RageAgainst
member
Posts: 51
Reg: 06-10-10
|
08-12-10 04:23 PM - Post#116454
In response to bsnelson
For those who want to preserve the "tradition" of marriage, any comment on the below?
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
I will proudly state that I see nothing wrong at all with gay marriage; I've not seen a single argument against it that didn't ultimately boil down to "it's bad because it's yucky". As this article shows, history has shown that there are MANY worse things than "yucky" in the "tradition" of marriage.
Brad
QFT
"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
- John Lennon, "Imagine" |
|
workingmom
enthusiast
Posts: 1052
Loc: Allen, TX
Reg: 06-03-04
|
08-12-10 05:29 PM - Post#116464
In response to bsnelson
Very good article! Thanks for posting the link!
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-12-10 07:32 PM - Post#116474
In response to bsnelson
For those who want to preserve the "tradition" of marriage, any comment on the below?
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
I will proudly state that I see nothing wrong at all with gay marriage; I've not seen a single argument against it that didn't ultimately boil down to "it's bad because it's yucky". As this article shows, history has shown that there are MANY worse things than "yucky" in the "tradition" of marriage.
Brad
Interesting article with a predictable mixture of a small amount of truth, untruths, innuendo, and exaggeration. I'm sure I can find similar articles with a variety of positions and just about any topic you can mention.
But what was the point? Do you think plural marriages should be legal as well? After all it seems that it has a much more of a historical precedent (rather large) than same sex marriages (none). After all, there are individuals and communities of people would would take advantage of plural marriage if it were legal. What makes their relationships less worthy than a same sex couple?
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1194
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-12-10 09:14 PM - Post#116480
In response to bsnelson
Interesting article (I think the description of the medieval marriage is a bit over the top...though they were not in a Church until later in the Middle Ages) though I do not agree with every point, valuable nonetheless.
Speaking of "traditional marriage," something called "Boston Marriages" were if not common, common knowledge in the 19th and early 20th century.
Women living together as man and wife, with or without a sexual component. Not recognized by the state, of course.
As to "plural marriage," if what is meant is polygamy, that is a hard practice to support demographically given a more or less 50/50 breakdown of the sexes.
Edited by Aolain on 08-12-10 09:17 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 753
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-12-10 10:35 PM - Post#116484
In response to Joe Schirmer
But what was the point?
A few that come to mind:
1. "Marriage" has evolved over time; the way it is now isn't the way it's "always been".
2. Despite the upheaval, family units have survived and thrive.
3. None of the evolution of marriage has destroyed society, cast us into anarchy, cast us into godlessness etc.
Most of the strawmen for this argument have been brought up in this thread, and again, I submit that they all boil down to "boys kissing boys is yucky".
Brad
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-12-10 10:58 PM - Post#116487
In response to bsnelson
   
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1194
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-12-10 11:17 PM - Post#116488
In response to bsnelson
Well-Said.
For me, what two adults do in the bed room is just none of my (or the government's) business.
If two adults want to enter a (more or less) binding contract about their lives and their property, what do I care?
Edited by Aolain on 08-12-10 11:19 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
08-13-10 08:28 AM - Post#116498
In response to bsnelson
1. "Marriage" has evolved over time; the way it is now isn't the way it's "always been".
Doesn't make it right.
2. Despite the upheaval, family units have survived and thrive.
Really? With the number of children born to each family now days reducing, how much longer will we "thrive?" And what of the high divorce rate?
3. None of the evolution of marriage has destroyed society, cast us into anarchy, cast us into godlessness etc.
Again ... really? Look at this world compared to just a few decades ago. Lots of godlessness going around. Is it the product of the evolution of marriage? Not exactly. But it could be a contributing factor. And vice versa.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-13-10 12:12 PM - Post#116521
In response to bsnelson
1. "Marriage" has evolved over time; the way it is now isn't the way it's "always been".
2. Despite the upheaval, family units have survived and thrive.
3. None of the evolution of marriage has destroyed society, cast us into anarchy, cast us into godlessness etc.
True that marriage has changed (evolved is not the right word) to reflect the society in which it functions. But it's primary purpose has always been to form a new family unit which will grow and prosper. This is the first time that we are changing that definition.
Most of the strawmen for this argument have been brought up in this thread, and again, I submit that they all boil down to "boys kissing boys is yucky".
Brad
Second time you've brought that up. I can assure you that homophobia plays no part in my stance on this subject. But I suppose it is easier to classify someone whom you disagree as a bigot than it is to discuss the issue on it's own merit.
I've posted a short definition of marriage as I understand it, but I've yet to see other people's definition. What is you definition of marriage?
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-13-10 12:14 PM - Post#116522
In response to Aolain
Well-Said.
For me, what two adults do in the bed room is just none of my (or the government's) business.
If two adults want to enter a (more or less) binding contract about their lives and their property, what do I care?
This has absolutely nothing to do with what two adults do in the bed room. A marriage license is not a license to have sex!
If two adults want to enter a binding contract about their lives and property they are welcome to do so right now in every state in the union.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1973
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-14-10 07:45 AM - Post#116573
In response to Joe Schirmer
A marriage license is not a license to have sex!
