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 6)

 - 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?
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for the specious claims of unfaithful scholars who deride the book of Revelation, I believe that Revelation 1:1, 2 overrules them all:


Not that I have much stake in arguments about how to interpret the Bible, but do you realize this is a tautological argument?

Adam

Posts: 4568 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  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 
"I promise I am telling the truth," inclines me toward scepticism rather than the opposite.
Posts: 1988 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin quote
"...the New Covenant, which rendered obsolete the laws of Moses, describing it as counterproductive and unobtainable."
_____________________________________________

You talk a good case but...me thinks it somehow to be a load.

How does , as you call it, " the New Covenant" render "Thou shalt not kill" obsolete? What about "Thou shalt not steal"? How are these teachings counterproductive?
O’ I get it, the words that they were translated from really meant , thou shalt not wiggle when listening to Moses.

The new and Everlasting Gospel, elevated the Law of Moses to a higher level. Thou shalt not even THINK of murder, theft, lust etc. Instead of an "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", (Matt5:38). He says in verse 44, "…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." The teachings of Jesus did not do away with the Law of Moses, it elevated it, and did away with carnal things. The teachings of Jesus Christ, if we strive to achieve them we become more like Jesus and God the Father. That’s His challenge to us.

Where is your proof that Paul was teaching from his upbringing, and tradition and, not from the word of God.

You speak as though you have great knowledge of some of these things you say are true; that the centurion was gay etc. Where is your proof.
Where’s the proof that Ron’s post is not true. There are things we don’t understand, and cnnot comprehend.
Christianity doesn’t have a simple of a name for it. Some call it Karma.
I gotta go “My name is Earl” is coming on. [Big Grin]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
Pyrtolin quote
"...the New Covenant, which rendered obsolete the laws of Moses, describing it as counterproductive and unobtainable."
_____________________________________________

You talk a good case but...me thinks it somehow to be a load.

How does , as you call it, " the New Covenant" render "Thou shalt not kill" obsolete? What about "Thou shalt not steal"? How are these teachings counterproductive?
O’ I get it, the words that they were translated from really meant , thou shalt not wiggle when listening to Moses.

The new and Everlasting Gospel, elevated the Law of Moses to a higher level. Thou shalt not even THINK of murder, theft, lust etc. Instead of an "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", (Matt5:38). He says in verse 44, "…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." The teachings of Jesus did not do away with the Law of Moses, it elevated it, and did away with carnal things. The teachings of Jesus Christ, if we strive to achieve them we become more like Jesus and God the Father. That’s His challenge to us.

You are confusing the Commandments, which he explicitly reinforced as you not with the Mosaic code (as presented in Leviticus) which was a huge body of law that was no longer beneficial to a settled, established Jewish culture (as opposed to the more nomadic life that they led under Moses, with many temptations to adopt other spiritual traditions) It's the latter, not the former whose complexity and scope had been transformed by many, such as the Pharisees that Jesus debated with into a tool of political control rather than a path to righteousness.

quote:

Where is your proof that Paul was teaching from his upbringing, and tradition and, not from the word of God.

You speak as if those are exclusive. I suppose it's wildly possible that Paul was raised in the 21st century (or some other era) and with its cultural sensibilities and then sent back to preach to the people, but that's a bit of a stretch, I think. He was a man of his time and spoke in the language and to the culture of his time. That doesn't prevent his words from conveying fundamental truths, but they must be read for meaning with an understanding of their context (and the motivations of the people translating them)

quote:

You speak as though you have great knowledge of some of these things you say are true; that the centurion was gay etc. Where is your proof.
Where’s the proof that Ron’s post is not true. There are things we don’t understand, and cnnot comprehend.

And you begin to see my more fundamental point. I may be right. Ron may be right. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be laughing at both of us. In any case, that's not a matter for secular law to decide- it has no business picking the winners and losers of religious debate. It must stand clear and let that dialog happen without interference.

By establishing any legal definition of marriage that goes beyond ensuring the parties involved are informed and freely offering consent, it oversteps its bounds. Were it not for the marked social value in providing incentives for the formation of stable family units, it would have no business dealing with it at all.

