will result in more damage then if we leave the definition of marriage alone. I'm not even considering so much homosexuality rather than what might come after it in wanting to redefine marriage for what they want.
The USA government has define marriage for its borders. I live within these borders so this is what I am discussing. If Europe choose tomorrow to allow murderers to run amok, that is up to them. But I would not want that here in the US so I would fight against letting such at thing happen. I don't have rights in Europe, Canada, or Africa so I don't speak to those countries because I don't hold a steak in the outcomes there. But I do have a steak in what happens in the US. Every US citizen has a steak in what happens in this country, equally.
You said, "It means that Just because Christians think Gay Marriage is is unnatural is no reason for their majority to force their version of marriage on unsuspecting non Christians or fellow Christians Period."
So because some non-Christians don't care if gay marriage is unnatural they are allowed to force their version of marriage on unsuspecting Christians? Again, we both have the right to speak up for what we believe. If we don't agree, that's fine, lets discuss it and find a solution rather then just demand that everyone follow what we believe.
"I don't believe in meat eating as a rule! I surely don't believe Marriage between a man and a woman is the only way marriage should be defined. I believe in a Matriarchal society. Yet I know that I have to respect the rights of others!"
You mean as you respect my rights as a Christian, right? Because that is what you are doing when you tell me that just because Christians believe a certain way doesn't give them the right to force what they believe on others right? There is contradiction on your words.
You claim to say you respect the rights of others on one hand while you want to repress what Christians think on the other hand. You can't have it both ways.
This is why each individual has the right to vote their conscience. If you want a bill passed in to law, you vote on it. And may the bill with the most votes win. It's technically not forcing a belief on someone if we all have an equal vote. It just means that more people believe it is better for the country to vote a certain way. that is not unfair, it's just fact.
You said, "And yes Albert, you have trouble with Non Christians!"
You keep saying this, but I don't. What trouble do I have with non-Christians? You seem to know me so well, then tell me what these troubles are. And please, no generalizations as that means you are lumping me into a bucket with all other Christians. And quite honestly, I'm my own person. I'm not like all Christians.
you said, "As for Polygamists being shot down, you might want to think about why they were shot down! They supported polygamy but had a problem with polyandry ( a female with two husbands) Canada just decided that hypocracy was not a grounds for granting religions freedom!""
Who supported polygamy but not polyandry? Are you meaning Canada or the polygamists? And what's your point?
My point was that Canada already has same-sex marriage and polygamists are trying to get their day in court. This, to me, shows that the slippery slope is alive and well. That at some point the polygamists will win and then it will be on to the next group.
You said, "As for the Pedophiles; just because Pedophiles want to marry. That argument is flawwed on the face.
In what way is it flawed? You don't believe that if homosexuals take 20 years to change the minds of the public to be more accepting of them that it's not possible for pedophiles to do the same? If doctors are already looking at redefining them as their own sexual orientation isn't it possible that we might, in the future, have to accept them as they are? After all, they will have been born that way, right? And we can't allow someone that is born a certain way to not be allowed to do what they want, right?
You then said, If Pedophilia is defined as another sexual orientation, Pedophiles may well find themselves under closer scrutiny simply because they will redefine themselves and Maternal Mania and Paternal mania will also be defined. That means that if a Pedophine redefines themselves as different, so will the people who want to do themselves harm! After all , one will be a redefinition of sexuality, the other will be a redefinition of parental responses."
I'm not clear about what you mean by Maternal or Parental mania. Are you meaning that if pedophiles redefine themselves as another sexual orientation that parents will take matters into their own hands and beat down pedophiles? It would help if you explained this a bit more.
You said, "And since when does Western society have the right to define history."
History is created as we move through time. It's definition is based on our actions today. The only way we might define what history becomes is if we concern ourselves with how we respond to things now. And every country, society and person has a right to define history as the want it to be. And that definition can either be from action or apathy. That's each persons choice.
You said, "As a Black person, I fail to see how giving rights to LBGT people would diminish our rights!"
I never said it would diminish other peoples rights. I'm not sure where you got that from.
