21 replies to this topic

[Goose]

I'm back. 

 

And I'm posting this because I'm trying to figure out what I think about this certain issue, and this is one of the few places I think I can express my views in a safe environment. Feel free to disagree and argue with me. I've learnt a lot from the past ten years having my belief systems challenged in this forum, and that's why I come back time after time. I've grown over time and I value your input. 

 

So let rip. 

 

 

 

I believe in the Sacrament of Marriage, that the sacrament of marriage is a covenant between man, woman and God. That God being the God of Abraham, the Father. Also known as Yaweh and Allah. I believe that the sacrament of marriage is something that binds people together for life and that divorce is not something to be taken lightly, and that nobody ever takes such a decision lightly. I'm not ashamed of my faith, and though I would consider myself being a strong christian, that being that I follow Jesus Christ; I still struggle with certain issues in my life. 

 

I believe that Sin is anything that separates you from God. 

 

I believe in not having sex outside of the sacrament of marriage, and that doing so is a sin. By default then, I believe that homosexuality is a sin because it is having sexual relations outside the sacrament of marriage. But I believe that homosexual sex outside of the Sacrament of marriage is no worse than heterosexual sex outside the Sacrament of marriage - no difference between the two -  and I'm not about to shove my belief systems in anybody else s face. Apart from on here.

 

However.

 

I also recognize the Institution of Marriage. I believe that the Institution of Marriage is a separate thing from the Sacrament of Marriage. 

 

The Institution of Marriage is the joining of two consenting adults who love each other in wedded legal matrimony. I believe that the definition of the Institution of Marriage can change over time, with different cultures defining Marriage according to their own belief systems or ways of life. The Institution of Marriage has and will continue to change throughout history as people will constantly change with it. I believe that since there have been people on the planet, the Institution of Marriage has existed in some form or shape, not necessarily how we see it today.

 

I have no problems with two homosexual people wanting to participate in the Institution of Marriage. I believe that if two consenting adults want to admit their love for one another and join in wedded matrimony, they should be able to, regardless of gender, sexual preference or race. I see no legal reason why they should not. I stood next to my best friend as he married his now wife, even though they did it outside of the church, and I would stand next to any of my LTGBQ friends if they decide to get married as well. Love is Love, regardless of gender or sexuality. 

 

I see no reason why the Sacrament of Marriage, as defined by the Bible and various Churches, can not live side by side with the Institution of Marriage as it changes in our times. I believe that the Institution of Marriage has changed in our lifetimes and I see no problem with that. I understand that since the Institution of Marriage has lined up with the Sacrament of Marriage for a long time, people will have trouble adjusting to the fact that it has changed. But I long to live in a world where both can exist side by side without pointless tension. 

 

 

My questions to you are below. 

 

 

1. Do you agree with the view that there are different definitions of marriage?

 

2. Can you see the two different definitions of marriage ever co-existing in a peaceful way? 

 

3. Do you also agree that there may be more definitions of marriage than the two listed?

 

4. Can a person of Faith still have their belief in their definition of marriage, but still admit that others think differently, and that it is ok to disagree? 

 

5. Will society ever accept people of different races, belief systems, sexualities, and cultures? Or will they always find a reason to hate?

[Jasi]

Yes, there are certainly different definitions of marriage...I think this is obvious and incontrovertible. Definitions of most concepts like "love", "marriage", "loyalty", etc. are always going to be interpreted slightly differently from person to person. I think these different definitions must coexist inasmuch as we always have to interact with people who hold different values than we. 

 

Do I think there are more definitions? Yes, I do, even within the Bible. This is something that confuses me a little bit about the Christian interpretation of the "true" meaning of marriage—even in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments, polygamy is regularly (though maybe most often implicitly) condoned, as is marriage of (what we today consider to be) underage persons. Marriage is often politically or economically motivated rather than romantically motivated as it is today, and while political/economic marriages can still be sacred and whatnot, I do think this changes the perspective a bit. Plus there's all the stuff about female subservience and stuff. I guess my point after this rambling is that I think it's disingenuous to portray a "sacrament of marriage" as being derived from Biblical principles that does not include polygamy, marrying kids, etc. So while what you've defined as a "sacrament of marriage" is a legitimate personal definition, I question its status as anything more than that. I realize that you personally did not say that your definition was straight outta the Bible, Goose, but some other people do say that.

 

Can a person of faith believe in their definition and recognize others? Goodness, I hope so.

 

Will society accept other people, or will they always find a reason to hate? Hmm. I think total acceptance—the kind I imagine existing in the Star Trek universe or something—is a long way off. But I think it's possible...just not in our lifetimes probably.

[Egann]

Goose, separating the institution of marriage and the sacrament of it like that is conveniently indecisive. With this position you justify burning homosexuals alive, attending their weddings, and everything in between in one breath. It's literally a "whatever everybody else wants" position.

 

I have choice words for positions like this, and none of them are appropriate here.

 

I've always said I would rather see marriage just become a "civil union" legally and let church denominations do their own things. This is just to get everyone to the "agree to disagree" status because frankly, if legal civil rights are what gay advocates are after, this is the appropriate compromise.

 

The real problem with gay advocates, though, is that they are just such trolls. They make movies like "Philadelphia" to make straw men where New York lawyers say they believe "the old and new testaments of the bible" in court under oath. And why wasn't the conflict over someone believing these things feeling conflicted and doing something he regrets to his gay coworker? Call a spade a spade: this "great movie" is a deliberate finger in the eye of religious conservatives. Because offending people and casting them in a foul light will solve the problem, apparently.

