Ten years of "gay marriage"

[elguanteloko]

They already are allowed. They simply aren't recognized as if they are married, when they choose the same sex instead.

Then they aren't allowed to legally marry, which is the point, Mordecai. They are allowed to form "civil unions" but not marry. When they choose the same sex instead? If you choose to go and argue that they have the same rights than heterosexuals, namely to marry those of the opposite sex, then by the same line of thought one could argue that excluding homosexuals from legally marry is also to discriminate based on gender against some. Ex: John wants to marry Joe but can't because Joe is a man. If Joe was a woman, however, he would be allowed to marry him. There you go.

Single people are also a "group of people" left out of marriage

They are not "left out of marriage", Mordecai, in the sense that laws prevent them from entering into it.

You aren't fighting for their right to be "married," though, because they are not being discriminated against either.

They can't marry the consenting adult of their choice while heterosexuals can. That's an unjustified exclusion.

That's not the argument.

There's no "THE argument", there are several. If you don't agree with this one then good for you but I'm addressing those that do.

The argument is that if the gov't conflates real marriage with something profoundly different, the result is that the differences are asserted to be irrelevant.

This is another one. I'll tell you with this one what I told you last time, Mordecai. Differences have to be shown relevant as to not allow homosexual couples to legally marry. If you think the differences are so great that homosexual civil unions and marriage should be separate then make your case.

It's very comparable to the gov't officially recognizing lead as if it were gold.

Again, Mordecai, saying that the Gov. recognizes lead as if it were gold is too general since you need to specify in what context. For example, the Gov. may recognize them to be equal not in value but in their quality as a metal for taxation of something. That doesn't mean the Gov. is taking lead to LITERALLY be the same as gold in atomic weigh, for example.

This would create the same type of confusion, altering the value of gold, as would conflating real marriage with gay unions, altering the value of marriage.

...

[Chris Smith]

I don't care if somebody chooses not to believe that this is what G-d wants.

I do not believe that this is what G-d wants.

I draw the line with people trying to wrest square scriptural writings and cram them into into a round hole.

Like the author of your passage from the Apocrypha, the New Testament writers did this constantly with prooftexts from the Old Testament, and modern religious people do it constantly with prooftexts from both Testaments. If the gay community chooses to fight selective literalism with selective literalism, that's fine with me. There's no reason the fundies should have a monopoly on scripture-wresting.

[USU78]

I do not believe that this is what G-d wants.

Like the author of your passage from the Apocrypha, the New Testament writers did this constantly with prooftexts from the Old Testament, and modern religious people do it constantly with prooftexts from both Testaments. If the gay community chooses to fight selective literalism with selective literalism, that's fine with me. There's no reason the fundies should have a monopoly on scripture-wresting.

I guess I'm not understanding: In what way did Jews in ca. CE 80-150 misunderstand the Sodom story in Genesis? What evidence to you have (prior to the Middle Ages, that is) that the Sodom story was understood in any other way than Jude, Saul/Paul, Peter, et al. understood it?

[LeSellers]

You say you oppose a larger government but, don't you think it would be better to fight for less restrictions EVEN IN MARRIAGE than for more? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Then you miss the point entirely.

Marriage, as administered by government, is only a way to control people. You admit as much in your question. The way to get rid of government is to force it to release its grip on people, not increase the number of people in its grasp.

The only ones who will gain if homosexual "marriage" becomes law are divorce lawyers.

Lehi

[USU78]

The only ones who will gain if homosexual "marriage" becomes law are divorce lawyers.

Don't forget the MSWs who, by law now, get their mits on nearly every civil case and virtually every divorce case.

[LeSellers]

Don't forget the MSWs who, by law now, get their mits on nearly every civil case and virtually every divorce case.

I stand corrected.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

The only ones who will gain if homosexual "marriage" becomes law are divorce lawyers.

Not if the Netherlands numbers are any indication.

By the way, it's not a matter of whether gay marriage will "become law," as if everyone is somehow going to be forced to endorse or participate in it. It's merely a matter of whether gay marriage will receive the same legal recognition afforded to the marriage practices of heterosexual traditionalists. (There are, of course, two ways to go about this: legally recognize the marriage practices of all subcultures, or legally recognize none of them. Personally I favor the latter path, but the former is preferable to discriminatory treatment.)

[Mordecai]

They are allowed to form "civil unions" but not marry...

Only if you actually believe that a certain type of government recognition is an essential characteristic of marriage. In Loving v. the State of Virginia, the State of Virginia did not recognize the Lovings as married, until after they discovered they were "living together as husband and wife." So by your logic, they were not married, until the government discovered they were... ahem... married.

They are not "left out of marriage", Mordecai, in the sense that laws prevent them from entering into it.

No, they are biologically driven to not get married. That's why they don't.