[ November 13, 2008, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 9082 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin quote
the winners and losers of religious debate.
__________________________________________

But only one side of a religious debate can be correct, True?
______________________________________________
Pyrtolin quote
In any case, that's not a matter for secular law to decide- it has no business picking the winners and losers of religious debate. It must stand clear and let that dialog happen without interference.

By establishing any legal definition of marriage that goes beyond ensuring the parties involved are informed and freely offering consent, it oversteps its bounds. Were it not for the marked social value in providing incentives for the formation of stable family units, it would have no business dealing with it at all.
______________________________________________

Why can’t the secular side define a same sex union as whatever, and let the religious side keep it’s marriage.
I don’t understand why people doing something that most religions frown on, wants the government to take the title marriage from religions, and give it to them. When I write it that way it seems like anti-religion. [Confused]

Think about it. [Smile]
It doesn't seem like they want equal rights, it seems like envy.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star,

I'm a scientific fighter for what I do. It seems to me that the gay community somehow did not seize a real opportunity to ease the way into what they say they wanted- equal protection under the law. Or maybe I'm the only one saying it, I don't know.

The easy way would have been to bring a lawsuit accusing the state of performing religious ceremonies. The state would have to counter that they were NOT religious, but civil contract. Once you had that admission, that "marriage" is a civil contract, they would have the grounds to sue for equal rights to the contract. The religious bigots would have fought it, and the compromise would be, to take the name "marriage" off the civil contract and leave marriage to the realm of the churches.

But things didn't go that way at all. Don't know why not.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because then we would have been accused of "trying to do away with marriage." The current strategy was the "keep but expand marriage" tack. Also, it's not just straight people who have trouble keeing the distinction between sacramental and civil marriage, er, straight. [Smile] "Marriage" has become so encrusted with various legal tidbits over the years, some self-contradictory (go check out all the rights and benefits involved in marriage at the GAO site sometime) that it's no wonder people have trouble keeping it all sorted out in their heads. But I agree with you, munga--I've always felt that civil marriage should be straightforward contract much in the form of incorporation--but I can understand why and how it's gotten so complicated, and why whomever first strategized about seeking SSM legally chose the route they did.
Posts: 5275 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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 
"Why can’t the black side define jumping the broom as whatever, and let the white side keep it’s marriage.
I don’t understand why people doing something that most whites frown on, wants the government to take the title marriage from whites, and give it to them. When I write it that way it seems like anti-white.

Think about it.

It doesn't seem like they want equal rights, it seems like envy"

Posts: 10207 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
Pyrtolin quote
the winners and losers of religious debate.
__________________________________________

But only one side of a religious debate can be correct, True?

I'm certain that each side can be absolutely correct about what their beliefs support.

As to what you actually meant- Universal spiritual truth? Perhaps, but that is, again a question that's not for the secular realm to provide. You may believe it to be so. You may even try to convince others that you are right,you have no right to force them to conform to your beliefs, though. As long as their actions do no harm to you, then it is their full right to be wrong.

quote:

Why can’t the secular side define a same sex union as whatever, and let the religious side keep it’s marriage.
I don’t understand why people doing something that most religions frown on, wants the government to take the title marriage from religions, and give it to them. When I write it that way it seems like anti-religion. [Confused]

The simple point in fact is that there are many separate institutions are question here that all use the same name. (I was going to say two, but the truth is that the details of marriage vary from faith to faith, and even between subdivisions of the same) It's unfortunate that they use the same term; nothing would make me happier than to see the civil contract renamed to eliminate confusion, call it civil union, family contract, or what have you, so that religions could have full internal control of the term and not feel threatened by the state at all.

But because of the common name doing such would be difficult at best because the act of preserving it from state interference could easily be cast as attacking the institution (just as the act of forcing state interference is cast as protecting it).

(And those states that pass laws that include language that prohibit any similar institution- preventing civil unions and domestic partner benefits from being offered, tend to belie the argument that the effort is just to protect the term "marriage". Let's not even get into the anti-family atrocity that Arkansas just put through.)

quote:

Think about it. [Smile]
It doesn't seem like they want equal rights, it seems like envy.