 

And then there's the new Sherlock. If you haven't seen it, there's homosexual undercurrents everywhere and the pervasive assumption that two men who hang out together are homosexually involved or have its shadow hanging over them. Apparently between "When Harry Met Sally" and this, men are defective creatures incapable of nonsexual relationships.

 

Way to go. You insulted me and made my every day life awkward in one instant. Is it any wonder why I resent many gay rights activists? Totally going out of their way to make friends.

 

OK, I'll answer your questions.

 

1. Do you agree with the view that there are different definitions of marriage?

 

No. If it's religious it's a separation of church and state issue and must be left to individual denominations. If it's civic the government can do whatever it wants with it. Including arbitrarily change the vocabulary to help people get along.

 

2. Can you see the two different definitions of marriage ever co-existing in a peaceful way? 

 

I should remind you the original context of the word "tolerant" doesn't mean flowers and singing Kumbaya around a fire. "This plant is drought tolerant" makes it rather clear it's about surviving in unpleasant conditions. That's entirely possible. 

 

3. Do you also agree that there may be more definitions of marriage than the two listed?

 

No. There are many practical reasons why I am against polygamy or other forms of marriage: these cultures are inevitably warlike because there is a surplus of men. Historically, they go to war, and whether they come back with a foreign wife or die on the battlefield makes no difference. Parenthetically, this is why war is traditionally fought by men.

 

4. Can a person of Faith still have their belief in their definition of marriage, but still admit that others think differently, and that it is ok to disagree? 

 

Not without there being a constant dialogue going on at the minimum. You don't need to be impolite, but if the dialogue of who is right ends, it means your faith is really in the pressure of your peers.

 

5. Will society ever accept people of different races, belief systems, sexualities, and cultures? Or will they always find a reason to hate?

 

See answer #2 and be realistic.

 

 

One more thing before I end this post. I don't think that the current "accept homosexuality" attitude will remain popular forever. I've said it elsewhere, but I do think there are subtle differences in the ways the sexes think, and therefore a heterosexual relationship is a fundamentally different dynamic than a homosexual one. We're also in the middle of a birth rate crisis: homosexuality benefits practically while children are outrageously expensive, but if we as a species don't change this we're in trouble. 

 

Also, based on what I know about human biology, I don't just think a therapy to change sexual orientation is practical, it's probably inevitable, and it may already exist without us knowing it. This is a very creepy thought, and it raises a question: can we possibly use it responsibly?

[Sir Turtlelot]

@Egann

 

While there are bound to be militant/radical members of any group, but making an offensive movie or adding uncomfortable themes in a TV show are nothing compared to being made victims of, sometimes violent, hate crimes and demonized, and in some parts of the world, even killed. You want to talk about going out the way to make friends, look at the ones around you.

 

 

 

Anyways, back on to topic.

 

 

I fail to understand why this is still an issue, from a legal standpoint. Yes, different sets of beliefs follow different views of the definition of marriage, but the only view that the Institution of Marriage must follow is the laws of the United States. Case and point, The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution are:

 

First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Fourteenth:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

Therefore, any person wanting a ban on homosexual marriage based solely on Biblical values violate two Constitutional Amendments by attempting to establish a law based on a particular religious viewpoint^1st, in order to violate a large number of Americans right of marriage to a consenting adult of whom they choose^14th.

 

 

Simple as that.

Edited by Sir Turtlelot, 27 June 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

My questions to you are below. 
 
 
1. Do you agree with the view that there are different definitions of marriage?

Definitely. Why else would there be so many problems in the first place?
 

2. Can you see the two different definitions of marriage ever co-existing in a peaceful way? 

It is unreasonable to even think of something like this. Who can say how we will think later on in life? Back in the early part of the 20th Century, eugenics was very popular. Winston Churchill wrote in support of it. The US managed to instate eugenics-based laws too. It only took an overzealous Austrian anti-Semite taking the idea to its logical extreme before people realised that eugenics was bad.

Who knows what will happen in the future?

Perhaps if a gay marriage is allowed, over time, people will begin to accept it. Perhaps nothing will appear to change. Heck, maybe it'll put the same societal pressures on homosexual couples that it does on heterosexual. Allow them to adopt and you've got a family unit. It could change the way they spend their money and free time.

I can easily see it going the other way. A non-heterosexual couple will want to get married in a church, but the vicar won't let them. They kick up a fuss. The vicar is forced to let them use the church. Christians will claim persecution. It would inflame tensions.

It could go either way.
 

3. Do you also agree that there may be more definitions of marriage than the two listed?

Over time, the concept of marriage has evolved. This is undeniable. As Jasi stated, there's nothing against polygamy in the Old Testament. The idea of monogamy came from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, as did the idea of virginity being a virtue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-17351133

(I don't think my last point came from the source I've just quoted by the way).

Some people will stick to the old ways; others will want to update. So yes, there are more and there will always be more than two, so long as people are free to hold their own ideas.
 

4. Can a person of Faith still have their belief in their definition of marriage, but still admit that others think differently, and that it is ok to disagree?

This is a question that only a person of Faith can answer, but I'm pretty sure that you will get a broad spread if you ask enough people from enough backgrounds.
 

5. Will society ever accept people of different races, belief systems, sexualities, and cultures? Or will they always find a reason to hate?

We already do, but what cannot be forgotten is that there will always be reversions. What has been gained can always be lost.

[Selena]

Never was there an issue in modern society so pedantically dependent on the limitations of the English language. There are various different types of marriage throughout the world, yet only one blanket term for all of them, and the groups in question squabble over who gets to make the ultimate definition of said world.
 