You said, "What I am seeing is that Certain Blacks don't have the same rights as (Yikes) Christian blacks. It is amazing how non Christian blacks who fought for rights are suddenly swept aside bu the "church Blacks" Black Muslims who probably made more inroads with the NRA whites are suddenly defined as terrorists. But I digress. Please explain this to me! "
I'm not clear on what rights Christian blacks have the non-Christian blacks don't have. Perhaps you could tell me what those rights are? And I'm not clear on the whole Muslim/terrorist comment. That might need more examples of what you are meaning. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
NMANDINE
you said, "If this is the definition (and I believe you that it is) then I think it should be changed to “a contract between two people” this way, it stops polygamy right there and then."
Just wondering, if you are so much for equal rights, then why not allow polygamy? Wouldn't defining marriage as a contract between two people be keeping polygamists from having the same equal rights as all the straight and gay people? Why chose to lock it down to two people?
You said, "What do you mean giving the LGBT special rights? It is not a special right for someone to want to be married. This is what you guys don’t understand. They are human beings who want to be married. What is wrong with giving them the same chance at a 50% divorce rate as heterosexual couples??"
Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
If I'm born a citizen of the US then I have all rights, privileges and restrictions that being born there allows, equally to every other naturally born citizen.
My neighbor, Sam, was born in the USA as well. That means he gets every right, privilege and restriction that I got because we are both equally citizens of the USA.
We both have the right to vote in the USA. And we both don't have the right to vote in France. But I find that I am not interested in US politics but more partial to European concerns. I can't complain and say, "Sam gets to vote in California, but I don't get to vote in France. That's unequal protection under the law. He has a right that I don't have!"
Of course I can't do that. We both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire that is not the state's concern.
You said, "Gays do not have equal rights. They cannot make decisions for their loved ones in hospitals, even with court orders in some states, they cannot file joint taxes, they cannot get health insurance for their significant other, and there are no social security survivor benefits, the list goes on and on.
Is this what equal rights means to you?"
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.
However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
You said, "This will not open a slippery slope. By the way, this is what men used to say way back when women wanted the right to vote. This will open a slippery slope, they will want to have equal pay and so on and so forth… Equal pay for women? Surely not! But that’s a whole other argument…"
And look what happened. Women got equal pay and so on, right? So they were correct in their assessment of that slippery slope, right? The difference is that slope was for the positive. Women should get equal pay as long as they are equally skilled. And they should get more pay then men if they are more skilled.
But the slippery slope I am talking about would actually destroy what marriage means. It would turn it into whatever anyone wants it to mean. Every relationship imaginable would be possible because once we allow one group to change it's definition we open the door for others to do so as well.
you said, "I’m not going to respond to the pedophiles issue you brought up because as much as I try, I can’t see what this has to do with this at all. And really? Dogs marrying men, and horses marrying women?"
Ok, now you’ve opened a whole lot of crazy and that again has nothing to do with the issue unless you want to take Peewee Herman wanting to marry his salad seriously."
Yes, seriously. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm finding sources for it everywhere. You can ignore the pedophilia issue all you want, there are doctors out there currently wanting to define it as it's own sexual orientation.
Here are the same links I gave to Brian earlier.
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=7027
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/#ixzz1ZHzQn3Sy
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/
This is where my concern sits. If this is possible today, what will happen in the future?
You said, "And why did you parenthesize “born that way”? Are you one of those people who think it’s a choice? Because if you are, then yes, I’m sure these people would choose this life of being second class citizens, of not having equal rights, of getting beaten up, and of being bigoted against."
I used parenthesize around the phrase because there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. There is no gay gene that has been found. If you know different, please provide me with resources and I will remove the parenthesize. But until then, this is another excuse as to why we should accept it.
But I need to ask the question, if someone is born a certain way, why does that give credence to certain rights or privileges? Pedophiles are currently defined as being born that way. It's considered a disease right now. An abnormality. So why don't we just accept them for who they are? Could we say the same for serial killers or murderers? Where does being born that way make a difference in what rights and privileges are different then for anyone else?
