Got me. A lot of folk would like to know why He created sinuses.
You may want to ask Dr. Dobson that; I’m just relaying his point of view.
Funny, I’ve never had a problem fitting with any of the guys I’ve been with.
:o
Silly, you know what I meant. 
vanilla, I feel like I know you fairly well (in relation to how well you can know anybody you’ve only interacted with on a message board), but I can’t really tell if you’re parroting Jimmy-boy to offer a data point or because you kinda sorta feel like he has a point. Normally, you seem like a pretty open-minded Christian, but sometimes you do vaccilate a bit…
If I’m one of those “activists” you’re talking about, that’s not a good description. I advocate the ending of marriage as a legal institution and relegate it solely to a social institution, which can have a religious rite if the participants so desire. The legal rights now taken care of by the legal concept of marriage can be handled perfectly well by a generic civil union arrangement. Presto - problem solved!
I hate to crash the party…
[Qualifier: Although I’m not well known here, at least some are probably aquainted with my posts/views on homosexuality and the bible. Still, I’ve not opined here on the issue of SSM]
I used to get together with a few friends from time to time and brink a beer or 2 and tell a few lies. It was comeraderie with the boys, and invariably had a little whining about our wives. Truth, or objectivity weren’t required to have a back slapping good time. Is that what I barged into?
Boys and girls, (well, boys and boys…) this is patently silly. Looking over the thread, it is as intellectually vacant as it gets. And, I am NOT (read: NOT) saying this from a POV of being against SSM. But thread is guilty of the same crimes committed by the extremists against SSM.
Certainly there are extremists on both sides of theis debate. Within that fringe there are some absurd allegations and charges. There’s no shortage of fear mongering and hyperbole on both sides. Still, the vast majority on both sides of the debate are rational, thoughtful people who have sound, reasoned feelings on the matter. (best as I can tell…)
Demonizing those opposed to SSM, or portraying them all as bigoted, closed minded idiots, motivated by fear or ignorance may be good fun but it’s hardly intellectually honest. Certainly no more honest than portraying all those in favor of SSM as debauched, morally bankrupt, sex crazed pawns of Satan.
Now the SDMB is no bastion for the conservative Christian with right wing politics (of which I’m not…) so maybe I’ve barged into the garage while the boys are having a little fun and no there’s no presumption of objectivity or intellectual rigor.
If so, please accept my apologies. And,where’s the fridge? I need a cold beer.
If the opponents of equality are portrayed as bigots, it’s because they are. At root, no matter how they may dress it up, those opposed to gay equality do so because they hate gay people. Whether because they’re just petulant bigots or Christian fanatics doesn’t matter, it’s still evil discrimination couched ultimately in bigotry and malice.
I rest my case.
And where’s that fridge?
There are countless threads about same-sex marriage on the SDMB. If you just do a search for the words “same sex marriage” in any forum, you’ll find them. Even easier is just to do a search on my posts, and 9 times out 10 that’ll be the topic. (That’s of course not meant to imply that I’m the last word; the most persuasive arguments are often from Polycarp, matt_mcl, Otto, and others).
That’s where you’ll find the objectivity and intellectual rigor. You’ll also find plenty of everything else from name-calling to personal stories to the occasional admission that someone has changed his mind. The arguments have been going on for years, and it’s a very tiring process, as well as being discouraging seeing the same things said over and over again, then realizing that they’ve been said over and over again for years with very little accomplished. It’s easier just to sit back and joke about it. But if you have something to contribute, that’s what the board is for.
Don’t know. I was still waiting for the constructive counter-arguments to start, instead of being told that we’re arguing about it the wrong way.
Point well made.
That’s why I used the garage analogy. I surmised that this was maybe just letting off some steam for some. (by some at least…)
And, that was my contribution on the subject. My feelings on the issue are fairly private and not likely to accomplish anything either.
Good. Now explain, in words of one syllable, how it seems to you that the Christian ethic calls on you to deny to your fellow man that which you can enjoy yourself. Not what he ought to do, but what you ought to do as regards him.