The best vague description of worldwide conventional marriages would be: They are breeding contracts to secure the legitimacy of children, which is helpful in sorting out the inheritance of land and possessions.
 
It seldom had anything to do with affection. Thus why arranged marriages and matchmakers used to be common.
 
It's only in the last couple hundred years that people started to marry individuals they genuinely cared for (any marriages based on love before that were generally exceptions to the rule). Traditional spousal love was often a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where you were effectively trapped with someone and then you learned to care about them.
 
 
Variations Within Religion
 
Not only have there been variations in marriage throughout the world's many cultural groups, but there are also variations within a single culture over time. Jews and Christians no longer follow the Bible to the letter -- for many things, but including marriage.
 
For example, Deuteronomy 25:5 demands that you marry your dead brother's wife if she had no children (known as a "Levirate marriage"). If you did not, then you would be shamed. This practice is no longer performed. Some, such as being obligated to marry the girl you rape (Deuteronomy 22:28), are considered morally bankrupt by modern society. Same with various other marriage practices laid out in the Old Testament, including the use of concubines.
 
Modern marriages are typically based on the New Testament (since Christians will use that as a way of conveniently distancing themselves from the Old Testament definitions), but Jesus generally condemns divorce and considers a post-divorce remarriage to be adultery. These views have also fallen out of favor, with many people, including members of the faith, encouraging divorce if the union is abusive. And then, of course, there are countless minor variations within the various denominations of Christianity, especially concerning the male-female power balance. It also used to be okay to marry young girls off to old men.
 
Islam recognizes and clearly lays out the rules for several different forms of marriage.
 
So, even when you focus on just one religion, you can already have different types of sanctioned marriages. But most of these alternatives have fallen out of favor over time, and even "traditional marriage" advocates seldom if ever bring them up.
 
 
Global Variations Over Time
 
And outside of specific religions? Countless different forms of marriage. In the "landed" world, most of them were still breeding/inheritance contracts.
 
In societies without inheritance issues, such as tribal societies, marriage was a bonding ceremony. Most of them still maintained traditional gender roles, with the woman taking care of the home and men going off to provide for the family, but some culture were more egalitarian. Various types of polygamy were common. Same-sex unions existed. Same-sex polygamy existed. Sometimes same-sex unions were even held in extremely high regard (chiefly among certain Native American tribes).
 
Of course, being "legitimate" is no longer important, and inheritance is no longer a focus in society. Which is why the "conventional" forms of marriage are slowly losing popularity, and marriage is once again becoming just a matter of affection and convenience.
 
Can They All Coexist?
 
As with all cultural differences, the key to coexistence is a "live and let live" attitude. Which is easier said than done. People have a natural instinct to dislike things outside of their own culture. Which means that whichever culture is in power will generally try to weed out dissenting viewpoints, either by making practices outright illegal or by heavily pushing their own views onto less dominant groups.
 
As people won't ever really get over their disdain for different cultures, the only way to ensure that all groups have a right to live as they see fit is to create laws to preserve and protect various lifestyles.
 
But, really, that's never completely happened in any nation. Ever. The majority will always dictate what's acceptable. The majority changes over time, though, and so do the cultural practices.
 
 

No. There are many practical reasons why I am against polygamy or other forms of marriage: these cultures are inevitably warlike because there is a surplus of men.

 
Are you for serious? Christian Europe was a murder-machine. And when it wasn't fighting a different region, the fighting turned inward.
 
Most tribal societies, despite their depictions in media, are actually rather peaceful unless provoked. "War" between rival tribes was more or less a game. Counting coup was a popular war minigame, as was stealing horses/cattle, the latter being quite popular in Celtic legends. There were rarely any large-scale mobilizations unless large populations were in close proximity.
 
I don't think being warlike has anything to do with forms of marriage, though -- more with population density. People hate people, and the rate of people hating people goes up with the number of people a person has to interact with.
 
And as food for thought, the ancient Jews who wrote the foundations of modern marriage were effectively a tribal, clan-based society. Whereas the more advanced Sumerians, who had been living in regulated city-states for over a thousand years before then, were totally fine with polygamy. The Assyrians later took over the region through cultural dominance, and they were totally okay with the whole gay thing, too. And they managed to build up one of the most advanced and prosperous civilizations of the period. The Hebrews were... notably less successful, despite their monumental marriage laws.
 
 
 

The real problem with gay advocates, though, is that they are just such trolls.

 
Better to be a troll than to beat people into bloody, unrecognizable pulps for sleeping with someone they don't approve of. Some of the advocates may be obnoxious, but they're also the reason that gay people finally feel comfortable integrating themselves with society without lying about their identity -- and we're still hesitant to be completely honest about ourselves to strangers, because you never really know when someone's going to turn you away, become violent, or ridicule you.
 
 

And then there's the new Sherlock. If you haven't seen it, there's homosexual undercurrents everywhere and the pervasive assumption that two men who hang out together are homosexually involved or have its shadow hanging over them.

 
...People have been shipping Sherlock and Watson since the books came out.
 
That's like being shocked by undercurrents between Kirk and Spock. That was a "thing" even back when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness.
 
You are inconvenienced by these really minor issues because you've enjoyed a position of unrivaled power for so long, whereas your "opposition" has had next to no exposure until the last couple decades.
 
Ignoring ancient sources.
 
This is effecting your every day life?

[deep]

You insulted me and made my every day life awkward in one instant.

 

Hey, now you as a white male can understand what it's like to be every other group in the history of ever! Congrats on your new perspective in life.

