Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody?
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom, is your your honest interpretation of what I said that permitting same-sex couples to marry is "the same thing" as refusing to discriminate in favor of gendered parents?
I would argue that if you didn't think it was, your argument against same-sex marriage would evaporate in the wind.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
[QUOTE]Let CHURCHES call their SEPARATE ceremonies "marriages" and choose what forms of civil agreements they will recognize.

That's inane, munga. The ceremonies are called "weddings." And no one to my knowledge is objecting to the law or any party from using the word "wedding" for same sex civil unions and actual marriages alike.

The issue here is marriage vs. same sex civil unions, not weddings. While marriage does have significant religious meaning, the manifest advantage which having a mom and a dad provides to children generally, is a compelling secular interest. Thus, to paraphrase Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, the state has a strong legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage as the union of man and woman, an interest which has nothing to do with the degradation of gay relationships.

quote:
Just because separate but equal did not work for segregation does not mean separate cannot ever be equal, I think that's an unfounded assumption.
Separate but equal is irrelevant here, since Civil Partnerships and Marriages are not "separate" in the constitutional sense, since they are adjudicated by the same courts and administered via the same physical facilities.

The way that the pro-ssm group is using "separate but equal," the court should have solved the segregated school problem by declaring that black children were white.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Just because separate but equal did not work for segregation does not mean separate cannot ever be equal, I think that's an unfounded assumption."

Goes against physics, in which everything but quanta are unequal.

If it ain't the same thing ('separate' means not same) it ain't equal. And same sex marriage and othersex marriage will never be the same thus never equal.

But SSM is moving in on OSM's ancient monopoly and OSM, having found itself vulnerable to the modern world, is scared of this incursion.

Hell, Catholics are still terrified of condoms fer chrissake.

Dress it up as we will in ideals, this is simply a power struggle. At its heart is something that we call god, the sacred, supernal, whatever. Faggots want to share the 'sanctity' that marriage implies. Straights are still reluctant to share this sanctity wherein marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

That's it. All the vested interests of states and arguments about childrearing are so much outraged blather based on an assumption that has only begun to be tested: could it be possible that faggots are every bit as dedicated and valuable to society as straight pair-bond parents?

They might very well prove superior, folks: we don't know. As for the grand ziggurat of legal precedence and structure: meh. Stuff changes constantly. Doing so is how it maintains any claim to consistency. (Let that paradox burp your babies.)

"Which distinction do you compare to splitting hairs -- the distinction between a mom and a dad, or the distinction between one's head and one's ass?"

There you go again: splitting hairs between picky nits.

What the **** *is* the difference between a mom and dad? What *is* the similarity between a dad and dad or a mom and mom?

There is being thrown around this vast flock of assumptions and canards. Do we know what marriage IS? Do we?

What the current SSM struggle has taught me is that one of the things marriage IS is universal respect, to the point of reverence, for that bit about 'what god hath brung together let no man put asunder'. The pronounced blessings of society, honored by law and underwritten by the spectral divinity of that hypothentity we call god. That bit of blessing is, I believe, more important than a child having a mommy and a daddy. That bit of blessing is so deep, wide, and high we mostly can't see it.

Those who have access to the legal structure of marriage will sometimes go without it. Who needs a piece of paper? they say. But they say so knowing that even a common-law marriage is blessed so that what god hath put together let no man put asunder. It's theirs for the asking and they know it.

Such blessing, both of law and of a socially shared sense of divine approval, is NOT gays' to have.

They want that, and for good reasons from all I've heard, and the idea that they can have this only by taking some away from straights is unfounded and only a matter of conjecture.

Their expressed DESIRE for this, their solidarity among each other and their sympaticos, has given them currently a greater grasp on that ephemeral divinity, that blessing by god as intoned by society, while straights' grasp has waned, especially as they've replaced working on what's left of what *they* call marriage and instead gone on Proposition * political action jeremiads.

"The way that the pro-ssm group is using "separate but equal," the court should have solved the segregated school problem by declaring that black children were white."

That's what they've *tried* to do, since they define things mostly in white terms. They can't conceive of equal blackness except as abstractly idealized 'betterness'. Fact is we can't be separate but equal and be one people, but we can be together and inequal, for such is life.