That's a false distinction. I would be surprise if marginalized people didn't envy social acceptance and equality. It's part of what motivates the struggle for equal rights- trying to obtain the level of social privilege that comes part and parcel with being fully integrated with the majority.

[ November 14, 2008, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 9082 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, you're my new favorite poster.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, my statement that Revelation 1:1, 2 overrules all the unfaithful scholars was not a tautological argument. It was a statement that what the Bible text says has more authority than any and all human scholars, and instantly overrules them whenever they contrive to contradict what the text plainly says.

And might I add, I especially feel disgust at any pseudo-scholar who casts aspersion on the book of Revelation, because it is the only thing we have in the Bible that explicitly came from Jesus Himself--it is the Epistle of Jesus.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Munga, you make a good point. Marriage is entirely a religious concept. Only churches (or synagogues) should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. For the secular government to intrude here is a violation of the separation of church and state implied in the First Amendment. The state should only be allowed to conduct ceremonies producing personal partnerships. Whatever rights need to be conferred to gays, such as rights of visitation in hospitals, rights of inclusion in health care coverage, etc., do not require the term "marriage" for them to be conferred.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Marriage is entirely a religious concept. Only churches (or synagogues) should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. For the secular government to intrude here is a violation of the separation of church and state implied in the First Amendment. The state should only be allowed to conduct ceremonies producing personal partnerships. Whatever rights need to be conferred to gays, such as rights of visitation in hospitals, rights of inclusion in health care coverage, etc., do not require the term "marriage" for them to be conferred.
In Judaism, the Reform and Reconstructionist movements support gay marriage. The Conservative movement grants individual rabbis the decision whether or not to perform gay marriages.

The United Church of Christ also performs marriages among same-sex couples.

Problem solved.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Munga, you make a good point. Marriage is entirely a religious concept. Only churches (or synagogues) should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. For the secular government to intrude here is a violation of the separation of church and state implied in the First Amendment. The state should only be allowed to conduct ceremonies producing personal partnerships. Whatever rights need to be conferred to gays, such as rights of visitation in hospitals, rights of inclusion in health care coverage, etc., do not require the term "marriage" for them to be conferred.

Don't forget Mosques, Buddhist, Hindu, and Zoroastrian temples, Quaker congregations, Asatru troths, etc... I don't think there's a notable faith out there that doesn't contain some form of marriage.
Posts: 9082 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It was a statement that what the Bible text says has more authority than any and all human scholars...
According to the Biblical text. Which is why it's tautological.
Posts: 20585 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
munga quote
the compromise would be, to take the name "marriage" off the civil contract and leave marriage to the realm of the churches.
________________________________________________

That's a good point. As far as I'm concerned nothing more needs to be said.
Well one more thing.
_________________________________________________
DonaldD quote

"Why can’t the black side define jumping the broom as whatever, and let the white side keep it’s marriage.
I don’t understand why people doing something that most whites frown on, wants the government to take the title marriage from whites, and give it to them. When I write it that way it seems like anti-white.

Think about it.

It doesn't seem like they want equal rights, it seems like envy"
_______________________________________________

Doesth thou mock, Sir?

Nonetheless; I don't know of any Black people who wanted to call themselves White.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Munga, you make a good point. Marriage is entirely a religious concept. Only churches (or synagogues) should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. For the secular government to intrude here is a violation of the separation of church and state implied in the First Amendment. The state should only be allowed to conduct ceremonies producing personal partnerships. Whatever rights need to be conferred to gays, such as rights of visitation in hospitals, rights of inclusion in health care coverage, etc., do not require the term "marriage" for them to be conferred.

And this has been my point from the beginning. The question is, are the religious ready to let church and state separate, in order so that we can all have equal access to our civil contracts, or we do really, in our heart/hearts want to continue to have the law show us preference?

I hope the former.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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 
Star Pilot: nope. But do you know any of them that want to married?
Posts: 10207 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shagdrum
Member
Member # 6029

 - posted      Profile for shagdrum   Email shagdrum       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...is this a debate on gay marriage or a debate on religion?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sakeneko
Member
Member # 6393

 - posted      Profile for Sakeneko   Email Sakeneko       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
| So...is this a debate on gay marriage or a
| debate on religion?