Edited by deep, 27 June 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[Twinrova]

Zach I love you. xD

 

 

Also Egann.. did you seriously just try to say that gays are a threat to continuing the human species? I really don't think there's been any kind of shortage of hetero couples spitting out human meat nuggets.

 

Edit: And while I'm thinking about it, there ARE ways for gay couples to reproduce. You don't have to be straight to take advantage of things like IVF, artificial insemination, or surrogacy.

Edited by Twinrova, 27 June 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Egann]

While there are bound to be militant/radical members of any group, but making an offensive movie or adding uncomfortable themes in a TV show are nothing compared to being made victims of, sometimes violent, hate crimes and demonized, and in some parts of the world, even killed. You want to talk about going out the way to make friends, look at the ones around you.

True, but just because someone somewhere has done something worse doesn't justify you, personally, doing something bad.

 

Fallacy= Irrelevant thesis.

 

Are you for serious? Christian Europe was a murder-machine. And when it wasn't fighting a different region, the fighting turned inward.

 
Most tribal societies, despite their depictions in media, are actually rather peaceful unless provoked. "War" between rival tribes was more or less a game. Counting coup was a popular war minigame, as was stealing horses/cattle, the latter being quite popular in Celtic legends. There were rarely any large-scale mobilizations unless large populations were in close proximity.

"Christian" Europe was exactly what brought me to that conclusion.

 

In most big civilizations with high power distances, the men on top wind up with a harem. And yes, while polygamy was technically frowned upon in Christian Europe, keeping a mistress (or two or three) was commonplace. Heck, a few Popes kept mistresses, and that was definitely against the rules. The point is that this creates an inbalance: more women are needed than men. Men turn to means of self-promotion, and one of the biggest means of self-promotion since the beginning of time has been war.

 

So while most wars in Europe were fought over trivial things, the serfs went along with it not just because they swore an oath of fealty, but because there was a real possibility of social promotion, too. Social promotion bringing, among other things, women. Christian Europe was constantly at war because society gave the serfs an incentive to want to go to war, otherwise the lords could never have pressed them into service, oath or no oath. Heck, the ones on bottom started clamoring for a war if the Lords dawdled around too much.

 

That's why medieval Europe was bloody.

 

Parenthetically, this is also why militant Islam has their virgins in heaven line. Even for rules with divorce, when men are allowed to marry four women enough get locked up in polygamous relationships that the easiest way for young, sexually frustrated islamofacists have to get laid is to die and go to heaven. 

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Native Americans not have livestock until us pesky Westerners brought them with us? I seem to remember it being quite a feat for the Nez Perce to breed the Appaloosa breed in only a few generations. That, and Native American cultures as a whole have very low power distance. Most rules of larger civilization don't apply to them.

 

Zach I love you. xD

 

 

Also Egann.. did you seriously just try to say that gays are a threat to continuing the human species? I really don't think there's been any kind of shortage of hetero couples spitting out human meat nuggets.

 

Edit: And while I'm thinking about it, there ARE ways for gay couples to reproduce. You don't have to be straight to take advantage of things like IVF, artificial insemination, or surrogacy.

 

You realize me responding to this validates your reading of my post? That's not what I said at all. I said that homosexuality was getting windfall practicality because it's aproductive by default and children are expenses in modern culture. Hetero couples have to do things like condoms, birth control, and to a lesser extent abortion. I didn't say homosexual couples couldn't reproduce, or that they were a threat to the human species. All I said was that the practicality part has to flip for society to be healthy and have stable growth.

[deep]

Are you truly ascribing the perceived rise of homosexuality to 'lower cost,' and not to the increased acceptance and equality movements that have been roiling for decades now-- movements which you conclude in your first post are just passing fads?
 
a.) Homosexuality literally predates humans, the behavior being observed in 1,500 species of animals. The practice itself is not a fad, nor is the long and bloody struggle for its acceptance.
 
b.) One part of the reason the LGBT community is pushing for gay marriage is that they currently don't enjoy many financial bonuses that straight married couples do. And to address your point up above: Homosexual male couples use condoms. Homosexual female couples can potentially both use birth control for its benefits beyond contraception. And many seek to adopt, several times, incurring the same cost as heterosexual couples. Your claim of homosexuality getting a recent windfall because it's cost-effective is frankly ridiculous.
 
c.) Parenthetically, your mini-rant on Islam is factually inaccurate. There are pages dating back to 2001 debunking the whole suicide-for-virgins myth. Keep doing that grade-A research to inform your misguided opinions.
 
edit: Fuck it, 
 

men are defective creatures incapable of nonsexual relationships.

 
Roughly how long has this stereotype already been applied to women? By straight white men? Now that it extends to males suddenly you feel awkward, offended and oppressed. Boo hoo.

Edited by deep, 28 June 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

 

While there are bound to be militant/radical members of any group, but making an offensive movie or adding uncomfortable themes in a TV show are nothing compared to being made victims of, sometimes violent, hate crimes and demonized, and in some parts of the world, even killed. You want to talk about going out the way to make friends, look at the ones around you.

True, but just because someone somewhere has done something worse doesn't justify you, personally, doing something bad.

 

Fallacy= Irrelevant thesis.

 

My only real point with this was that it is both unfair and hypocritical to try and paint a negative image on gay marriage activists, when anti gay marriage activists do far worse, more often. Personally, I would much rather be offended or made uncomfortable, than be assaulted, murdered, or bullied to the point of suicide.

 

Ideally, none of this should happen, but if we lived in an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue, now would it?

[arunma]

4. Can a person of Faith still have their belief in their definition of marriage, but still admit that others think differently, and that it is ok to disagree? 
 
