The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
That makes sense, but then again, it was written down on paper. It was agreed to and signed (one version or the other).
{quote]
That’s true to a point. A lot were Deists. Jefferson is one of the least religious of the founders, and while he didn’t accept the divinity of Jesus or believe in miracles, he did adhere to the Bible. But it goes too far if one were to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree. A lot of it came from European philosophers, and some idealized vision of the Ancient Greek democracies.
To be fair, gay sex is a capital crime in Sudan: apparently either the Nuer aren’t really all that into SSM, or they haven’t convinced their pals in Sudan to overturn Sharia law.
I don’t agree. A lot of it came from European philosophers, and some idealized vision of the Ancient Greek democracies.
[/QUOTE]
True. Jefferson’s major precursor was Locke, whose main use for religion was as a social control. Atheists are problematic to Locke because they have nothing to swear on, but he makes no positive use of demonstrably Christian principles that I am aware of. (I’m SURE someone will have a counter-cite to this. Don’t disappoint me, people.)
Truth be told, I really don’t see Christian principles at work in the founders’ thought. I don’t deny that many if not most of them were practicing Christians to one degree or another, but Christian political theory essentially amounted to kings being prudent, not to any form of democracy or even a people’s right to revolt.
This whole thing is a strawman, and it keeps getting erected.
SSM opponent: …then you’re changing the definition of “marriage” away from “one man and one woman”. Traditionally, it’s always included one man and one woman. (Naturally, the speaker is talking about western culture, as that is the one that is applicable.)
SSM Proponent: But that’s not true. The word has NOT always meant that. There are plenty of examples in history and elsewhere where the one-man/one-woman part is not part of the definition. (True as that might be, it has no bearing on the claim made my the first person. The first person was not claiming that the word had always meant that, for all time, in every corner of the globe. So, the straw man gets erected in order that it can be glued to Person One and then torched for the falsity that it is.)
Now that’s cute. But it’s either outright dishonest or simply faulty logic. The fact of the matter is, even just 40 years ago—in our culture—no one would have questioned that marriage is the province of one man and one woman. Claiming otherwise is just disingenuous. This doesn’t mean that we need to keep that definition, but it is helpful to the debate when facts are accepted as such.
I see that Valteron makes a similar point in his excellent post regarding ancient Greece.
Emphasis mine. Garbage; to quote you :
You, and those like you constantly switch from human society in general, to Western Society, to American society, to right wing Christian society as your definition of “society” as you find useful to argue for your claims. As soon as someone points out your error in that case, you switch your definition again.
The one with the strawman is you and yours, and you keep moving it too.
I don’t know why I keep having to explain this.
mswas made the statement:
Now he, and everyone else that has read this thread, has seen an example. That’s all. The example does exist. It has now been seen. Ignorance fought, and all that.
The female-female marriages are not lesbian relationships. They are marriages made to keep property within a family that has no sons. cite. But that hardly matters. We have already established that not every marriage is for sex, or for love, or for procreation. The fact that the married couple may or may not love each other, may not have sex, may not be attracted to each other, may never reproduce nor raise children does not in any way negate the fact that they are married, and recognized as such by their society and culture.
Aside from the answer of ‘changing the definition of the word marriage’, are there any other negative consequences those that oppose SSM can think of?
It’s very confusing. You can read more about it here.
Absolutely. And Rome (but more Greek). But much of the European philosophers’ thinking came from, or was highly influenced by, Christianity. Like Locke, though Hume was an Atheist.
Right Same Sex **Marriage ** and hetero Marriage Not exactly the same thing but since you support them opening it across the street it seems you support SSM as long as they don’t live in the same house as the hetero families {unless invited of course} That seems a little odd but I think it shows great progress.
Huh? First, are you attributing a quote of mine to mswas? Or did she say that? As for me, this is the FIRST I have seen of this type of example. It may indicate that it exists in some corner of the world the way it has been portrayed in this thread (though I doubt it), but if it is, that shows simply that it is not 100% absent from history and the globe. The more pertinent point is the relation of that society to our culture. Would you care to draw the lines so I can see why you think this is relevant?
P.S. I love the “you and those like you…”. You can’t stop yourself, can you?:rolleyes:
The cuter you try to get the less you’re helping yourself. It just gets more and more clumsy. The fact is we don’t use modifiers for marriage because the word doesn’t need them. It has been a given that it was constituted of one man and one woman. And, as much as it pains me to have to point this out, in OUR culture. You want to change that. I don’t.
Actually, that isn’t relevant at all to the ignorance that was being fought.
And I’m interested to know the foundation of your doubt, since a detailed description of the rights, responsibilities and conditions of a Nuer female-female marriage was given.
If you have evidence that those things do not include shared property, familial responsibilities (including child-rearing and procreation) and recognition within the culture and society as a married couple, in the same sense that a male-female marriage is recognized, please show it with cites.
So that’s it? It doesn’t matter that gay sex is a capital crime? Are you fucking kidding?!!! That’s ridiculous. Obviously, something is getting lost in translation. They obviously do NOT view those SS relationships the same way they do two people that are married and raise a family. They can’t even consummate their relationship.
Are you really this desperate to put something—anything in the win column of your tally sheet?
Unbelievable.
Did I not give any examples, or did I give an example? Which is it? First you say “you didn’t give any”, then you allow “except the last one”.
Even in that tortured grammar, it would seem that the first part of your statement is, at best, misleading.
Why not just say “Only 1 of those 4 examples is pertinent?”
Again: the ability, desire, need or possibility of sexual relations is not necessary for a marriage. Also, the legality or illegality of an act has little to do with whether or not said acts can and do occur.
Please show me your evidence that:
All of the evidence presented is contrary to your assertion.
If it is obvious, you must be able to find evidence for it. I have presented research and writing from people who have spent time with the Nuer, specifically studying their society, it’s organization and it’s mores. Please counter with your evidence.
Not relevant. It’s the fucking POINT of it. The idea isn’t that someplace on the planet or some ancient culture that the letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e existed in that order and applied to something other than a man-woman relationship. The point is did it apply to a SS relationship where the couple was accept as a man-woman couple. And I’m gonna go out on a limb here, but if a culture outlaws gay sex and lesbian sex UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH, I’m gonna guess it’s IMPOSSIBLE to include that those relationships are accepted and embraced the way a man-woman marriage is. I guess the only thing that would show that they are just as accepted is if you can point to one of their laws that says that a man-woman sex is also subject to a death penalty.
Please, think about this. Your desperation is getting the better of you.
Here ya go: Yeesh.
The Nuer are animists. The anti-homosexual laws are imposed by the Muslim-run government.
I think that this whole Nuer situation is mostly a hijack*, but frothing at the mouth and lashing out at each other instead of doing the tiniest bit of research to discover the situation is no more helpful than some members of the pro-SSM crowd running about crying “Bigotry”!
*(For those anti-SSM folks who have insisted that marriage has always and everywhere been heterosexual, it is a valid refutation, but it fails to address the fact that 99.999% of the population growing up in the U.S. will be unaware of that fact or that that particular argument is not being advanced in this thread.)
The link is right there.
Now that someone has pointed out that mswas’s statement was wrong. It’s called “moving the goalposts”.
Oh, please. Are you saying that “those who oppose SSM” is not a group ? And that mswas does not belong to that group ?