[QUOTE=the raindog]
Elaborate please.
[/QUOTE]
His point is that if you choose to outlaw one activity because of Leviticus you ought to argue a lot of other common ones, because Leviticus prohibits an awful lot of stuff that even observant Jews generally don’t give a crap about, let alone lapsed Christians.
[QUOTE=Otto]
I do address your point. Any system that is based on the demonization of a sexual orientation is fundamentally illogical. There is no sense under which such demonization is in any way logical.
[/QUOTE]
Is there room on your lapel for the NAMBLA ribbon?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
He didn’t proclaim something to be a right. Marriage as a fundamental right is pretty much a given in society, to the extent that even slaves were oftentimes allowed to marry.
[/QUOTE]
They weren’t, at least not in the United States. Slaves “married”, but the marriages weren’t legally recognized and didn’t give them the rights that legal marriage did.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
His point is that if you choose to outlaw one activity because of Leviticus you ought to argue a lot of other common ones, because Leviticus prohibits an awful lot of stuff that even observant Jews generally don’t give a crap about, let alone lapsed Christians.
[/QUOTE]
Is that all the bible has to say about homosexuality?
Even then, what is the contextual understanding about homosexuality in the OT?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Isn’t it normally the Republicans who engage in the gay bashing? The 'pubes have had a rough few years not coming across as a bunch of hypocritical closet homos.
[/QUOTE]
That could be part of it. The occasional drip-drip of news items like the Larry Craig incident increases the risk that any attempt at gay-bashing demagoguery will carry an unfortunate doth-protest-too-much undertone…
Not bashing?
Okay. Let me point out that
a) The Oregon law was not a marriage law but a domestic partner/civil union law. Opponents of Oregon’s same-sex marriage effort assured everyone up and down that civil unions were fine and that they were concerned about “marriage” per se. They they turned around and fought civil unions.
b) The challenge to the civil union law was filed at the last minute and is on the surface a complaint against the way that Oregon counts petition signatures. Of Oregon’s thousands of petitions over the years, this is the one that gets challenged. Not a coincidence, I assume you’d agree.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
I call it a loathsome ideology because it is destroying Western civilization. Society doesn’t exist merely to protect your self-proclaimed “rights,” asshole.
[/QUOTE]
Do you bother listening to the words before you type them out? “Destroying Western civilization.” Really? REALLY? Homosexuality and the movement for equal rights under the law is causing the decline of the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD?? Or do you just mean the U.S.? Because, I gotta tell you, Canada, the Netherlands and other nations that have recognized gay marriage & civil unions are all doing pretty damn well.
Homosexuality is. Full stop. It’s been around as long as there’ve been people. Even before, as it’s been shown that there are even (ogodogodmakeitnottrue!!!) animals that have homosexual sex. Kinda takes the wind out of that whole “unnatural” sail, huh? It isn’t going to be “stamped out” because you don’t like it and the mere idea makes you all sweaty and quivery with repressed sexua…er, righteous indignation. I know. It’s a world gone mad.
Oh. And, just for the record? Society actually does kind of exist to protect our rights. That’s rather the point. Laws exist to protect the rights of everyone within the society. “Everyone” includes “even people who practice icky kinky sexual stuff that goes beyond man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick-with-the-lights-turned-out.”
At the last meeting of the Minority committee meeting we voted and gays were not elected into the demonized position this election cycle. Since the meetings are closed, I can not divulge at this time who was elected, but I’m sure it will become clear over the course of the next few months.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Fear, actually. Fear of gays. Fear of Muslims. Fear of Terrorism. Fear of Mexicans. Fear of taxes. Fear of communism. Fear of secularism. Fear of Palestinians. Fear of Saddam. Fear of Iran.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. If you know a half-Mexican, half-Iranian, Gay, Muslim, Communist, illegal immigrant from Iraq (via Palestine), who works for the IRS, named Osama…buy that guy a beer…because he is seriously fucked.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
I call it a loathsome ideology because it is destroying Western civilization.
[/QUOTE]
In that case, let me be the first to say “Fuck Western civilization, I eagerly await the improved civilization that follows.”
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Is that all the bible has to say about homosexuality?
Even then, what is the contextual understanding about homosexuality in the OT?
[/QUOTE]
My point: who cares? Biblical law is not the basis of modern Western secular legal systems. Period. The fact that the most influential thing that’s preventing “my people” (gives “Go down, Moses” a whole new complexion, doesn’t it?) from achieving their rights is the very thing that’s not supposed to have a say in US law…Biblical beliefs and those who would shove them down the throats of everyone in the world, is incredibly frustrating.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
My point: who cares? Biblical law is not the basis of modern Western secular legal systems. Period. The fact that the most influential thing that’s preventing “my people” (gives “Go down, Moses” a whole new complexion, doesn’t it?) from achieving their rights is the very thing that’s not supposed to have a say in US law…Biblical beliefs and those who would shove them down the throats of everyone in the world, is incredibly frustrating.