Anti-SSMs are trying to resolve the issue by declaring that all fags are incapable of transcending biology, even as the fact of faggot homosexuality proves the opposite. My daughter has, I can tell you, completely, and I mean COMPLETELY transcended our biological imperative: she wants NOTHING to do with cock.

Or even sperm.

But she wants to adopt babies. Babies from those failed marriages that either never happened or came apart shortly after being made.

Your steadfast retreat into the thickets of legal details, Pete, means only one thing: retreat. retreat from an overpowering opponent: gays like our recently married fellas here at ornery. Law, as you've often said, primarily follows social action. Law is reactive by nature, thus our ongoing war about progressive legislation, the idea being that one can't legislate progress anymore than morality.

What's happening is much bigger than mere law. This is human social evolution riding on modern technology's rapid transformation of the world in which we live.

So the idea that we mustn't tamper with millennia of OSM grandfather clauses because we might make a booboo evades the truth that tinkering with social structures is what government and law DO (as a side effect of seeking to hold power).

We have reached a point where we have to address this issue, and we all know there's really only one honest way to do it. We must undergo the bold experiment and monitor the results so we can work them to our better advantage. We can't lock it up: that's what we also did for millennia and that lock is busted.

Face it: marriage is straights' to lose, and queers' to win. Or restore for all of us in better form. Resting on law resting on bedrock biology would be fine except that bedrock is magma moving up and through the surface in this age of steady eruption.

Now that straights no longer (ahem, pay attention here son, you might learn something) have a monopoly on bedrock biology, they must prove their worth in Darwinian fashion like everyone else.

Like my fave new bumper sticker: NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR HETEROSEXUALS.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
If it ain't the same thing ('separate' means not same) it ain't equal.

Context, Kenmeer. I don't think that you really mean to say that black kids shouldn't be considered legally equal to white kids just because we call them a different name.

Separate obviously means something other than "not the same." We speak of "identical twins who are SEPARATED at birth." The physical separation doesn't make the kids "not the same."

Conjoined twins can also be separated, and that's another sort of separation that means something other than the kids not being the same.

quote:
And same sex marriage and othersex marriage will never be the same thus never equal.
You've mangled the logic that ended segregation, into an declaration that sounds like it came out of the mouth of a segregatinist: "black kids and white kids will never be the same thus never equal."

quote:
But SSM is moving in on OSM's ancient monopoly
What monopoly is that, Kenmeer?

If you mean that marriage had a monopoly on legitimized family types, that's not true. Various cultures have recognized same-sex relationships, and a plethora of other familial or quasi-familial relationships. Our own income tax recognizes that a single parent can be a "head of household" and conveys various tax benefits.

OTOH if you meant that what you call "OSM" and what I call marriage had a monopoly on the word "marriage," why exactly is that such a big focking tragedy? Why shouldn't different ideas have a monopoly on the term that describes them? An identity fraudster might as well complain about you having a monopoly on your own social security number.

quote:
and OSM, having found itself vulnerable to the modern world, is scared of this incursion.
Identity fraud is a scary thing. You've even conceded on the other thread that the survival of the concept of gendered marriage is at stake. Fear seems like an appropriate response to a threat to one's survival.

quote:
Dress it up as we will in ideals, this is simply a power struggle.
Agreed in part. It's a power struggle for some on both sides, while for others on both sides, it's a struggle for survival.

quote:
Straights are still reluctant to share this sanctity wherein marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
If we could share it, while maintaining that definition, there would no struggle for survival, and it would be simply a power struggle, which is generally a lot less messy and more easily resolved.

quote:
All the vested interests of states and arguments about childrearing are so much outraged blather based on an assumption that has only begun to be tested: could it be possible that _______ are every bit as dedicated and valuable to society as straight pair-bond parents?
Some of the arguments hinge on that question. Many of the pro-ssm arguments would like to pretend that's the only question.

One other question would be, could it be possible that heterosexual people would be less dedicated and valuable to society if they had been raised in a society without a gendered concept of "marriage"?

quote:
They might very well prove superior, folks: we don't know.
That's a possibility. Whatever it is, it won't be equal to the status quo.

quote:
As for the grand ziggurat of legal precedence and structure: meh. Stuff changes constantly.
Some stuff changes slower than other stuff. The temperature of the earth has changed constantly over the past 4 billion years, but for the most part, change has been slow and gradual. When global temperature changes have been rapid, it's generally been unpleasant for most everyone involved.

