Because “civil union” means “We’re trying to set up something different just so gay people have it”, for one.
Because “marriage” is a civil term, for another, and the claim that it belongs to religions is flatly false. If you want your religious thing, you have your own word for it: matrimony. Leave marriage alone.
A point of which too few people are cognizant. Marriage, in 21st Century European-based society, owes far more to ancient Roman Law than it does to Christianity. Judaism, for example, permits polygyny (although European Jews have accepted a centuries-old decree to avoid it so as to not rile up their neighbors) and there are indications that polygyny might have been accepted among the earliest Christians, at least in Asia Minor and Mesopotamia–distant from Rome.
We also inherited the notion of marriage as legal contract from Roman law.
Cosmodan already admitted this point in post 158. However, I am not trying to dismiss the legitimacy of elaborating on a point, for indeed, more people around here could learn this information.
Also, “civil union” and “domestic partnership” seem to imply that there is no romantic or sexual relationship, just a purely platonic arrangement. I think that this is precisely the point, that conservatives simply don’t want to have to acknowledge that two men or two women can legitimately be in love.
Well, possibly. I’ve known married couples who haven’t slept togther for years.
Surely there is little belief that same sex couples that have a domestic partnership aren’t doing it.
There does seem to be some wierd sense that if it’s called marriage then somehow hetero marriages are diminished in some way. Ridiculous isn’t it, considering the sorry state of marriage in this country?
I like the term fiance, which is french for “the person I’m fucking now”
good point. I try to examine my reasons for believeing as I do. I realize I must be ready to surrender something that I once held as “true” if I am going to grow. If I defend it just to claim the label of being right then I only hurt myself and others.
I just reread this thread myself. I’m still new to SDMB and I think I may have misunderstood the nature of great debates myself. Like you I enjoy a discusion that makes me think and try to clarify my own beliefs and ideas. I enjoy the input from others and have been helped out by several people here with links to articles and such. Im begining to understand that GDs requires a little more than blurting out an opinion. You will be asked to defend it with evidence and if you have none just say so. When you slip in a term like factual then you’re asking to be challenged. If you qualify your statement by admiting limited support then it will be acceopted as such.
I wondered why everyone was getting so pissed at you. Personnaly I thought your original post was fairly inteeresting because I wasn’t aware of Eastern thoughts on homosexuality and so I learned something. The concepts themselves were pretty negative toward homosexuals so I understand the posts that treated them as such. You may see it as neutral but that doesn’t seem realistic. It may not be intentionaly malicious, but it’s not neutral. Those views have no factual foundation or evidence which was pointed out to you several times. That being the case they you’re agreeing with them is just you’re personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that if you recognize it as such. I recognized that right away so I wasn’t offended.
I agree. I enjoy GDs because the subject matter is more interesting. I often see opinions without much evidence. I don’t mind. It’s stimulating. I think the attacks on you were a little excessive although several posters went to great lengths to try and explain the basics. I don’t come to GDs to prove anything either but to exchange ideas and info with the hope of learning something.I’m thinking I should spend more time in IMHO as well. I hope it’s as enjoyable.
I can see why others saw your quotes as just cultural bigotry from another source. Because of your high opinion of Eastern thought you don’t see it that way. Fair enough. If a conservative Christian says homosexuality is an abomination because the Bible says so they don’t see it as hatred and bigotry but I can understand others seeing their belief that way.
finally, thanks for posting. I hope to see you around SDMBs
I apologize for quoting one of my earlier posts, but after all these pages of mindless crap, my previous assessment has proven to be sadly accurate.
You cannot debate with someone for whom the word “debate” means making a mindless assertion and expecting everyone else to . . . what? I was going to say “disprove” it, but words like “prove” or “disprove” have no meaning to a person who explicitly disavows reason.
The assertion that my partner and I will “destroy society” is almost too laughable to debate, but I suppose there may be people who believe this yet, on some level, are still open to reason. I’d certainly be willing to debate the assertion with those people. But to try to debate with someone who admittedly has no respect for reason, is simply a waste of time. I’ve got better things to do than tilting at windmills.