Both, I think.

For believing Mormons more than most, any tinkering with the meaning of "marriage" is an extremely serious religious issue. "Celestial marriage" is central to Mormonism -- the belief that heaven means being together as a family with your spouse and children in eternity as well as on earth.

In the relatively recent past, Mormons suffered te consequences of having a very different view of what a family should look like (polygamy in the 1800s) than the larger American public. When the U.S. government acted to force the larger community's opinion of proper marriage customs on the Mormons, they had to change their practices to survive. The First Amendment may protect religious opinions; it does not guarantee the right to act on them. Mormons are *very* aware of this distinction in ways that many of us are not.

You or I might buy the argument that it isn't the place of government to define what constitutes marriage in a church, and the government knows this and won't interfere. Mormons are (quite understandably, in my opinion) skeptical of that view. Many of my Mormon friends and acquaintances think I'm naive to believe that the U.S. government will respect minority religious views, and not try to force a church that disagrees with gay marriage to accept it, perform gay weddings, etc.

I hold opinions that differ from mainstream America because of my religious beliefs as well. I'm a Russian Orthodox Christian. Our political views are all over the map as a group, but we are at least as uniformly anti-abortion/pro-life as Roman Catholics. For us, abortion on demand isn't a political issue; it's a religious matter.

I'm not a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. I have some friends who are, and we're all concerned about the growing tendency to require medical professionals to "do their jobs" and provide abortion counseling, referrals, or supplies despite our belief that doing so would in most cases make us accessories to murder of an innocent human being. This isn't worry about some theoretical possibility; this is happening right now. :/

I don't agree with Card about gay marriage. I voted in California in the last election, although I now live in Nevada, and I voted against Prop 8. This is why: as I see it, the government needs to know who is in what relationship with whom so that it can determine who makes medical decisions for an incapacitated person, who is responsible for raising children, and who inherits when somebody dies. Calling two people married, in a legal sense, is a convenient shorthand for asserting a specific set of legal rights and responsibilities. That's all.

As with my birth certificate, I don't view my marriage license from the County of Los Angeles as anything but a piece of paper that has certain legal implications. If the government hadn't issued me a birth certificate, I'd have to deal with some hassles to get a passport, but I would still have been born. :-) If I didn't have a marriage license, I would have to deal with some hassles to put my husband on my insurance at work, but I would still be married because my priest married us in church before God.

The government has the power to regulate certain things, but it does not define reality. This includes spiritual realities as well as physical realities -- a government can no more define what constitutes a sacramental marriage for an Orthodox Christian than it can tell gravity to repel objects from the earth instead of attracting them to it.

In my view, if the government so far oversteps its authority to try to dictate to churches whom they must consider married sacramentally, *that* is the time to take to the streets. Until then, I am in favor of the government having laws that impose as few preconceived ideas of how people should live on the public as possible. If we set that precedent, then when the majority decides it doesn't like people being in heterosexual and monogamous exclusive pairings for life, there will be a legal precedent for respecting individual choices and against enforcing majority beliefs or prejudices on minorities that don't agree. :/

Card thinks differently. So do most Mormons I know, and not a few of my fellow Orthodox Christians at that. (wry grin) I don't think they've "lost all credibility" or become bigots because of it; they simply think differently than I do. That's an occupational hazard of having the capacity to think and free will.

Posts: 13 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately for Mormons and believers of all stripes, the gay folks in CA weren't attempting to win any debate in the moral courts. They were only asking for equal access to the domestic civil contract, which is called marriage, but if you are bothered by the name on the civil contract, take it off.

And yes, denying a group of people equal access to civil instruments on a moral basis is bigotry, in my opinion. It is not an occupational hazard of free will. It is an occupational hazard of a state constitution which allowed tyranny of the majority to touch the civil rights of a minority.

Card's a mean-spirited bigot and civil rights violating apologetics provider.