It's not? Uh... I mean... that's right, it's not!
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 753
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-14-10 10:14 AM - Post#116577
In response to Joe Schirmer
I've posted a short definition of marriage as I understand it, but I've yet to see other people's definition. What is you definition of marriage?
I've never really tried to condense it down to a sentence or two, but, at it's most basic definition, it should be about two adults (well, OK, "legal age") who love each other and want to spend their lives together expressing that love as a couple. Perhaps they want to have children (biological or adopted), or perhaps they don't. Religion (or lack thereof) shouldn't matter. Race shouldn't matter. Gender shouldn't matter. In fact, *sex* shouldn't matter; the fundamental principle is LOVE. The rest is secondary.
Brad
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 753
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-14-10 10:31 AM - Post#116578
In response to Joe Schirmer
True that marriage has changed (evolved is not the right word) to reflect the society in which it functions. But it's primary purpose has always been to form a new family unit which will grow and prosper. This is the first time that we are changing that definition.
I have a male friend who is legally (in California) married to another man, and they have adopted two young troubled children. They live about as normal of a family life as anyone.
Why should their "family unit" be denied status, yet another male friend's marriage (to a woman), who have no children and in fact, purposely did not want to have children, is A-OK? Which of these "family units" is "growing and prospering"?
Brad
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-14-10 11:38 AM - Post#116581
In response to Joe Schirmer
Second time you've brought that up. I can assure you that homophobia plays no part in my stance on this subject. But I suppose it is easier to classify someone whom you disagree as a bigot than it is to discuss the issue on it's own merit.
First off I added the emphasis is Joe's quote below to illustrate my point.
I caught this article in this morning's Dallas Morning News about two people who want to get married. One is a woman, the other was born a man but underwent sex reassignment surgery. So her/his birth certificate says (s)he is a man, but his/her drivers license says (s)he is a woman. The debate is which form of identification to take since Texas still does not do same sex marriage.
Interesting quandary...
Joe, your inability to refer to a transgendered person who has completed sex reassignment surgery and is living life as a woman with the correct pronouns of "she" and "her" (even if your conscious intent was solely just to demonstrte the sexual identy confusion in the issue) combined with your staunch support of denying a minority group their civil rights to me at least shows that while you may not be a bigot, you do at the very least have a subconscious issue of some sort with homosexual and transgendered persons.
And no, I'm not a psychiatrist.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 983
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
08-14-10 01:09 PM - Post#116589
In response to rtinallentx
What's with all of the personal attacks here?
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-14-10 06:25 PM - Post#116607
In response to nomoon
nomoon,
If you consider my last post a personal attack, then you're way too thin skinned. I posted an observation followed by my opinion. I could have easily worded my post much more agressively. I didn't say Joe was a bigot; Brad didn't say Joe was a bigot (unless I missed that somewhere). It was Joe who implied that Brad was classifying him as a bigot. I even said that I was willing to agree that Joe isn't a bigot. ...while you may not be a bigot...
However, in my opinion, there is an issue there somewhere.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 983
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
08-14-10 08:08 PM - Post#116615
In response to rtinallentx
...while you may not be a bigot...
However, in my opinion, there is an issue there somewhere.
My original statement still applies. Your statement was clearly an ad hominem attack that had nothing to do with his argument (maybe you are the one who is thin skinned at being called out). It was a personal belittlement and had nothing to do with his argument: "While you might not be a bigot... [another belittlement of your character applies]."
I know Joe in person. I agree with him on some things, I disagree on others, and I'm not sure about others. I understand both sides of this issue and don't have a strong opinion either way. However, I have noticed several statements against prop 8 that label the opposition in a ridiculing manner, rather than making a logical argument. One may agree or disagree with the case that Joe has been making. However, I'm seeing the insult count increasing.
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-15-10 12:16 AM - Post#116623
In response to nomoon
Seriously?!?!?
My post has everything to do with his argument. It goes to the heart of what I (and I think others as well) suspect is the basis of his argument.
No, your original statement does not apply. There was no attack, no insult, no belittlement, only a statement of my observation and opinion. And as far as "making a logical argument" goes, it has been the supporters of civil rights that have been making the logical arguments. Time and time again it seems that all the supporters of prop 8 can come up with is "marriage has always been between a man and a woman"; "it will destroy the family unit", and "marriage is about procreation". When these fear based rationalizations are questioned or refuted with real life situations, the post is ignored or an attack is preceived.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
08-15-10 09:57 AM - Post#116631
In response to rtinallentx
Really? You can't see how "while you might not be a bigot" could be construed as an attack?
FYI, those who don't endorse a homosexual lifestyle aren't afraid. This isn't fear based. It's based on a set of morals. You may not agree with that opinion, and that's fine. While you feel threatened by others opinions is strange. We're expected to endorse what you believe but are labeled as fearful if we don't.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3164
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-15-10 10:16 AM - Post#116633
In response to lostyankee
People who demand tolerance are usually not very tolerant themselves. It truly needs to be a two way street.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