The problems this thread ran into were not the fault of one poster. GDs is full of people expressing an opinion without any real hard evidence. Part of the problem was the responses to the posts didn’t nail it as just opinion right away. There were tangents and then tangents on those tangents.
It could have been much simpler and shorter if it was acknowleged as personnal opinion right away.
They may be “doing it” but they aren’t in love.. They can’t be. I won’t have it. And I won’t use language that implies that they are. Love comes from God, therefore two men or two women can’t be in love. They may engage in perverted behavior from time to time, but the only legitimate basis for their relationship is that they’ve agreed to share household finances. (Naturally I’m paraphrasing.)
Are you serious with this assertion?
Bolding mine:
I interpret “we” in this context to mean, “All of us here, except for that drmark.” That’s a mighty exclusionary attitude coming from someone who, I presume, has dealt with a lot of exclusion in his day. An attempt to gang a lot of people up on one person, in other words, a bashing. A little getting back, perhaps? See what I mean by, “They are what they claim to loathe.”
Careful how you tread, here! Valid points? Pray, what are those valid points?
Invalid? That’s quite the judgement call! Can you say, “intolerance”? “They are what they claim to loathe.”
A bit of a superior tone here throughout these quotes. Well, more than a bit. “They are what they claim to loathe.”
So, the full meaning of the word breaks down to 3 components, 2 of which are “within the rules,” and 1 of which is “iffy,” which I assume to mean “open to interpretation.“ A pretty substanceless rule, then, by your interpretation. I would remind you, as well, that you didn’t write the rule, MEBuckner did. If he’s around, I’d like to know what he thinks of your determination which, in my opinion is utterly self-serving, an attempt to cover your tracks. “They are what they claim to loathe.”
Again with the “we.” How about, “Wee, wee, wee,” all the way home? That’s what the littlest of the piggies did!
Yeah, nice pass off. Another attempt to rouse up your own sentiments in others. “They are what they claim to loathe.”
Wash them, and scrub well. I’m sure they could use it. Once again, debate is departed from repeatedly in this forum. Ignore EVERY poster who has departed from debate. Maybe that would suit you, but you’d have a lot less of your “we” left. Restrict the group to only those of whom you approve. “They are what they claim to loathe.”
Y’know, I was sure I had seen something like this posted earlier in the thread. If everyone prefers to expend all their energy criticizing other posters rather than sticking to the topic, I’ll be happy to move this to the Pit (where it will probably be closed for terminal inanity).
If someone has a reason to believe that the failure to suppress homosexuality will cause our society to fail or a reason to believe this is not true, post it soon or this thread will not be here to receive your wisdom.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
You won’t have it?
Who do you think you are to act like some morality crusader from a 1930s exploitation movie?
Your narrow definitions of love and marriage are sad and so is your absolute desire for reality to reflect what you want it to be rather than what it is.
Don’t get me started on the evils of Demon Rum and the corruptive influences of Race Music. :rolleyes:
Of course I was playing devil’s advocate. When two adults who are romantically in love with each other make a lifelong commitment forsaking all others, they are married. Domestic partnership is a part of marriage, but the romance is another, vital part and “civil union” appears to gloss over that part. I think that conservatives want to deny that same-sex love can be real. Do they?
Without the information that you were ‘playing devil’s advocate’ and as inflection is lost in a text medium, you didn’t come off as anything but what you were posting.
That the conservatives who have issues with SSM and believing that a man can love another man as he once loved his wife and now his mistress, I wonder when those in our society that constantly try to drag their feet against progress will stop,
I, too, would be very interested in understanding the mechanism that is to destroy society as we know it if homosexuals are given the freedom to marry and, eventually, become accepted by the general population at large.
I have watched many shows (of the FOX variety) and listened to a lot of talk (in some cases, scream) radio and I’m still confused and lost. The closest I’ve come to understanding is that some fear that our youth will be “seduced” by the homosexuals and their agenda ™. I guess it makes sense if every child is gay there won’t be many people left after awhile…yet, even the lunatics espousing this fear can’t go all the way to this conclusion without being laughed off the program. And besides, they could convert the children without being married, right?