Out of time.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's happening is much bigger than mere law. This is human social evolution riding on modern technology's rapid transformation of the world in which we live.
Helen's Balls, Kenmeer, I can't believe you're re-running that lame "Evolution is on our side" argument. Honestly, you'd get more milage from munga's "god is on our side and the plan of salvation means follow my socioeconomic recommendations."

As we discussed before, evolution is the net effect of observed natural mechanisms; it is not a moral justification or a legal mandate.

Historically the use of "evolution" as a justifying banner for political action, has far worse of a record, proportionately, than the words Crusade and Jihad. Darwin did not write a political manifesto justifying the extinction of species in order to make room for the new. Dinosaurs did not just lie down and die out for the political cause of making room for new more adaptable species, or because 4/7 of the MA Supreme Court said they should.

If you honestly believe that marriage as the specific idea of gendered marriage is doomed to extinction, to be replaced with neutered marriage and perhaps other generalities down the road, then you cannot reasonably expect that it would go without a fight.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Bishop John Shelby Spong's excellent (and tangentially relevant) essay:

"When anyone seeks to protect a dying definition, failure is inevitable."

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"a) But SSM is moving in on OSM's ancient monopoly

B) What monopoly is that, Kenmeer?"

You keep twisting yourself inside out like that, PaH, you'll get a prolapsed colon. But to help you: monopoly whereby marriage is a thing of a man and a woman, period.

"a) If it ain't the same thing ('separate' means not same) it ain't equal.

b) Context, Kenmeer. I don't think that you really mean to say that black kids shouldn't be considered legally equal to white kids just because we call them a different name."

You've been eating your tiresome casuistry Wheaties, haven't you? Before we notice that identical twins are identical, we notice they're separate. Basic concepts of subject-object distinction, rudiments of physics like 'two objects can't occupy the same space in the same time' (else they would not be two objects but one.

I'm not going too fast for you, am I? oR IS THAT CONJOINED TWIN SLOWING YOU DOWN? (caps oops)

As for legal equality: that's something the law does (or doesn't). People? Always different, never equal. Like snowflakes.

"a) And same sex marriage and othersex marriage will never be the same thus never equal.

b) You've mangled the logic that ended segregation, into an declaration that sounds like it came out of the mouth of a segregatinist: "black kids and white kids will never be the same thus never equal."

You sometimes take my breath away with the strain of your contortions. Black kids and white kids are not equal. Under the eyes of the law, sure, and hurrah for that. But I;m talking about real things, real people, not the idealized abstractions we seek to constrain in declarations of law.

We could grant snails and human beings equality under the law. They'd still be snails and people. This is rather the crux of your refrain: we can call MM or FF pair-bonding marriage but they'll still be very different from FM pair-bondings.

Most of us can tell an inny from an outie, I think?

But when it comes to declaring persons equal under the law, that means their access to something -- school, drinking fountain, restrooms, should be equal. It doesn't mean we expect a woman to use a wall-mount urinal as handily as a man, nor does it answer the toilet-up/down dilemma.

But you know, we have restrooms with both. The presence of a urinal in a bisex bathroom doesn't detract from the existence of a commode in the same place.

And both genders **** in toilets not urinals, hence the name.

Funny how bisex bathrooms point out that its not whose doing it but what they're doing that matters. Bathrooms are for elimination of bodily waste, not fornicating or lord knows.

Funny how same sex marriage thinking comes of a milieu that has bisex bathrooms, while other sex marriage comes of a time when separate but equal bathroom facilities for genders were de rigeur.

I think it's a given that SS couples can't use marriage in quite the same way that OS couples can. This is as it should be because you know what? They're separate (and different, if you need the redundand distinction to keep separate the notions of separate and different, or to keep different the notions of different and separate).

"OTOH if you meant that what you call "OSM" and what I call marriage had a monopoly on the word "marriage," why exactly is that such a big focking tragedy?"

The potential for tragedy is when such a monopoly is legally sanctioned, which is what you seek to do. We can't learn how SSM and OSM could be separate yet equal unless we learn what that separateness might be, and we can't learn what that might be unless we begin with both sharing identical treatment under law. Basic science. What we call 'controls' in drug tests.

What is placebo and what is genuine? We don;t know yet because we disallow proper testing.