Not without there being a constant dialogue going on at the minimum. You don't need to be impolite, but if the dialogue of who is right ends, it means your faith is really in the pressure of your peers.

 

I don't mean to dodge Goose's questions.  But I have to observe that the purpose of having a dialog is to come to some consensus, or at least to agree to disagree after some level of mutual understanding.  So I've got to ask: what's the purpose of an unending dialog?

[Egann]

 

 

While there are bound to be militant/radical members of any group, but making an offensive movie or adding uncomfortable themes in a TV show are nothing compared to being made victims of, sometimes violent, hate crimes and demonized, and in some parts of the world, even killed. You want to talk about going out the way to make friends, look at the ones around you.

True, but just because someone somewhere has done something worse doesn't justify you, personally, doing something bad.

 

Fallacy= Irrelevant thesis.

 

My only real point with this was that it is both unfair and hypocritical to try and paint a negative image on gay marriage activists, when anti gay marriage activists do far worse, more often. Personally, I would much rather be offended or made uncomfortable, than be assaulted, murdered, or bullied to the point of suicide.

 

Ideally, none of this should happen, but if we lived in an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue, now would it?

 

Uh, no. Forcing a comparison is like saying because the Nazi's gassed people at their concentration camps the United States was perfectly justified in rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in labor camps [/goldwin's law]. I never said I approved of the "other side" either, in fact the inference I try to leave in my posts is that I don't. But I'm also effectively the only person who's even in the middle of the issue on this forum, so that side of the argument is pretty much irrelevant here. Who's going to respond to my "you're a douchebag, too" argument here? Nobody. My posts are long enough as is.

 

Are you truly ascribing the perceived rise of homosexuality to 'lower cost,' and not to the increased acceptance and equality movements that have been roiling for decades now-- movements which you conclude in your first post are just passing fads?
 
a.) Homosexuality literally predates humans, the behavior being observed in 1,500 species of animals. The practice itself is not a fad, nor is the long and bloody struggle for its acceptance.
 
b.) One part of the reason the LGBT community is pushing for gay marriage is that they currently don't enjoy many financial bonuses that straight married couples do. And to address your point up above: Homosexual male couples use condoms. Homosexual female couples can potentially both use birth control for its benefits beyond contraception. And many seek to adopt, several times, incurring the same cost as heterosexual couples. Your claim of homosexuality getting a recent windfall because it's cost-effective is frankly ridiculous.
 
c.) Parenthetically, your mini-rant on Islam is factually inaccurate. There are pages dating back to 2001 debunking the whole suicide-for-virgins myth. Keep doing that grade-A research to inform your misguided opinions.
 
edit: Fuck it, 
 

men are defective creatures incapable of nonsexual relationships.

 
Roughly how long has this stereotype already been applied to women? By straight white men? Now that it extends to males suddenly you feel awkward, offended and oppressed. Boo hoo.

 

That's not what I said. I said homosexuality was receiving windfall social acceptance because of it's increased practicality. 

 

About Islam and virgins, it is well established that Islamic traditions differ widely, and have since the beginning because the Shiite/ Suuni division is literally a question of succession right after Mohammed died.

 

 

4. Can a person of Faith still have their belief in their definition of marriage, but still admit that others think differently, and that it is ok to disagree? 
 
Not without there being a constant dialogue going on at the minimum. You don't need to be impolite, but if the dialogue of who is right ends, it means your faith is really in the pressure of your peers.

 

I don't mean to dodge Goose's questions.  But I have to observe that the purpose of having a dialog is to come to some consensus, or at least to agree to disagree after some level of mutual understanding.  So I've got to ask: what's the purpose of an unending dialog?

Well, doesn't the scientific method end in an unending dialogue about the results?

 

Besides it is theoretically possible to end the conversation in consensus. It's just unlikely because this is an emotionally charged issue filled with people thinking with their gall bladders.* The point is, though, that if you "believe" something, but aren't willing to talk about it, you're belief is half-assed. That, and criticism is like pruning: ideas need a lot of criticism to take proper shape, and insulating them does you no favors in the long run.

 

* I mean seriously, homosexuals are a threat to human existence? The straw man arguments in this thread are of comic proportion.

Edited by Egann, 28 June 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Goose]

Thanks for the feedback and discussion peeps. I've missed this. a lot. 

 

 

Yes, there are certainly different definitions of marriage...I think this is obvious and incontrovertible. Definitions of most concepts like "love", "marriage", "loyalty", etc. are always going to be interpreted slightly differently from person to person. I think these different definitions must coexist inasmuch as we always have to interact with people who hold different values than we. 

 

Do I think there are more definitions? Yes, I do, even within the Bible. This is something that confuses me a little bit about the Christian interpretation of the "true" meaning of marriage—even in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments, polygamy is regularly (though maybe most often implicitly) condoned, as is marriage of (what we today consider to be) underage persons. Marriage is often politically or economically motivated rather than romantically motivated as it is today, and while political/economic marriages can still be sacred and whatnot, I do think this changes the perspective a bit. Plus there's all the stuff about female subservience and stuff. I guess my point after this rambling is that I think it's disingenuous to portray a "sacrament of marriage" as being derived from Biblical principles that does not include polygamy, marrying kids, etc. So while what you've defined as a "sacrament of marriage" is a legitimate personal definition, I question its status as anything more than that. I realize that you personally did not say that your definition was straight outta the Bible, Goose, but some other people do say that.

 

 

Thanks Jasi;  I'm still trying to work things out. How I see things isn't exactly cannon, and it offends people from the left and also from the right. It is just a personal definition. I'm not afraid to have my own opinion any more. 