They can't marry the consenting adult of their choice while heterosexuals can. That's an unjustified exclusion.

Heterosexuals can't marry the person of their choice, when the person of their choice doesn't want to marry them back. Some people that are really ugly will never get married, because they're really ugly. Other people have personality, emotional or mental disorders and will never marry because of that. That's part of nature, and the government isn't above nature, to undo do all of it. Stuff happens. That's life.

Differences have to be shown relevant as to not allow homosexual couples to legally marry. If you think the differences are so great that homosexual civil unions and marriage should be separate then make your case.

I already did in the other thread. I succeeded. In reality, you are the one trying to undo 100's of years of U.S. legal precedent. But I was still gracious enough to make my case that your marital-dogma is false. How about you make a case, now, that the differences are irrelevant? Start with explaining how missing at least one biological parent is irrelevant. Maybe you can also argue how 1000's of years of history are so irrelevant, that we ought to ignore the contributions to society real marriage has made, while gay unions have made none.

That doesn't mean the Gov. is taking lead to LITERALLY be the same as gold in atomic weigh, for example.

By the same standard you want a gay union to be equated with a marriage, doing the same with lead would create serious problems. Obviously. Same name. Same treatment. Serious problems.

[Chris Smith]

I guess I'm not understanding: In what way did Jews in ca. CE 80-150 misunderstand the Sodom story in Genesis?

The problem is simply that in the Genesis narrative, the sins of Sodom are not specified (let alone a single sin, as some modern interpreters are wont to portray). Thus any attempt to enumerate the specific sins for which Sodom was destroyed necessarily involves some eisegetical inference.

What evidence to you have (prior to the Middle Ages, that is) that the Sodom story was understood in any other way than Jude, Saul/Paul, Peter, et al. understood it?

Ezekiel lists a number of sins, of which homosexuality may be one:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

At best, reducing the "sin of Sodom" to homosexuality seriously oversimplifies both the Genesis narrative and the canonical interpretations of it. At worst, it misreads an ancient, primitive religious text and uses this misreading to justify repressive and dehumanizing actions toward a group of people that actually often embodies some of the best moral impulses of the human race.

Peace,

-Chris

[USU78]

The problem is simply that in the Genesis narrative, the sins of Sodom are not specified (let alone a single sin, as some modern interpreters are wont to portray). Thus any attempt to enumerate the specific sins for which Sodom was destroyed necessarily involves some eisegetical inference.

Ezekiel lists a number of sins, of which homosexuality may be one:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

At best, reducing the "sin of Sodom" to homosexuality seriously oversimplifies both the Genesis narrative and the canonical interpretations of it. At worst, it misreads an ancient, primitive religious text and uses this misreading to justify repressive and dehumanizing actions toward a group of people that actually often embodies some of the best moral impulses of the human race.

Here's the problem: Sodom is long gone by the time Babylon grabbed up Ezekiel and the rest of whoever they grabbed up in Canaan and schlepped 'em down the road to Mesopotamia. That being the case, just who is Ezekiel talking about?

USU "It weren't those poor schmucks buried under all that brimstone" 78

PS: Probably he's talking about Samaria. Jus' sayin' '78

[Chris Smith]

Here's the problem: Sodom is long gone by the time Babylon grabbed up Ezekiel

Agreed. And by the time Peter and Paul wrote. And by the time the word "Sodomy" began to be used to refer to gay sex. And by the time people began citing the Bible in opposition to gay marriage.

Thus my remarks about how some degree of eisegesis is pretty much inevitable in any enumeration of Sodom's sins, canonical or otherwise.

EDIT: Oh, I guess I misread your comment. You're suggesting that "Sodom" here is a mistranslation? Or perhaps a metaphor? Ezekiel 16:55 distinguishes Sodom from Samaria, so they aren't the same.

[california boy]

A people so depraved that they'd pass up a perfectly good virgin girl and insist on the guys is pretty wicked indeed.

So you don't see anything depraved about a prophet of God offering his virgin DAUGHTER for men to RAPE her? Do you consider homosexuality worse than rape? What do you think of a prophet of God that would offer his daughter to be raped? Ok with you? No problem with that? He is still the righteous man???

[california boy]

Really? Do I need to explain why this is a false analogy? You can't anticipate how easily I could illustrate how false this analogy is? This demonstrates very poor critical thinking ability. Either that, or you are trying to trick me, and doing a poor job of it.

It seems like you are the only one on this forum that thinks the gold is lead argument has any merit. And yes you do need to explain why this is a false analogy. That is why I asked you the two questions. Why on earth would asking you these two questions be a trick????

Did you avoid the only questions I asked you because you have no answer or did you miss them. Let me repost them for you.

So when a heterosexual couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

When a gay couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

We have many words in the English language that is the exact same word but have two completely different meanings. Are you confused by them as well?