"Identity fraud is a scary thing. You've even conceded on the other thread that the survival of the concept of gendered marriage is at stake. Fear seems like an appropriate response to a threat to one's survival."

That's because gender itself is challenged by homo sapient science, not because queers wanna get hitched.

"a)Straights are still reluctant to share this sanctity wherein marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

b) If we could share it, while maintaining that definition, there would no struggle for survival, and it would be simply a power struggle, which is generally a lot less messy and more easily resolved."

You CAN maintain that definition and share it, just as Catholics and Mormons can share remarkably similar religious structures while both claiming to be the One True Faith.

Or does multi-denominationalism and multi-faith neuter God, making Him impotent since His followers aren;t universally agreed on what the One true Faith is?

"One other question would be, could it be possible that heterosexual people would be less dedicated and valuable to society if they had been raised in a society without a gendered concept of "marriage"?"

I'm not adverse to pragmatism, but the thing you fear is a bogeyman based on lack of conviction not the depredations of queers coming online as full-fledged members of society. If We Were Here First isn't enough for you straight chauvinists, too bad. That's all you'll get. This is America, and being a Boston Brahmin won't keep your ass together in a street fight with newly immigrated Ukranians.

That is, I fear, the most pathetic defense of maintaining a trad marriage monopoly you've voiced, PaH: 'But straights might lose faith in straight marriage if queers do it as good or better than they do?'

Seeing as how marriage is a covenant based on faith in love, straights like you seem mighty... wimpy.

"When global temperature changes have been rapid, it's generally been unpleasant for most everyone involved."

Survival adaptation often is painful. But most of the pain you cite is imaginary, hypothetical, or cognitive. Faggots ain't stealing any eggs from your nests or food from your children, and they certainly aren't interested in the success or failure in marriage of those who would deny them the chance to try marriage on.

When this tussle is over in a few decades, I think you'll find that all your arguing has been for naught, that you've really stayed on the sidelines while the game was being played, citing argument after argument for why the game should be canceled due to rain.

"Helen's Balls, Kenmeer, I can't believe you're re-running that lame "Evolution is on our side" argument."

tHZAT'S GOOD, because I'm not. This bodes well for your ability to recognize phenomena with some fidelity to your perceptions.

Evolution ain't on anyone's side but who's winning today. The fact that homo sap has become something like a rhemora to the great shark of evolution doesn;t bode well for the continuation of homo saps.

Rhemorae tend to get et by the shark.

All I said was that currently homo sap are consciously working to drive the shark. We always have, really, but formerly kept most of such effort to the supernatural: afterlife, divine teleology, all that stuff.

That's what's happening now, PaH, whether we like it or not. Homo sap is working furiously to increase its error-mutation rate exponentially. It cant do this and remain human (unless there is a divine teleology in control of it all).

Evolution don;t give a damn about it and is on no one's side.

You rush so quick to put words into my mouth; you ought to stop and read what words you're replacing them with first.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's get ready to rumble. Or not. Tonight, anyway, I'm going to sit back and watch the casuistry smackdown. [DOH] [Exploding]
Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just call me Snake.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete:
The way that the pro-ssm group is using "separate but equal," the court should have solved the segregated school problem by declaring that black children were white.

It struck me when reading this that actually, it reminds me more of your "functionally [opposite-sex]" argument than allowing same-sex couples to be recognised as same-sex couples—retaining separate institiutions, but allowing individuals to redefine themselves to join a different institution. [Smile]

While we're on the topic, Pete, do I recall correctly that your objection to the "separate but equal" analogy is that facilities ≠ legal contracts?

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All objections to ssm or sss or ss~ are religious because they have a religious origin (specifically the Jews and the Old Testament, even St Peter's objections); but none of these are rational objections -- unless one can consider such evaluations as 'abominable' rational.

I would be loath therefore to consider very deeply a person who objects to ssm, et al, who also feels it necessary to apply any secular arguments to support 'divine law'. What need would they have to prove God's word?

Secular logic, which has its organization at least amongst the Greeks, doesn't oppose same-sex anything so far as I know except in Plato's right-wing parody of a "proper" society in his Republic.