 

How I see marriage isn't how a lot of other people see it. It's something akin to the culture that I was brought up in, and the experiences that have shaped me as an adult. I've met people with varying definitions of marriage from within the Bible, as I've attended multiple denominations within the wider Christian church, who all have differing opinions on the topic. I'm the son of a non-believing Methodist and a Catholic. I grew up in the Catholic church, have been to many different 'flavors' of church - baptist, anglican, non-denominational, - and now attend a Pentecostal church. I see no issue with women serving in a leadership role, and until she retired a few months, had a female pastor. 

 

I'm both progressive and not. I get lost in my own belief system sometimes. 

 

I also spent a lot of my teenage years growing up in Legends Alliance, so I've been able to meet/discuss things with people from all walks of life. I credit the discussions we've had in Contro as something that has had a wide ranging impact on how I see life. 

 

 

 

Goose, separating the institution of marriage and the sacrament of it like that is conveniently indecisive. With this position you justify burning homosexuals alive, attending their weddings, and everything in between in one breath. It's literally a "whatever everybody else wants" position.

 

I have choice words for positions like this, and none of them are appropriate here.

 

I've always said I would rather see marriage just become a "civil union" legally and let church denominations do their own things. This is just to get everyone to the "agree to disagree" status because frankly, if legal civil rights are what gay advocates are after, this is the appropriate compromise.

 

 

I"m not attempting to be indecisive, if that helps, but I'm trying to separate how the churches have traditionally seen marriage (in the last 200 years that is), to how western culture is seeing marriage and how the institution of marriage is changing. And it is changing; at least in my opinion. I used to agree with the civil union idea, but after much discussion with people from all walks of life, I think widening the definition of legal marriage to include those of the same sex having the option, while not forcing or compelling different religious traditions to change their definitions or practices; is about as good as a compromise I can think of. 

 

I don't want to have to sacrifice my faith, which is a large part of my life, in order to agree with legal marriage equality. 

 

I'm stretching the boundaries here, but bear with me. 

 

 

 

On the 27th of May 1967, the voters of Australia made dramatic history. On this date, a referendum was held to poll the voters’ opinion about changing racially discriminatory sections of the Australian Constitution. The result was an overwhelming 90.77 per cent vote in favour of these changes.

 

The Australian Constitution was written in 1900 at a time when Aboriginal people were openly discriminated against because of their race. Outdated colonial attitudes were evident in sections of the Constitution, but it took a further 67 years for these sections to be changed.

At the time of British settlement, Australia was considered to be uninhabited. Aboriginal people were thought to be part of the flora and fauna of the country, rather than human beings. Attitudes of white racial superiority existed and Aboriginal people’s rights did not exist under British law. Therefore the colonists believed they had the right to settle throughout Australia.

 

The settlers' racial equality and human rights attitudes were slow to develop and when the Australian Constitution was written, these old attitudes were still influencing Australian politics.

 

 

http://www.wangkamay...id=107&Itemid=1

 

 

I believe a large portion of the Australian population viewed those of Aboriginal decent as more than Flora and Fauna for quite a few years before that referendum was called, and I hope that many wanted Aboriginal people to recognized as people long before this happened, but they just weren't able to get their voices heard above those who might have had the floor before that date. I don't believe it hypocritical to hold a personal belief dear to you, but understand that your personal belief may not apply to the legal definitions of the culture you exist within. Culture changes over time, and things that culture may have once deemed appropriate at one time may no longer be seen that way. 

 

 

Also, Thanks to Lena for adding context. I  knew the basics, but didn't know the detail. 

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I don't know what it is, Egann, but this time round, I found your first post in this thread absolutely incomprehensible. I read it several times and came away with nothing. And judging from some of the other comments on here, I don't think I'm the only one.

[Egann]

I"m not attempting to be indecisive, if that helps, but I'm trying to separate how the churches have traditionally seen marriage (in the last 200 years that is), to how western culture is seeing marriage and how the institution of marriage is changing. And it is changing; at least in my opinion. I used to agree with the civil union idea, but after much discussion with people from all walks of life, I think widening the definition of legal marriage to include those of the same sex having the option, while not forcing or compelling different religious traditions to change their definitions or practices; is about as good as a compromise I can think of. 

 

I don't want to have to sacrifice my faith, which is a large part of my life, in order to agree with legal marriage equality. 

 

I'm stretching the boundaries here, but bear with me.

It just seems remarkably convenient that as soon as a part of your faith becomes unpopular you split that part into two viewpoints and do the Jekyll-Hyde thing. As someone who's gone through something similar, I definitely understand.

 

That said, I have a little anecdote to tell you about why I believe what I do now.

 

My parents are just about as conservative Christian as you can possibly get. Every day my father goes into a tirade on how the leftists are taking over the universe. And somehow leftists includes Islamofascists. My sister has always been a bit of a rebel, so when my parents sent her off to an all-girl boarding school she decided to push the "I'm a lesbian" thing as far as she could. She came back declaring her roommate was her wife.

 

Naturally, my parents exploded. It's still a bit of a sore-spot because we regularly see the old roommate again and it remains a running joke, even though my sister is happily (straight) married and the roommate has had a dozen boyfriends since I first met her.

 

Me? I understand my parents. I know what's pushing them too far, and I know how to ask politely, so when I asked my father--Mr. Leftists-are-taking-over-the-universe--what he thought of gay rights, he very happily said that he had "no problem giving homosexuals hospital visitation rights or tax deductions or any other 'cultural subsidies' marriage received." He just didn't want the word marriage involved.

 

This is why you ask politely.