[ January 02, 2009, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sakeneko
Member
Member # 6393

 - posted      Profile for Sakeneko   Email Sakeneko       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You obviously haven't been living in the parts of California where I was was, munga. (wry grin) It is *precisely* the social sanction of marriage that many gay men and women I know want. Otherwise the current civil union process in many states would do the job nicely.

Objectively, I can't blame them. :/ Whatever my church teaches, I didn't choose to be heterosexual and can't imagine anybody choosing to be homosexual either. Not being able to get social recognition for your partnership with the person you love and plan to spend your life with is difficult emotionally as well as legally.

But Card a bigot because he disagrees? Someone who hated gay men and women could *not* have written Songbird. I'm starting to think that you might not have read much he's written. (That or you're so prejudiced you can't allow for people to disagree with you without attacking them personally.)

Posts: 13 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Someone who hated gay men and women could *not* have written Songbird.
Why do you think so? At what point in Songbird does a homosexual relationship turn out well?
Posts: 20585 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sakeneko
Member
Member # 6393

 - posted      Profile for Sakeneko   Email Sakeneko       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At what point in anything Card wrote does a sexual or romantic relationship turn out anything but difficult and full of pain? For that matter, which significant *people* in Card's work live lives full of unambiguous choices and unmixed happy outcomes? (shaking head) I find him a master storyteller, but I certainly don't read his books to feel better about life.

Mikal's love is shown as something essentially good in that story, but something that also carries a terrible price. I look at so many of Card's other stories and see people doing the right thing and paying a terrible price, from Lanik Mueller in Treason (I sure wouldn't have wanted to be Sarannah!) to Patience in Wyrms (shudder) to the fate of Ender Wiggins to Mack Street in Magic Street.

Why is his portrayal of this involving a gay man somehow a sign of homophobia, while his portrayals of these other characters don't imply hatred of them or their choices? Hmmmm?

Posts: 13 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But Card a bigot because he disagrees? Someone who hated gay men and women could *not* have written Songbird. I'm starting to think that you might not have read much he's written. (That or you're so prejudiced you can't allow for people to disagree with you without attacking them personally.)
No, Card isn't a bigot because he disagrees. Card is a bigot because he is capable of understanding the two courts- 1) moral (churches) and 2) civil (state/federal jurisdictions) and he is actively providing the fodder- even the apologetics- for maintaining unequal access to civil instruments on the basis of a moral question, i.e. tyranny of a majority morality depriving a minority of their civil rights through a referendum which should not have been allowed in the first place, but trust mean-spirited jack-asses who feel that their morality provides them all the excuse they need some powerful apologetics, and they are good to go. This position is exactly juxtaposed with the Plan of Salvation, which Card himself understands to support moral freedom as the only mechanism whereby we humans are able to experiment (and discern fruit) and work out our own "salvation" or in other words, become. Way to go, OSC.

He knows better, his books say he knows much better, and so I find him more repulsive than even the average snotty-religious-person because he does this dance with his eyes wide open, to my complete embarrassment.

[ January 03, 2009, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You obviously haven't been living in the parts of California where I was was, munga. (wry grin) It is *precisely* the social sanction of marriage that many gay men and women I know want. Otherwise the current civil union process in many states would do the job nicely.
I agree. I want them socially sanctioned, of course, so that they are allowed perfect freedom in which to explore their theories against God's world. If not, we frustrate their ability to have any vision or to form an good experiments on their moral ideas. And that's a ****ty thing to do to anyone, it is unkind, and against the plan for which I agreed to work before coming to Earth.

No freedom means no vision, or ability to perceive the fruit of a seed or theory. No vision means no responsibility, and no ability to change or improve or make any informed choices from that point. Give everyone legal protection, social acceptance while we all work on our ideas, and back off so we can live as God intended, moving grace to grace and becoming happier as we do so. It is the reason for a Savior.

I'd be a hypocrite to want to take that grace that God commanded I extend -my full support for every human's God-intended ability to see fruits for themselves - from anyone.