Ethnicity is defined from conception. It's not something that will change over time. But homosexuality, so far, has been shown to be behavioral. It can change. There are people that considered themselves homosexual and are now considering themselves heterosexual. Some have even gone to the extent of getting married to someone of the opposite sex and have had children. And to top it off, they are completely content living this way. Their behavior changed. That can't happen for ethnicity.
You said, "Gosh, put that way, I kind of wish I had made that choice!"
You have that right to do so. I'm not sure what your husband would think, but hey, go for it.
You said, You say, why have we not heard of this since now? We have. Where have you been? I know I’ve heard of it ever since the Clinton era."
I guess I was meaning more in the general sense of it all. It has really become a forefront issue. Where in the 70's and 80's it was hardly heard about.
It really comes down to one thing. Acceptance. I have offered the same legal marital benefits to homosexuals under the Civil Union envelope and I have been denied in that is not good enough. So this showed me that this was not about equal rights.
I have been posting this quote because I believe it sums up what is really the issue for homosexuals and same-sex marriage: Andrew Sullivan, the intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, ‘Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.’” (“Will Gay Marriage be Legal?” Time, 2/21/00.)
Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe: The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically--by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "Its ludicrous to claim that they have the same rights as everyone else when they don't have the right to marry the person they love (a right everyone else has)."
The government states that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is nothing in the government definition that states that the couple have to love each other.
Every citizen in the USA has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that someone doesn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they don't have the same rights.
I love my best friend. I have a very special bond with him and I want to nurture that relationship and make it the best relationship possible. But I can't marry him. Not that I would want to, but if I did, I still couldn't do it.
I could love my horse and consider that a very special relationship but I can't marry my horse either.
If I hang out with my best friends wife and end up falling in love with her, I can't marry her either.
So to say that homosexuals are being restricted because they can't marry someone they love is not true. We all fall under the same rules for who we can and can not marry. It's the same across the board.
All US citizens all have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. To disregard the truth that we all have the same rights is to not be honest with yourself.
The fact that someone doesn't want to marry, or marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that they don't have the right to do so.
You said, "By "based in part on the KJV" what I mean is that the KJV was used to help figure out what the proper translation should be."
This is not something I know about. Do you have any references that show how you came to know this? I'm curious to how or even why they would use the KJV when they have the manuscripts to go by. It's always good to learn something new.
You said, "I'm discussing just hermeneutics."
Fair enough. I won't be able to speak to this too much as I will have to do more studying to speak intelligently with hermeneutics in mind.
You said, "These translators aren't perfect. Only God is. And to just trust in these translators isn't Biblical. The Bible says that we should study to show ourselves approved. The Bible also says (and I paraphrase) that even the Devil can use Scripture. So, we can't just trust these translators. We must study the Scripture (including the veracity of any translation) for ourselves."
Again, I don't disagree with that. I am a firm believer that the more we know the better off we are in knowing what is the truth.
Do you read the bible in it's original languages? If so, where did you go to school? I am interesting in finding a really good school that teaches the biblical languages. There isn't much in my area that I know of.
You said, "Even within the Bible, the meaning of 'marriage' has changed (it used to include paying a bride price, having multiple wives, and marrying young girls - it doesn't include that any longer). The meaning of 'marriage' continues to change and is very socio-cultural specific. Even within Christian history, there have been times in the past when gay marriage was permitted (see affrerement in France)."
That is why I have tried to leave the bible out of the conversation. My issue isn't with how the bible defines marriage, but how the USA government does. They currently define it as a union between one man and one woman.
I believe there are good reasons to not change this that I have stated in many posts on this thread. The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations. This helps preserve the USA and the governments interests in supporting that type of relationship. Though I understand that there is not always ideal situations, I believe the government sees it as a vested interest to support the ideal.
And again, this is why each individual has the same rights as every other individual and we can all vote for the bills that we want passed into law. And if and when same-sex marriage is passed, at the federal level, we will see if our choice, as a country was the right one or not. I just hope and pray that the slippery slope I am speaking of does not happen and I'm proven wrong. Lord knows, I don't want to be right on this issue. My fear though, is that I am.