The question here is whether a ssm contract ought to be allowed on the basis of an osm contract. The problem for religionists is, thus, that they have agreed to taxation of homosexuals, eeo for them, and even 'gay adoption' but were unable to prevent lesbians or homosexuals from having offspring; now they are obliged to defend why osm parenting and child-rearing is in any way better than ssm childrearing. That won't be possible for another generation at least. Not one of the arguments given by anti-ssm proponents and osm-protectionists can have any scientific proof for years to come; and jumping the gun on the issue demonstrates at once an unscientific bias and an unreligious unfairness. It just ain't Jesus.

Defenders of the osm monopoly who seek 'special protections' of osm under secular law have laid their egg and are now obliged to raise the chick, be it an ugly duckling or a swan. And they'll be obliged to explain why so many deformed and special-needs osm offspring are being brought up by ssm couples. It's not going to be easy to explain why osm couples have abandoned so many osm-produced offspring and then abandoned them. This isn't the age of Dickens when abandoning children and cheating them out of the heritage was commonplace.

If 'marriage' was an invention of straight people (and the present definition was derived from the Old Testmanet, they must explain why homosexuals aren't allowed to participate (except as rabbis, priests, florists, organists, and bridal-gown designers, apparently). To do this, defenders of osm must turn to secular law which says that the divine command to execute homosexuals rather than let them get married makes sense in a republic or, for that matter, makes any sense to those who are not orthodox Jews.

If we as a 'Christian nation' aren't allowed to stone homosexuals anymore, and are obliged by common law to ignore biblical law in relation to homosexuals and treat them as equals, what's left of the biblical law to disfavor them in any manner or any matter? Not much.It turns out that they didn't cause earthquakes after all, and the children and grandchildren of Edward II (was it) like John of Gaunt and Edward III and the Black Prince made exemplary ancestors for most of us.

To convince secularists favoring ssm, religionists will have to prove to them that being anti-ssm religionists is superior to being pro-ssm secularists. That's where the doctoral dissertation comes in; or is there a need for more pro-ssm dissertations until the ssm data is sufficient to make logical determinations on its advisability? Right now, there is far more data on the inadvisability of osm than of ssm.

End of logic, but the moment that we as westerners contradicted God's law to kill all homosexuals, we had effectively lost all but one battle: the right to prevent homosexuals from getting married. Maybe it's time to suspend the religious war against homosexuals altogether and spend all that time and money and energy on helping them to become better spouses, parents, and neighbors. Otherwise, even the data obtained from a century of ssm childrearing will be tainted by the hostile environment accorded it.

The most important law in our Constitution is the right to change. Indeed, there is no law in the Constitution that requires us to remain the same. -- one of my grandfathers --

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to Ornery, Sky.

You are wrong.

BTW, this
quote:
All objections to ssm or sss or ss~ are religious because they have a religious origin
is both demonstrably wrong and (even if it had not yet been shown to be so many times even here on Ornery) unprovable.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*groan*

I call, Sky, that if you are going to resurrect these threads you have to at least to the work of reading them, first.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kuato: HDYD? I've been reading the SSM threads for months; do I have to read them for years?

Mr D: Being wrong doesn't mean that you are right -- particularly on the matter of the origins of 'homophobia'.

If the Old Testament is as old as religionists claim, Leviticus is the fons et origo of opposition to same-sex anything. I read it here on Ornery. What homophobia precedes the Bible?

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm, and what then motivated the men who WROTE the Bible?
Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God?
Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(chuckle) Ok, fair enough. But let's suppose for the moment that the person answering the question doesn't believe in God.
Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of the Abrahamic covenant is that Abraham's posterity would be numbered as the stars of the heavens or the sands of the sea. Any practice contrary to that (homosexual union--not producing posterity) would be in direct conflict. Societies that allowed homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew bible) were worthy of destruction lest they intermingled with the posterity of Abraham.

That's one possible answer. I'm sure there are others.

It's also the biblical justification for polygamy--wives and concubines--to "raise up seed unto the Lord."

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
roper,

I've re-read the S/G text, and I'm convinced that the sin in question was rape. In fact, I think it was Rape Of Strangers.

Christ himself was never so cruel to anyone- prostitutes or serial adulteresses- and so I tend to think the texts on homosexuality are mostly Law-Of-Moses-Civil-Law-Comingling and Paul-Has-A-Problem derived.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IRRC, the position of the Anglican church on S/G is the Rape deal, specifically concerned with the violation of guest rights.