Short of that, I can only imagine a religious cause: accepting gays will hasten the approach of the apocalypse and the earth will open up and the undead army of Satan will wash over us.
The awkward part is pointing out that their messiah was quite nice towards those rejected by society.
But, in all honesty, I’d love to hear a rational reason grounded into reality and not magical beings or a mysterious energy that can’t be detected unless you do drugs or meditate – even though we can detect things that go through us as if we didn’t exist (btw, is this kundalini energy energy part of the EM spectrum or is it more of an exotic particle?).
Anyone…?
mstay, you are in for a disappointment. If there was some perfectly rational reason why homosexuality, a state which has been around since the begging of time, would destroy civilization, we, the public would have hear it presented before, in all likelihood. That being said, I feel like defending myself, rather then le the concept go that I am attacking a persona, and not a dearly held concept.
Correct!
Incorrect! While I have been excluded in the past, I am not lumping myself together as some member of a group which agrees with me on almost any point, but as part of a group which agrees that this is the wrong forum for such a discussion. I am also asking all memebrs of the board, including yourself, to ignore those in the future who post an argument which misses the point of the forum it is in.
Good question!
No, I would definitely call an appeal to authority invalid, without it being “intolerant”
Yes, because as we all, know, a belief that a person knows better invalidates his whole argument. :rolleyes: The rest is all just a persecution fantasies, as well as a confusion over rules which are also guidelines, and ignores the fact that this is the wrong forum for this style of talk. Now, his feeling seems to be that since talks in this forum have in fact deviated from a straight forward point for point, he is free to do so as an OP. No so. Deviation from a topic is a part of human conversation, as are related topics which do not touch the main point However, regardless of all the legitimate hijacks in the world, I believe I am correct in saying an OPer needs to defend his points.
Scott, two points:
Polerius (who is the actual OP) has not held that homosexuals will destroy society; s/he asked a question inviting comment, so s/he is not required to “defend” the assertion.
This thread does not need any more commentary on the quality of other posters. Capiche?
Dmark harps on this (denying the purpose of GD) so much, I forgot he wasn’t the OP, and wanted to harangue him to death, before he could do the same to me. :smack:
Capiche. (Reluctantly)
So, how about that-there OP?
Good question! Now, I am not one of the people Polerius asked, and well, actually other posters already covered this but, but here are my thoughts on how important marriage is: It isn’t, at least as far as a word, religously defined as a union between a man and a women. Human instinct calls for people to group together, and stability calls for them to make their bonds lasting. Even if the word “marriage” was outlawed, and even if all legal benefits were eliminated, and society frowned on it’s existence, a state so identical to marriage, that it might as well be called marriage would spring into existence. Calling a union between two people in love with one another, however, is not going to lead to this state.
Now, I feel irritated by any attempt to define marriage as a religious matter. All marriage, approved by the government is civil unions. All marriage approved by churches is marriage. This is due to the fact that as far as the definition of marriage goes, religion is just along for the ride. In fact, since it is a concept found in multiple cultures, all of whom use it in what ever the hell way they feel like makes the Christian definition of it irrelevant. The fact is that people use the word marriage to define a union now, let’s say a man and a woman go to a courthouse and sign a paper saying they are married. That’s marriage. If they get married in a church, that’s marriage, assuming they fill out some legal forms, it’s marriage. Should they get married in some sort of Wiccan ceremony, and still fill out all they paper they got from they court house they are married. Should they have a religious marriage, but skip the legal paper, they are still married.
Now, it isn’t the legal definition of marriage, and they are going to be in for a big surprise, should they get divorced, but they are still married. When a man and ten women wish to be married, they will find plenty of support for it in their holy book, most likely. However, currently, the law of this country says they are not. Personally, I disagree with that, in theory, but still, it backs up the fact that a gov. can call one thing a marriage, and a religion can call an entirely different thing a marriage. True, the word marriage has power and meaning in this world, as Otto has said in another thread, but if members of the government want to bow to common sense, and apply claims of equality to everyone, then that is just great. It does not change the religious meaning of marriage one iota.