 

As others have pointed out on this thread, words change meaning over time and this is, in no uncertain terms, a culture war over a word. This whole exercise is pointless. When the best possible victory for either side is Pyrrhic, the only correct answer is not to fight.

[Twinrova]

* I mean seriously, homosexuals are a threat to human existence? The straw man arguments in this thread are of comic proportion.

 
I'm assuming this is directed at me? Look at what you fucking said:
 
 

We're also in the middle of a birth rate crisis: homosexuality benefits practically while children are outrageously expensive, but if we as a species don't change this we're in trouble.

 
You mentioned a "birth rate crisis" which I took to mean you were saying the increasing acceptance of homosexuality was putting human reproduction at risk. Seriously? Am I the only one that got that?
 
 
 
 
 
Also... uh.
 

I said homosexuality was receiving windfall social acceptance because of it's increased practicality.

 
I'm pretty sure it's receiving windfall social acceptance because people are finally realizing that it's not okay to treat a minority group like second class citizens for something they can't help and isn't hurting anyone.

[Jasi]

Seriously? Am I the only one that got that?

 

Nope. I cannot see the difference between his phrasing and your paraphrasing. Egann, it comes off like you're dancing around criticisms with technicalities—people are just paraphrasing you, but that doesn't change their counterarguments. It'd be more beneficial for you to directly engage their criticisms and talk about the details of what makes your position not like how they've paraphrased it, rather than dismissing it and saying essentially "no those were not the exact same words that I used".

Edited by Jasi, 28 June 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Twinrova]

THANK YOU.

[Steel Samurai]

Generalized answer to your post, Goose (and, by proxy, some of Egann's points):

 

I have a studied non-opinion on the morality or immorality of committed homosexual relationships. The Bible seems very clearly against it in a cursory reading of most English translations, but I've also read great arguments made from scripture that make it seem more as though it's not actually addressed at all.

 

But, as a very straight male, either way it doesn't affect me. At all. My sole duty towards homosexuals is to treat them with respect and love. If they're Christians, then the morality of their actions is something they have to figure out themselves. If I'm really pushed, I lean towards thinking that if it's a genetic, inbuilt trait (and all evidence I've read suggests it is) then it is far healthier mentally to acknowledge the attraction and find a healthy outlet for it. But that's not really relevant since I'm not part of the marginalized group.

 

The above two paragraphs are ultimately irrelevant in the face of what I'm about to say next.

 

The gay marriage debate is the STUPIDEST FUCKING ISSUE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE ARGUED AGAINST IN THE LAST CENTURY (with the exception of being against the civil rights movement).

 

Let's assume that God really does define marriage as only between one man and one woman. So, the US government comes along and decides to make marriage as between any two people that want to get married. Okay, so clearly, the US Government isn't using the same definition of marriage that God is.

 

That doesn't in any way change -God's- definition of marriage. Nor does it have any impact whatsoever on the lives of anyone who holds to that definition or is married under that definition. It literally does not affect anyone except gay people who want to get legally married.

 

Here's the shocking thing. If I'm gay, in a state that doesn't legally allow gay marriage, I can still go buy a ring for my partner, I can still find a minister willing to perform a ceremony, I can still have a reception and walk down the aisle in a big church, I can still live with my husband, split our income and expenses, be completely monogamous, and adopt a child. I can even legally change my last name to match my partner's. I am, for all intents and purposes, married in every way that counts except that the government doesn't have me listed as such, and thus I don't get any of the legal benefits.

 

There is no practical fucking purpose behind campaigning against gay marriage (except for the religious right's victim complex and/or a desire to cover the more sinister class inequality aspects of the republican party's goals). It's not going to stop gay people having sex. It's not going to change your marriage or potential for marriage at all. Your kids still might have other kids in school that have two parents of the same sex. And if God really defines marriage as just between a man and a woman, then two dudes calling themselves married isn't going to change that at all.

 

Marriage is and has always been inherently a social institution. The church only started getting involved in the west in the 1300s, and there have always been other options for marriage that didn't involve the church. East and west, the marriage ceremony is an inherently social institution, not a religious one. Government involvement in marriage is essentially for tax and divorce reasons, and if, as I said above, it looks like a marriage, smells like a marriage, and feels like a marriage, it's probably a marriage and there's no good reason to call it anything but a marriage except to discriminate against someone of a different sexual orientation. 

 

All that to say, then, Egann, if I was talking to your dad, I would (politely) ask the question "Why the fuck do you even care?"

 

Also, as a side, did you ever consider that perhaps the reason for the bloodshed you say is due to polygamy is actually due to the high power distance you say makes native american so irrelevant?

 

Also I definitely got that as well, Rova and Jasi. And Deep. Dear God. That first comment is my favorite in the history of contro.

Edited by Steel Samurai, 28 June 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[Twinrova]

I've actually never thought about it that way Steel. You make a really good point, thanks for posting.

[Masamune]

 

 

We're also in the middle of a birth rate crisis: homosexuality benefits practically while children are outrageously expensive, but if we as a species don't change this we're in trouble.

 
You mentioned a "birth rate crisis" which I took to mean you were saying the increasing acceptance of homosexuality was putting human reproduction at risk. Seriously? Am I the only one that got that?
 

 

 

I think he was saying that we're making too many kids, but that same-sex couples are good because they can adopt kids whereas heterosexual couples usually will just make their own, contributing to the problem. But at the same time, child rearing is  very expensive on its own and if we get to a point where we're popping out babies that we can't take care of, then we've got a problem.

At least, that's what I took from it when I read it originally. 