When I get a clear answer to that statement that satisfies me as being founded in Christ’s teachings, I might consider changing my mind. Until then, “love your neighbor as yourself” takes precedence, and I see no distinction in the love I feel for Barb and the love that many of my gay acquaintances feel for the men (or women) in their lives. Should they marry, under what God considers a proper marriage? IMO, He will bless that union – but at rock bottom, it’s not my concern at all – it’s between them and Him, and He has not seen fit to delegate to me the authority to rule over their lives. I’m surprised at the people who seem to think He has delegated that authority to them – or at least are giving that impression by dictating to others what they ought to do to get right with Him.
If done from humility – “one beggar telling another where to find the Bread of Life” – that’s fine. But that’s not the tone in which I generally hear such messages delivered.
I’m not saying that to be cantankerous to you, Raindog, but because I sincerely believe that my job, the one He has called on me in particular to do, is to be an advocate for them to folks who seem to think they know His will for them, even though those folks usually don’t seem to evince a bit of the love He said to have for them. Think it through, and let me know what you think, please.
Hello Polycarp.
I’m unable to field a cogent response to the question of SSM. The basis of your post is spiritual in nature. In that [religious] context I have certain mental clarity. I’m able to present my thoughts/feelings in a concise, clear way. My feelings are based on my reading of the scriptures, and my clear perception of God’s view, as articulated in the bible, on the issue of homosexuality.
But the context of SSM is civil/political. I place little personal value on political matters. Further, there is a dichotomy when personal [religious] values collide with civil/political values. Particularly in the USA, the struggle between church and state is visceral.
Any thoughts I would have on the matter would be rooted in religious beliefs, and considering that SSM is a political issue, I think it only appropriate to say I have no opinion. I just don’t have a dog in this fight. (especially as I have no stake in politics)
And so, I have no valid contribution to the issue of SSM. Of course, I do have an opinion as to the question of homosexuality. (and you and I have discussed this in other threads) But that is not only not pertinent to the OP, but it too is a subject that is well worn here, with the same frustration and lack of accompplishment.
My contribution to this thread was simply that name calling doesn’t help, and I would have had the same thoughts no matter what side of SSM I was on.
Raindog, the problem with what you are saying is that, in my experience, the anti-ssm marriage arguements really do boil down to either “Adam and Steve” for the good ole boy segment, or “slippery slope” for the more educated. Thusly the arguments wind up discussing marrying your goat or your sister (but not your sisters goat. That’s just oogy) or all fags burning in the fires of hell.
If there is another argument, either more or less reasonable, I’ve yet to hear it.
What are the arguments for including gay marriage that does not include polygamy? And Polycarp, what’s the matter with a man who divorces his wife to marry a young nubile girl? Supposedly he divorces his wife because he no longer love her, and if both he and the girl agree the marriage is great who’re you to denigrate it?
If this isn’t a formal logical fallacy, it damn well ought to be.
Classify: ‘My argument is vindicated by the fact that the opposition disagrees with me’ - anyone?
Don’t see why not. There really aren’t any arguments against same-sex marriage (at least not any that aren’t also against heterosexual marriage) that aren’t rooted in religion and/or ignorance, and religion or ideology can’t ever excuse those who advocate a separate, lesser set of rights for a minority.
If it could, you could justify pretty much anything. Anti-Semitic violence has usually been justified by appeals to religion. Proponents of slavery frequently used the Bible when making their arguments, and groups like the Church of the Creator still use religion to justify racism.
These people are always classified as bigots – no one gives them any leeway. So why is prejudice against us more acceptable? :dubious:
Does “anyone” include me? 
My argument was not whether SSM was valid or not. My point was that demonizing (or otherwise denigrating) opponents of SSM might be good fun but hardly intellectually robust.
I’ve had discussions with Polycarp about homosexuality. I’ve found him to be rational, reasoned, well prepared and respectful, although in the end we disagree. Making a caricuture of him, in the manner some of the opponemts of SSM do, would be unfair and a dis-service to him and the strength of his argument.
Yet you’re asking for folks to rush to the defense of spectrum’s argument that all opponents of SSM are petulant bigots, malicious Christian fanatics who hate gay people?
And my noting this is a “formal logical fallacy?”
Anyone?
Where did I ask this?
I took exception to spectrum’s post, and held it up as an example of my point. It appeared to me that you were taking exception to me taking exception. (if you know what I mean…)
If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.