[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Uh-oh, people! We’ve got the Slippery Slope a’comin!
[/QUOTE]
Except when some guys tell us that the Bible really means something else, or that some parts are inoperative and some parts aren’t, or that my sect says dancing is immoral and your sect doesn’t.
Let’s face it, Huck is a schmuck.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Except when some guys tell us that the Bible really means something else, or that some parts are inoperative and some parts aren’t, or that my sect says dancing is immoral and your sect doesn’t.
Let’s face it, Huck is a schmuck.
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention, there’s how many different translations and versions of the Bible are out there?
Some sects omit or include different books of the Bible-the Catholic vs. Protestant, for example.
People have been “amending” the Bible since the first edition.
[QUOTE=SisterCoyote]
I seriously want to know what sort of logical progression leads from two consenting adults marrying to an adult marrying a child or an animal, neither of whom can consent (not planning to start an age debate, here).
I mean, I know that their logic is not similar to Earth logic, but someone, somewhere, had to come up with a logical reason that consensual marriages must logically be followed by non-consensual couplings. Right?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll take a shot, but I’m not promising to get it right…
You can change the age of consent, so you could (theoretically) allow adult-child marriages. In some cultures that’s common. As for an animals, well they don’t really get to “consent” to anything, so that’s not really an issue. But I also think that, fundamentally (no pun intended), they see gay sex as deviant in the same way that sex with children or animals is deviant. As in “unnatural” or “not sanctioned by God”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But I also think that, fundamentally (no pun intended), they see gay sex as deviant in the same way that sex with children or animals is deviant. As in “unnatural” or “not sanctioned by God”.
[/QUOTE]
Just the way marriage between blacks and whites was once seen as deviant. Look what happened when that was allowed.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
There is only one God, Our conceptions and misconceptions about Him don’t change His nature.
[/QUOTE]
Then, surely, the mention of Nature’s God doesn’t actually matter? As long as they said that the United States were and ought to be free, they were founding the country on God?
Fear Itself; and Catholics and Protestants.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Just the way marriage between blacks and whites was once seen as deviant. Look what happened when that was allowed.
[/QUOTE]
Similar, maybe, but I really don’t think it’s the same. The idea that different races shouldn’t marry was artificially built up, replacing a convention where it wasn’t much of issue, if at all. Socially scandalous, maybe, but not illegal. But we’ve never, in our culture, sanctioned same sex marriage legally or otherwise. That would be breaking new ground entirely. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! 
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Similar, maybe, but I really don’t think it’s the same. The idea that different races shouldn’t marry was artificially built up,
[/QUOTE]
All of culture is artificially built up. Your argument comes down to saying bigotry is less bad if it has been around a really long time.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
All of culture is artificially built up.
[/quote]
Not in the way the anti-miscegenation laws were created. That wasn’t cultural, that was legal.
No it doesn’t, and I’m not saying that.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not in the way the anti-miscegenation laws were created. That wasn’t cultural, that was legal.
No it doesn’t, and I’m not saying that.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but same sex attraction is a natural part of humanity (and primates). And same sex unions have a long history in humanity.
The law is a part of our culture. A large part of Western society long ago made a judgment against same sex union and codified that into the law. Later a large part of society made a judgment against interracial marriage and codified that into the law. I do not see any difference between the two.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
How would it be possible for something that doesn’t exist to change? I mean, dude?
[/QUOTE]
Fictional characters can change; it’s just the creators and not the characters that are behind the changing.
That being said I was pointing out that he was making an evidence free statement about something that he has no evidence even exists. A double serving of bullshit, in other words.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but same sex attraction is a natural part of humanity (and primates). And same sex unions have a long history in humanity.
[/quote]
Yes to the first part, but we’ve only recognized that recently. Legalized same sex unions have no history in our culture.
No. Most laws against same sex marriage are recent. You didn’t need laws because everyone assumed that marriage was between men and women only. In the American legal tradition, that is. Western society might have made gay sex illegal, but no one even considered the idea of same sex unions. In fact, the idea of people being gay (ie, born that way) is a rather recent understanding.
Laws against mixed race marriage were introduced precisely because people of different races had been getting married-- and the bigots wanted it stopped.
I sent an e-mail question to Dan Savage, asking if he’s doing another contest for Huckabee’s name. keeps fingers crossed
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Feel free to criticize until frogs rain from the sky. But I think worrying about the Constitution may be a little premature. I’d fret over Supreme Court appointments more.
[/QUOTE]
hm, can a mod move this over to forteantimes.com? 
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Fictional characters can change
[/QUOTE]
Actually, based on the outraged squealing that rose up from certain quarters when Peter Jackson altered minor elements of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, or when Frank Miller tweaked Batman’s backstory, or when Thomas Harris retconned the Hannibal Lecter biography in later novels, I’m not sure even that’s a safe assertion.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Then, surely, the mention of Nature’s God doesn’t actually matter?
As long as they said that the United States were and ought to be free, they were founding the country on God?
[/QUOTE]
They were founding the country on their idea that rights are given to people by God. And the DoI is their explanation as to why they believe that the US was right to declare its independence. So, in that sense, yes, I suppose you could say they were “founding the country on God”.
But the differing understanding of the nature of God doesn’t make any difference - they agreed that part of His nature was that He gave rights. That’s why they signed their names - they agreed that the document said what they agreed to - that God gave them certain rights, and that they were entitled to establish the USA so as to secure those rights, which they said had been interfered with by the King of England.
But whether they were Deist or Christian or Jewish or whatever doesn’t make any difference. I believe the references to “Nature’s God” are there because that was the minimum to which all the various Christians and Deists and what-have-you could agree. The various dogma of the divinity of Christ or who was caliph after Muhammed died or the other parts of “revealed” religion, they could agree to disagree on.
So the catechism, if it were going to be done that way at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, could have gone like this:
“Do you believe there is a God over us?”
“Yes”.
“Do you believe He grants rights to men?”
“Yes”.
“Do you believe the actions of the King of England are sufficient to justify setting up a new government to protect those rights?”
“Yes”.
“Is God more like a watch maker, or more like a Father?”
“Who gives a shit?”
“Good answer - sign here.”
Regards,
Shodan