[Mark]

to the original topic:

 

I think that Goose, that youve got in your head the idea that there is a kind of singular privileged definition of 'marriage', somehow different to the actual definitions of 'marriage' as implemented in society/s and/or recognized by governments.

 

In a practical sense (appart from the 'jesus/state seal of approval' or generalised moral shoulds/oughts) I say that two people are practically married if they have made some kind of public declaration of ongoing commitment to each other.

 

I would actually prefer if the word 'marriage' dissapeared - it feels like a line in the sand:

 

- the relationships of the world span a huge space, and some are better than others... period.

 

 

 

 

5. Will society ever accept people of different races, belief systems, sexualities, and cultures? Or will they always find a reason to hate?

 

so long as it continues to be the case that people identify with these things, then it will inevitably be the case that their ego's will elevate the chosen identity - necessarily in comparison with other identities - in the process of maintaining self-esteem.

[deep]

Also, required viewing on Bible-based marriage:

 

[Jasi]

DP, that's awesome. More or less what I was trying to get across myself.

[Egann]

I was waiting for Goose to reply again so I could add an observation. As I have some loose ends, though, I'll just tie them up and step back.

 

Generally, I try to be like the Dos Equis man: so reliable even his enemies list him as their emergency contact. If I do that, it doesn't really matter what I believe to be regarded with friendship. Being a good friend overrides all academic positions.

 

Of course, that doesn't exactly work here on LA. Not only does the debate factor accentuate the academic parts of my personality, but because I tend to be one of the more active conservative posters I naturally fall into the "Other" position and become a scape goat. *shrug*

 

 

 

 

We're also in the middle of a birth rate crisis: homosexuality benefits practically while children are outrageously expensive, but if we as a species don't change this we're in trouble.

 
You mentioned a "birth rate crisis" which I took to mean you were saying the increasing acceptance of homosexuality was putting human reproduction at risk. Seriously? Am I the only one that got that?
 

 

 

I think he was saying that we're making too many kids, but that same-sex couples are good because they can adopt kids whereas heterosexual couples usually will just make their own, contributing to the problem. But at the same time, child rearing is  very expensive on its own and if we get to a point where we're popping out babies that we can't take care of, then we've got a problem.

At least, that's what I took from it when I read it originally. 

 

The reverse. Rova got the direction right...she just assumed I was making a causal argument when I was pointing out an association. Regardless, below is the expanded argument I hoped to abbreviate.

 

Birth rates are at a historic low at the moment because it's a depression and kids cost on average $140K a pop. Nobody can afford to raise children. Homosexuality is receiving an apparent benefit because it doesn't innately involve reproduction and is therefore economically preferable.

 

The problem is that our society have been BUILT to be most stable with a pyramid structure of constant population growth.

 

Social security is the big example of a government program going thermonuclear because of fewer children, but our education systems, our technical R&D and scientific fields, our job promotion system, even our minimum wage jobs and their management assumes steady population growth because they assume more recruits to do menial chores than experts.

 

Of course, if we do make raising children less expensive, homosexuality will look less appealing. The damage to our society is done by that $140K per child expense. Not only is the "damage" done by homosexuality anecdotal compared to heterosexuals being less productive, but they've also been a reasonably constant factor throughout human history. You would basically be arguing that a constant factor was creating an acute problem.

 

Wut?

 

This is why I reacted to Rova's post with laughter. Makes no goddam sense.

 

The gay marriage debate is the STUPIDEST FUCKING ISSUE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE ARGUED AGAINST IN THE LAST CENTURY (with the exception of being against the civil rights movement).

Uh, Steel, about 20% more republicans supported civil rights than democrats. 

[Oberon Storm]

At some points it sounds like you're saying people are choosing to be homosexual to avoid the expense of children. At other points it sounds like you're just saying that homsexuality has become more acceptable because kids are expensive, and we can't blame anybody for not wanting to spend so much money. Then I have to wonder if you're also talking about tax money that might go into the raising of a child. I'm kind of assuming you are. I am just not sure. I also can only assume you mean acceptance of homsexuality in general. Married or not homosexual couples are going to happen.

 

Honestly, I haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. I think you miss the point Rova made while you laughed at her that more and more people are realizing how homosexuals are treated in this world, and we do not think it is cool. You also seemingly skipped over the meat and potatoes Steel has said which is something I have tried to say every goddamn time this comes up. Thankfully he was able to state it a lot better than I ever have and ever could. You also ignored Turtleot's constitutional arguments. Something else that has been brought up. Every. Time.

 

And you want to tell us that homosexuality is more acceptable these days because it is practicle? Are you fucking kidding me?!

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 03 July 2013 - 12:11 AM.

[Sir Deimos]

I was going to post what CFS just did.


People are CHOOSING to be gay because it is cheaper... riiiiight. And I'm the one laughing at YOUR posts because you still claim to be an "intellectual".

You're "so reliable" that you've clearly never had a conversation with... well, any homosexual person ever.

EDIT: OH MAN. I JUST DID THE MATH AND NOW I WANT TO CRAM MY EVERY ORAFICE WITH STEAMING HOT DICKS. IT'S SO CHEAP.

Edited by Sir Deimos, 03 July 2013 - 01:16 AM.

[deep]

Don't waste your breath, dude. He's sidestepping and juking factual proof like the Barry Sanders of racism.

 

Which is pretty impressive because Barry Sanders was black.

 

Guys, it's obvious that choosing to have a same sex relationship is much more practical than being in a heterosexual relationship and choosing not to have children. Once it's affordable to have kids again, this tricky homosexual problem will just go away!

[Sir Deimos]

Thank god. I can't wait to clean all this poop off my dick. This economy better recover.