[ January 03, 2009, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sakeneko
Member
Member # 6393

 - posted      Profile for Sakeneko   Email Sakeneko       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm... The idea that gay marriage should be legalized to allow a moral sanction so that people can discover for themselves what the fruits of certain behavior are is an interesting take on the whole issue. I'd quote the part I'm responding to, but haven't quite figured out how to do it on this bulletin board yet....

Does Card ever post on this board? I'd like to see what he says in answer to that, if he does.

Posts: 13 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that we know of. And, I did actually accost him on exactly that issue once, at a place called "hatrack" -- it's a den of idiocy, but he visits there on rare occasions.

His answer was to ignore it.

[ January 04, 2009, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sakeneko
Member
Member # 6393

 - posted      Profile for Sakeneko   Email Sakeneko       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Hatrack River site? That's his home page; he probably visits it more often than occasionally. I think it has some forums, but I never checked them out.

It's a pity he isn't here. I don't know if he'd change any minds, but it seems rather pointless to argue with someone when they aren't answering.

Posts: 13 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thus, I'm not bothering to address him, here.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I do not understand at all in the marriage debate is the insistence that marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman.

Throughout human history, marriage has been used for many purposes and many unions. It has been used to unite partners in commerce, kin members, families, kingdoms. It has been used for political and economic purposes. Until recent human history, many marriages were arranged because of all those competing reasons.

Polygamy used to serve a useful purpose united women in cultures that had a high degree of delineation between male and female tasks. Even in cultures where polygamy isn't practiced, the banding together of women in groups to share child care taking has often been beneficial. I think that the more recent isolation of women during their child caretaking and reproduction that happened with the rise of the "nuclear family" has actually taken a huge toll on increasing their work loads. At the same time, it has enabled men to reengage in their child caretaking roles in ways that disppeared when the traditional form of apprenticing with your parents for your life's income generating activities mostly disappeared and education was farmed out to the state or to religious institutions.

And who can forget polyandry --- where a woman not only gets one man, but all his brothers? In some of the cultures I've worked in this practice is hidden, but used to avoid any male ever being seen as sterile. Usually at least one of the brothers is fertile enough to keep up appearances that the "husband" could reproduce his genes.

And until recent human history, it was never a "nuclear" family --- the in-laws were always a big part of the bargain.

Maybe OSC could tell us if the so-called more mainstream branch of the Mormon church gave up bigamy as a result in a change in religious philosophy or as a result of a change in US law.

In some ways, I find it unfortunate that the law against bigamy may have perverted its more useful function of banding women together to share their workload in a more agrarian economy. I'm sure there are many harmonious polygamous families, but the marginalization of this practice as made it an attractive hiding place for a few perverted individuals who want to dominate and control women and young girls. The immediate knee jerk reaction in these small communities that condone bigamy is that if there is one pervert that is using bigamy as a cover for getting at very young girls, the whole community must be engaging in that practice. It is as much of an extrapolation as to say that if one pedophile happens to be a homosexual, all homosexuals are pedophiles.

No matter how one individual defines marriage, the true meaning of marriage has always been diverse and broader than the two or more individuals that enter into that "contract".

Posts: 10 | 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 
sburgernutr, very nice to have you on board.
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 
Gotta love Justin Raimando. Man actually thinks for himself:

Gay Marriage Sucks

And he often thinks well. Here, however he ties himself in his own knot (emphases mine:

quote:
Which brings us to the central argument against gay marriage, which is that it is based on a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, one that just doesn’t fit the gay lifestyle. The whole idea of getting gays hitched is derivative of the central error of egalitarianism, the counterintuitive conception of human beings as being “equal” and, therefore, interchangeable—and therefore one-size-fits-all. Egalitarianism isn’t really a political ideology: it’s a religion, one quite capable of withstanding a sustained assault of clear evidence to the contrary.
Yet he paints both heterosexual and gay lifestyles in broad egalitarian strokes, does he not, citing A 'gay' lifestyle and A 'straight' lifestyle.