[/QUOTE]
My point: You’re right!
To say that the bible shouldn’t be considered at all in the question of SSM/ gay rights, is, at least, a defendable position.
The tired (and inaccurate) “shellfish, mixed thread, gay sex” meme that DMC trotted out is not.
As you noted, moral considerations (including the bible) are valid or they are not. If they are, there is a defendable position that SSM etc should be barred on that basis.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Don’t you consider it just a little bit strange that the Constitution contained a provision outlawing slavery that nobody saw for more than 70 years? Don’t you consider it just a little bit strange that the Constitution contained a provision allowing female suffrage that nobody saw for more than 130 years?
[/QUOTE]
Right, well, there are a lot of little errors to be corrected. One step at a time!
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Gay rights is destroying western civilization?
Gosh.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it won’t do to focus attention on the actual menace to Western Civilization (Islamic fundamentalist extremism). Why, people would notice the uncomfortable resemblance between Talibanism and certain domestic political factions, and that would ruin the latter in much the same way Naziism ruined genteel anti-Semitism.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
According to Robert Bork, its us dirty fucking hippies who destroyed West Civ, and I’m damned if I’ll let the gays take that away!
[/QUOTE]
If you damn dirty hippies already destroyed western civ, then how can us fags do it now? Or was it rebuilt in the interim? Or is the whole (insert group here) is going to destroy civilization as we know it idea a bunch of bullshit? This is really confusing ya know.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
As you noted, moral considerations (including the bible) are valid or they are not. If they are, there is a defendable position that SSM etc should be barred on that basis.
[/QUOTE]
And as I noted above, moral considerations- in the sense that “moral” = “according with religious dogma”- are indeed valid, if you live in a place with a state religion.
The United States has no state religion (except possibly shopping) so in this case “moral considerations” are invalid.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
And as I noted above, moral considerations- in the sense that “moral” = “according with religious dogma”- are indeed valid, if you live in a place with a state religion.
The United States has no state religion (except possibly shopping) so in this case “moral considerations” are invalid.
[/QUOTE]
Which is beyond annoying. Can we please break the stranglehold of the religious on “moral”? It is perfectly possible to be a moral person AND an atheist/agnostic at the same time.
[QUOTE=Othar the Tooth Collector]
I can’t remember the chapters/verses, but there is stuff in the New Testament against homosexuality as well. Supposedly Jesus nullified a lot of the Old Testament rules, but it was made clear (by Paul, maybe?) that the homosexuality rules still stood.
[/QUOTE]
I know the discussion has moved on from this, but…
That particular canard is based off a very poor translation of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. In particular, his use of the term “arsenokoites” which was later translated from Greek as “homosexual” for what appear to have been ulterior motives by the translator(s).
Problem is, Paul is about the only source we have for the use of the term “arsenokoites” – we don’t really know what it means. There were lots of other Greek words for “homosexual-[whatever]” that Paul could have used, had he wanted to. But he didn’t.
We have very few sources as to what “arsenokoites” means. We know it was something regarded as sinful or criminal, and most likely was a term used for male prostitution.
So if we’re going to take ol’ Paul as the authority on marriage, and if his prohibition of same-sex prostitution also prohibits same-sex marriage… he also prohibits opposite-sex prostitution, so we can all deduce what that means we should do about opposite-sex marriage…
I should be used to the fact that people in America have been conditioned to think they can score Biblical points in arguments without actually having read the Bible, but I’d expected a little better on the 'Dope. Even in the Pit.
I’m still waiting for the list of Western civilazations that are being jeopardized by legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain seem to be ticking along all right recognizing same-sex marriage. Andorra, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The United Kingdom and Uruguay do not seem in any imminent danger of collapse. Hungary will start recognizing same-sex unions next January; maybe they’ll be the ones to collapse. I’ll certainly be keeping an eye out.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
If you damn dirty hippies already destroyed western civ, then how can us fags do it now? Or was it rebuilt in the interim? Or is the whole (insert group here) is going to destroy civilization as we know it idea a bunch of bullshit? This is really confusing ya know.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, look, pal! You guys already stole the term “straight” from us, a term of appropriate opprobrium, for happy shiny plastic people. Now that its been thoroughly hijacked, I’ve got to stand for being described as “straight”, even describe myself that way, through gritted teeth!
And you never even thanked us! Rude and crude, dude.