A Unitarian suggested that the ban on sex between men was actually purely focused at eliminating dominance rapes after instances of conflict, but I'm in no position to evaluate that claim.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noble Hunter/Kuato expresses my understanding of why the Sodom event was frowned on.

And Lord did Paul ever have a problem.

But then, JC checked out to do that magical salvation deal, leaving it to Paul, a known (if brilliant) lunatic.

Sidetrack: I ponder how the early Xtians had no Bible, and how modern Xtians profess that the Bible (with or without additions like the Book of Mormon and a bit of prophecy tossed in) are all they truly have.

What did the early Xtians have?

best we can tell, a few very simple messages and... voila! : EACH OTHER

When modern Xtians figure this out, they might resume some kind of happy pilgrim's progress toward their natural and supernatural goals.

But so long as they stress Duh Beyeball, they will grow increasingly lunatic.

Thus sayeth Mammoth Priest.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Enigma:

PM Brown is calling for the elimination of royal agnatic primogeniture (thus the 1st born of William would become heir regardless of sex).(I know a Swedish guy who actually fled Sweden when a similar law went into effect there.)

A gay group in UK wants to formalize the right of a gay heir in Britain to have a same-sex consort with all the rights and dignities attending a consort.

Is this the end of the monarchy as we've known and loved it since 1776? or should we ask Athelstane?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165589/Rights-group-wants-deal-allow-Royal-gay-couple-civil-partnership.html

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*lost*

does this mean William's gay?

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Till he got married, I would have suspected Prince Edward.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scouser1
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
REVOLUTION REVOLUION REVOLUTION!!!!

All they do is sponge of our taxes to keep them in Palaces, they are USELESS!
Plus all the best ones are dead. We're left with her and her dogs (and the corgi's ;)keke)
She thinks she has control, but they've just been telling her that she has for years, she aint really.

[ May 06, 2009, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: scouser1 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is anyone smiling a little today, just because.... with the latest announcement from Maine isn't it amusing to thing that....

.....God has interesting plans?

Think: the narrow-er minded Mormon leadership opposed same sex marriage in CA on the basis that if a stand was not taken there, "it" (the word was deliberately vague, in my opinion) would, "spread across the country."

Now, I see many more states on the side of providing equal protection for all....

I can't help but notice that "good" is winning, in spite of the Mormons' specific intention.

If the Mormons hadn't manipulated the system with their influence (and, who can be sure it wouldn't have passed) but the fact is, oppression of one group by another group became headlines, as well such a thing should when it ever appears.

Consciousness resulted.

Protection is spreading.

I'm pretty darn pleased.

[ May 06, 2009, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Kuato ]

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
or should we ask Athelstane
Now this is really spooky because the only other person to put an e on the end of Athelstan was Richard Dey.

God Save the Queen, whoever he may be. There is precedent for joint monarchs with the reign of William and Mary in 1689 so I see no reason against a future reign of Daffyd and Daffyd.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did read Ivanhoe!

And such a fitting inference: William III and Mary II -- both gay! Wm III and Bentinck, and wasn't it Mary who had a torrid affair with Sarah Churchill?

I must say, Scouser, tourism to UK would plummet w/o the monarchy. More than half of us in the colonies are cousins to those pigs in a poke -- as are all the British and 99% of the Irish. Without somebody to wear the crown, it's just another hat at Hatrack.

The only rumors of the 'presents' I know about are Philip (who was as wild and crazy as Lord Louis), and Prince Edward (who was denied a dukedom because he was a flit who lightly embarrassed the family. Otherwise, they seem shockingly bourgeois to me.

I do agree with Charley, however, on architecture -- and I think his new town (Poundbury) is a step in the right direction -- backwards! I would have preferred more underground, but it's well thought out, it is practical, it is popular with residents, and however ersatz the architecture, it isn't the eyesore that most council housing is in the UK.

As you may not remember, I support an Anglophonic union in lieu of the EU -- even to allowing a nominal monarchy just for ceremonial purposes. Moreover, I am a parliamentarian in lieu of direct democracy; I am opposed to fixed terms of representation; and I am thoroughly in favor of the threat of being sent to the block for malfeasance, infidelilty, and religiosity -- so long as it is not used as a shortcut to divorce.

