Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

[Upchurch]

30,000 or so years of Tradition.

Dead wrong, Robert. Try only 1,670 years and then only after Christians changed the legal definition of marriage.


The post you ignored earlier:

According to Wikipedia, there were several societies that practiced same-sex unions, including Ancient Greece and Rome, certain regions of China, and at various times in ancient Europe.

It is believed that a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.​

So I guess it was Christianity that perverted the traditional meaning of marriage.



From the same article:

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."[21] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[22] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[23]​

-Bri

Which leads to an interesting question. Homosexuality and gay marriage did, indeed, exist during the time of Jesus. And yet, at no time did Jesus explicitly speak out against it. It was only 300+ years after Jesus that Christians, not Jesus, made gay marriage "wrong".

What makes you think homosexuality is against your religion, Robert?

 

[HawksFan]

It's no fun playing with her. I suspect she changes the rules of physics while she plays.

She does get some wicked english, sometimes.

 

[Piscivore]

Which leads to an interesting question. Homosexuality and gay marriage did, indeed, exist during the time of Jesus.

Jesus was the common-law wife of twelve other dudes at the same time.

 

[Mudcat]

Dead wrong, Robert. Try only 1,670 years and then only after Christians changed the legal definition of marriage.

Some quick and dirty math for your amusement: of the 100,000 years humanity has existed, modern organized religion has only existed for a whooping 5% of it, and "traditional marriage" has only been around for 1.67% of humanity's existence.

Not that Prey's arguments were in any way remotely valid before, but seeing it like puts it in perspective, don't it?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Same here. Gay rights are often used as an excuse for attack on marriage itself -- denials notwithstanding -- the ultimate goal being a society where marriage, that antiquated evil and sexist institution, is eliminated. This is why, while gay marriage per se is not necessarily an attack on marriage, the political campaign for it is: because gay marriage is only a stage.

Paranoid delusions.

 

[Upchurch]

Jesus was the common-law wife of twelve other dudes at the same time.

Yeah. Joking aside, the reality is that Christians are the ones who changed the definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals and they didn't do it all that long ago. They certainly didn't do it based on the teachings of Jesus.

 

[HawksFan]

Here's something for Robert to ponder. There are homosexuals living in your neighborhood. Right now. As we speak. You probably don't even know they're homosexual. You've probably passed them on the street. Said "hi" as you passed.

They might have bagged your groceries. Waited on you at the restaurant. The teller at your bank. Or the loan officer. They're out there doing...normal everyday stuff.

Just like you.

Now...think about how much different your life would be if they were married.

 

[Upchurch]

They might have bagged your groceries. Waited on you at the restaurant. The teller at your bank. Or the loan officer. They're out there doing...normal everyday stuff.

A little off topic, but "scarier".

 

[RandFan]

There is no such a thing as "group" rights.

There is such a thing as discrimination against groups (see suspect class).

There is no such a thing as a homosexual rights.There are only individual rights.

But there is such a thing as denying individuals rights because they are homosexual (see suspect class).

 

[ZirconBlue]

Here's something for Robert to ponder.

Hahahaha! Good one!

 

[RandFan]

Same here. Gay rights are often used as an excuse for attack on marriage itself -- denials notwithstanding...

This is an argument by assertion. And that's not a denial just a rejection of a fallacious argument. Evidence?

Look, I'm not saying it never happens. I'm saying if it does happen it's very rare. Those who reject the concept of marriage are perfectly happy to just say so. There is no need for subterfuge and dissembling. I think your claim fails on many levels but I'm more than willing to consider anything demonstrative.

 

[Corsair 115]

There is no such a thing as "group" rights. There is no such a thing as a homosexual rights. There are only individual rights.

And it was precisely those individual rights which got same-sex marriage legalized in Canada since prohibiting it was found to be in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In "Camelot" there is a legal limit to the snowfall, but this is not Camelot.

You're citing musical theatre? My gaydar is now pinging like a hummingbird's heart.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Don't worry, Mr. Prey, when homosexuals everywhere are able to marry, they'll still let you, too.

I hope the subtlety isn't lost.

 

[Weird Science]

There is no such a thing as "group" rights. There is no such a thing as a homosexual rights. There are only individual rights.

Yes, but the question is whether marriage is a right in the relevant sense.

 

[Aridas]

Can't say that I'm sorry that I haven't been following this thread. But hey, for this page...

There is no such a thing as "group" rights. There is no such a thing as a homosexual rights. There are only individual rights.

Funny. And if a whole bunch of people have the same rights for the same reasons? There's no way at all that they can be dealt with as a group?

...or, in short, the usual "progressive" "enlightened" view: "All have won, and all shall have prizes". Gay people getting the right to marry is only a step in the direction of everybody getting the same "rights", or, in short, no married person having any.

Examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely.

It's like certain people try to make me laugh with absurdity. Marriage = war on marriage.

Which version of traditional marriage?

The one where parents pick the spouse of their offspring in exchange for money?

The one where women become the property of their husbands?

The one where men can marry how many other women they wish, and still have concubines on the side?

You forgot to note that women were property from start to end, really, in that third one. But hey, there were a lot of forms of marriage in the Bible. None of them truly equate with marriage as commonly practiced here in America.

Same here. Gay rights are often used as an excuse for attack on marriage itself -- denials notwithstanding -- the ultimate goal being a society where marriage, that antiquated evil and sexist institution, is eliminated. This is why, while gay marriage per se is not necessarily an attack on marriage, the political campaign for it is: because gay marriage is only a stage.

For this type of "gay marriage" activist (as opposed to the folks who really are pro-gay, as opposed to anti-marriage), the "rights" of polygamists are next. That polygamists are, almost inevitably, chauvinist pigs who really DO enslave their women, is conveniently, forgotten for the moment (it's all just "more love" or something, right?), as part of the goal of the elimination of the evil and sexist institute of marriage (as they see it).

All this... your argument is basically the slippery slope argument, which is deplorable under any circumstance, as far as I'm concerned.

What makes you think homosexuality is against your religion, Robert?

You seem to be under the impression that the religion isn't largely unrecognizable from its roots.

 

[Upchurch]

You seem to be under the impression that the religion isn't largely unrecognizable from its roots.

I am actually fairly familiar with how far Christians have strayed from the teachings of Christ. The question was rhetorical* for Robert's benefit.



* meaning "of rhetoric", not that it wasn't meant to be answered.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I am actually fairly familiar with how far Christians have strayed from the teachings of Christ. The question was rhetorical* for Robert's benefit.



* meaning "of rhetoric", not that it wasn't meant to be answered.

Since it's unlikely to be answered, either meaning of "rhetorical" should work.

 

[RandFan]

* meaning "of rhetoric", not that it wasn't meant to be answered.

Because the question itself is meant to convey a message.

 

[Upchurch]

Because the question itself is meant to convey a message.

True, but in the vernacular "rhetorical" means that an answer to the question would be inappropriate. I actually would like to see Robert's response to my question.