Justin defines marriage as a contract first and foremost for raising kids, and I've no problem with that. But plenty straight marriages are BAD for the children they produce/adopt, and plenty gay relationships are good for the children they produce/adopt, and are often centered upon and held together by this fact, as so many marriages are.

quote:
Lesbians can, and do, get pregnant: they raise children, thousands of whom are presently alive and kicking. In San Francisco, they make up a significant—and growing—part of the public school population. Lesbians, therefore, fit into the procreative model of marriage, even though they cannot reproduce without the passive participation of men who donate sperm. Gay men, on the other hand, are … men, and no man really wants to get married.

Promiscuity and its attendant attitudes go hand-in-hand with maleness: it’s our genetic and socially constructed legacy, imprinted on our very nature and invincible to the assaults of both politically correct feminists and puritans of the Right. Monogamy and maleness are opposites in a dichotomy: the idea of sexual fidelity is distinctively feminine, linked as it is with an overwhelming (and inherent) need for security and certainty – that is, the certainty that the father of her children will assist in their proper rearing. The collapse of this socio-sexual compact, which undergirds our civilization, is behind the inner city’s descent into barbarism, where roving bands of undisciplined fatherless males have been unleashed, wreaking havoc and filling the prisons.

Well then, let's keep men out of marriage period, Justin?

Of course, Justin is a dedicated libertarian, which explains any number of contradictory conclusions and exclusion of discomfiting data so long as the result is a denunciation of the State's involvement in personal life, which makes sense in a monarchy but in a democracy, the essence of our form of governance. We the people govern we the people.

Only way we'll learn to do it right is through exercising our political muscles.

[ March 05, 2009, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 Sakeneko:
Hmmm... The idea that gay marriage should be legalized to allow a moral sanction so that people can discover for themselves what the fruits of certain behavior are is an interesting take on the whole issue. I'd quote the part I'm responding to, but haven't quite figured out how to do it on this bulletin board yet....

Does Card ever post on this board? I'd like to see what he says in answer to that, if he does.

If he was to answer (which he won't, because he never makes an appearance on Ornery), he'd pooh-pooh the idea. His essays over the years and his choice of "informative" sources (one of Ornery's front page links at the moment is to a tirade from the Family Research Council about how gay marriage can't work because gays are all deviants who can't stay monogamous and shouldn't be trusted to raise children) have made it pretty clear that Card's objection to same sex marriage isn't just a matter of preserving the sanctity of marriage, it's based on a deep-seated dislike of homosexuals and a desire to go back to the good old days when they kept their big gay mouths shut and knew better than to ask for
special treatment.

So basically any argument advocating same-sex marriage is gonna get little more than a rote answer from Card.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HatrackBB
Member
Member # 3323

 - posted      Profile for HatrackBB   Email HatrackBB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Not that we know of. And, I did actually accost him on exactly that issue once, at a place called "hatrack" -- it's a den of idiocy, but he visits there on rare occasions.

His answer was to ignore it.

It's funny to me that I was questioning why I don't visit these forums at all, and rather spend all my time in hatrack. It seems I was inadvertently doing the right thing.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hatrack,

I over-generalized.

I hardly visit there, but wandered in when the Hatrack folks HAD Card on, and he was being asked the dumbest line possible on his SSM issues by the folks at Hatrack. Why not instead discuss the inherent hypocrisy between Card's writings, the Church's plan of salvation, the law of Mosiah, Dallan Oak's own statements concerning the rightness for civil law to defend all on equal footing to allow minority-choices in moral-issues so that conscience not mobocracy prevails?

My disappointment with the Hatrack folk stems both from their inability to frame the questions for Card so that Card could attempt to resolve his self-created conundrum. As such, one could suppose that Card would be right in believing that the Hatrack folks cannot formulate any true argument for him to consider while he continues his practice of supplying apologetics to those who wish to continue denying equal access to our domestic civil contract to all people.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HatrackBB
Member
Member # 3323

 - posted      Profile for HatrackBB   Email HatrackBB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Hatrack,

I over-generalized.

I hardly visit there, but wandered in when the Hatrack folks HAD Card on, and he was being asked the dumbest line possible on his SSM issues by the folks at Hatrack. Why not instead discuss the inherent hypocrisy between Card's writings, the Church's plan of salvation, the law of Mosiah, Dallan Oak's own statements concerning the rightness for civil law to defend all on equal footing to allow minority-choices in moral-issues so that conscience not mobocracy prevails?