In short, the British Empire gave us both Churchill and Col. Blimp, but w/o vestiges of it, we Anglophones would be treated like Frenchmen around the world -- empty suits. You know, no matter how preposterous imperialism is, it is intimidating. The tourist in India doesn't quake at the memory of Babur, Ranjit Singh, and Lord Louis (all gay btw), but one respects the power that they represented. That 'respect' (and that's not likely the right word) transfers to contemporary ambiance.

Britain would squander its imperial past when, in fact, who would bother to do business with the UK today if it weren't for the Old Lady of Threadneedle? It would just be the old crank of social democracy.

Even Yankees, who detest France, do business with it -- in part because Napoleon and Louis XIV were worthy adversaries.

Empire (and one includes the US and Canada) backs up credit (monetary, academic, even scientific credit).

What people like least about dismantling the imperium is its fugging lack of humor. Empire allows people to make fun of themselves. That was the British Empire's greatest gift to humanity. Ranjit Singh made that comment. If it took itself too seriously, he said, his own empire would crumble. It got serious, and it collapsed.

I've looked, and the tours to open-door Russia these days offer none to tour housing projects. Everybody wants to see the palaces. There's a tour of 'estate housing' in London, and you have to walk unarmed in the East End -- winding up at Canary Wharf [Razz] .

Besides! There's a great advantage to dead empires; you can obtain vaccines for arrivistism from them.

And would you be so kind as to move that horrid ferris wheel from in front of Westminster Palace? As Churchill would have put it, It's giving imperialism a bad name.

Pay your taxes, curtsey to the Queen -- and amuse the world. That's the whole purpose of Britain. Monarchy is a genre of entertainment, and don't let your monarchy fall into the trap of mere celebrity. It's tawdry.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sky

I’m sure you know that Ivanhoe has nothing to do with history so I tend to ignore it. Walter Scott eat your heart out. The whole Saxon and Norman thing is plain wrong. The people that stood and fought on that ridge at Battle were English and had been for quite awhile. It is thought by some, or just me, that the Norman invaders quickly meddled into the local population albeit at the top of the social scale. Norman numbers were far too few to make any real difference to the make up of the population. In a couple of generations the nobility were trying to prove their noble English roots hence the name Hereward the Wake. There is no real proof that Hereward had any connection with the Wake family but they claimed him anyway. If I could show Hereward was gay I might stand a chance of not being booted out of this thread.

With you most of the way on your take on the Royals but would have to disagree with Napoleon and Louis XIV being worthy adversaries. I thought Americans just bought land from Napoleon and would have probably never heard of Louis XIV being so oppressed as they were.

As for that marvellous tourist attraction the London Eye all I can think is that you have never been up in it and seen the view. Definitely a better show than anything Michael Jackson may put on in London this year. Neat touch there I thought mentioning Michael Jackson in a SSM thread.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Gay is as Gay Does or as Gay Thinks?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kuato:
Is Gay is as Gay Does or as Gay Thinks?

Gay is as gay thinks. Otherwise half the population would be gay thanks to that one time back in college when they got reeeeeally wasted with a friend of theirs.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
False dichotomy, munga mah luv. Same one drawn between Sartre and Nietzche, if one substitutes 'be' for "do" and 'do' for "think".

Very little, if anything, in human experience is strictly phenomenological or noumenal.

This the koan: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

It takes two, BABY Singing a song like this.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The last song segues live into this:

which I think says it all and all that must be said.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Ferris Wheel may make for a great view, but it is tacky.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'he Ferris Wheel may make for a great view, but it is tacky."

And therefore so poetically apt...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
larney41
New Member
Member # 2478

 - posted      Profile for larney41   Email larney41       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my experience i find that conservatives that are so against gay marriage are pretty amusing, hypocritically. They are the sorts that are always up in arms when the government wants to know their business. But they care about 2 people of the same sex getting married. See, funny.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, but they *could* not possibly be inconsistent.

Just like the same people who oppose abortion, are also willing to call others "illegal."

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'Just like the same people who oppose abortion, are also willing to call others "illegal.""

Wow. Nailed it. Awestruck, I am.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There goes the (wait for it) Neig... borhood.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The guy (the groom, I think is the term, an interestingly husbandry-ish term) calls himself Jim West, but certainly no slight is intended against Washington's former legislator and former Spokane mayor who consistently voted against many gay rights but was ousted when it was discovered he had sex w/men w/out offering goats to their father?!?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1