My disappointment with the Hatrack folk stems both from their inability to frame the questions for Card so that Card could attempt to resolve his self-created conundrum. As such, one could suppose that Card would be right in believing that the Hatrack folks cannot formulate any true argument for him to consider while he continues his practice of supplying apologetics to those who wish to continue denying equal access to our domestic civil contract to all people.

In the interest of full disclosure I am BlackBlade on hatrack hence my name here since BlackBlade was already taken. Mr. Card does not spend a whole lot of time on the Books, Film, Food, Culture section of the forums. Rather he occasionally visits the discussions about him side of the forum.

Frankly I find that regardless of how abhorrent one finds Mr. Cards opinions, and I confess I do not agree with some of the thing he is saying these days, still I find the level of emotion especially anger and smugness to be too high for any reasonable level of discourse to take place.

I'm not calling you either of those things, but it seems like emotion is at poisonous levels whenever this topic is discussed. I can empathize with proponents of SSM marriage who feel an urgency with getting perceived wrongs righted, but I also feel that opponents of SSM marriage are being unfairly marginalized, dismissed, ridiculed. No doubt some will say, "Well I won't shed tears for discriminators being discriminated against." But that is exactly what is so poisonous about this topic. People for whatever reason want to see the other side suck on it.

I think you've brought up many excellent points munga, I don't have good answers for them all, but then again I don't even have all the good answers I need to form a strong opinion on this matter. I would simply be happy if both sides could dispense with the ugliness and realize that if this whole debate is really about love, hate in all its' forms can only be an enemy to that ideal.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hatrack,

There isn't all that much poison going on around here. Card is especially cruel in his ways of using his very great writing abilities to hide his attack upon what is essentially a matter of access to a civil contract, which is why we rarely refer to him......he takes the questions into the ugly-zone.

If you like the topic, and I have worked much on it here (and here SSM does have very vocal opponents) by all means, stick around.

Make your own judgment.

[ March 17, 2009, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by HatrackBB:

No doubt some will say, "Well I won't shed tears for discriminators being discriminated against."

*Waves* That would be me. [Smile]

Honestly though, do you get the level of just plain not getting it that must be present for an opponent of SSM to complain about being "unfairly marginalized"?

I understand that you want people to be nice and civil, but what opponents of SSM are doing, whatever their reasons and however politely they talk about it is not civil. People can't kindly and politely deny equal protection.

And, Dude, even MLK used boycotts.

Posts: 1988 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HatrackBB
Member
Member # 3323

 - posted      Profile for HatrackBB   Email HatrackBB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots:
quote:
Honestly though, do you get the level of just plain not getting it that must be present for an opponent of SSM to complain about being "unfairly marginalized"?
No I don't. I am not happy about the fact we instituted affirmative action to combat prejudice, as that solution has its' own set of problems. Don't get me wrong I think something had to be done about prejudice based on race, and maybe affirmative action was the best thing we could have come up with, sometimes a bad situation just can't be made good. I would not rejoice if SSM was given the green light nation wide and that it was done in such a way the resentment was needlessly engendered because opponents of SSM were maltreated. My sympathies are broad enough to reach both sides of this issue, I don't decide what's right and wrong based on which side has the most martyrs, neither should you.

quote:
I understand that you want people to be nice and civil, but what opponents of SSM are doing, whatever their reasons and however politely they talk about it is not civil. People can't kindly and politely deny equal protection.

If that's how you want to phrase it. I disagree that equal protection cannot be denied politely or kindly. Just because your position necessitates that you believe your opposition to be less than intelligent as well as evil in its' doings, does not mean they feel the same way about you.

I personally think I can support marriage being defined as the realm of male and female relationships while civil unions with identical rights to marriage would be the perusal of stable same sex partnerships. Perhaps that is not the position you are vehemently opposed to.

quote:
And, Dude, even MLK used boycotts.
When did I say anything about boycotts? My only objection is vilifying such a broad group of people as opponents of SSM. They are not all stupid, they are not all evil, they are not all much of anything.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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