For example bow, can mean a tied ribbon or it can mean a weapon. Do you get confused about what someone is saying when they say I shot a deer with my bow?

As far as your comment on equality, I am just going to have to disagree with you. I am one of those Americans that believe one of the founding principles of our government is equality under the law.

[Mordecai]

It seems like you are the only one on this forum that thinks the gold is lead argument has any merit...

I disagree. But we can't read minds, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And yes you do need to explain why this is a false analogy.

Not really. I've answered this before, actually. It's really obviously a false analogy that doesn't really need explaining.

As far as your comment on equality, I am just going to have to disagree with you. I am one of those Americans that believe one of the founding principles of our government is equality under the law.

That, again, shows extremely poor judgment. Again, should we treat criminals the same as heroes? Different behavior results in different treatment, logically.

[Chris Smith]

The problem with the lead-gold analogy is that calling lead gold entirely flouts popular linguistic convention, whereas calling gay marriage "marriage" does not.

We often refer to pyrite as "fool's gold," and platinum as "white gold," even though both are significantly different from gold. The reason this does not cause confusion is because the meaning of these phrases is popularly understood, just as the meaning of "gay marriage" is popularly understood.

[Mordecai]

The problem with the lead-gold analogy is that calling lead gold entirely flouts popular linguistic convention...We often refer to pyrite as "fool's gold," and platinum as "white gold,"

We're not talking about colloquial English. We're talking about the gov't officially adopting the term without qualifiers and with identical treatment. If the gov't adopts "gay marriage," it will be taught in school as part of "tolerance education." More insanity. Standard English typically will come from the top down, as it did with the Norman's in England, so whatever the gov't adopts officially, will trickle down via teachers and lawyers, becoming the only educated way to speak. Very anti-American and very 1984.

As far as white gold and fool's gold, thanks for the examples. Platinum is only called "white gold," in the circumstance where the speaker considers monetary value to be the priority. In that particular case, the differences between gold and platinum are irrelevant to the speaker, which supports my thesis! Ha! As far as fool's gold goes, that's even worse for your case. If you want to have the gov't call a gay union, "fool's marriage," be my guest.

[Chris Smith]

Oh, Mordecai. If only you could see the ironies in your rhetoric, we'd both have a good laugh about it over drinks.

All I can say is, I hope you don't actually believe any of this nonsense you spout about totalitarian leftist conspiracies. That kind of contempt for those who disagree with you will engender neither health nor the respect of others, and surely cannot be conducive to a happy life.

Peace,

Chris

[california boy]

I disagree. But we can't read minds, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Not really. I've answered this before, actually. It's really obviously a false analogy that doesn't really need explaining.

That, again, shows extremely poor judgment. Again, should we treat criminals the same as heroes? Different behavior results in different treatment, logically.

You really don't like these two questions do you.

So when a heterosexual couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

When a gay couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

We have many words in the English language that is the exact same word but have two completely different meanings. Are you confused by them as well?

For example bow, can mean a tied ribbon or it can mean a weapon. Do you get confused about what someone is saying when they say I shot a deer with my bow?

[Mordecai]

...totalitarian leftist conspiracies...

You don't need a conspiracy. You just need arrogance and a sense of entitlement, and the extremist left has that in spades. That's why they preach their gay dogma to elementary school children in Massachusetts schools, including it in their "diversity packets." The irony of preaching their leftest dogma in schools under the pretense of tolerance. Wow. That said, there is a conspiracy among teachers: http://www.pfox.org/Queering_the_Schools.html

At teacher's union conferences, they promote books like this: Queering Elementary Education. Note that the subtitle is "advancing dialog," implying the inherent superiority of their gay dogma. I've taught in California schools, and they are indeed overtly trying to normalize all homosexuality.

Also, I like how you resort to insults, when you've lost this particular part of the debate very badly. You helped prove my point that calling lead, "gold," is comparable to calling a gay union, "marriage," inadvertently and you know it. Of course, the mature thing to do is to mock me and imply I'm a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, there are conspiracies that really do exist, and in this case, it's become very obvious that people are conspiring to promote a very insane notion.

You really don't like these two questions do you.

Just keep telling yourself you have good points. No, I don't like the questions, because #1 I've answered them before numerous times at various times on this board. #2. They are terrible for supporting your side anyway for people with good critical thinking, meaning it's very boring to even bother. But, since you're going to keep bothering me if I don't answer, very well.

What do I think, when people talk about "gay marriage?" I think it's ridiculous, because I know this debate well and have good critical thinking. Of course, I've never said that I might get confused, only that society, in the long run will get confused. Young people and unusually gullible or those prone to group think, on the other hand, are quite impressionable and actually believe there are no significant differences. People on this board have said many times, "There are no significant differences between a gay union and a marriage!!! You're a bigot!" They obviously are prone to group-think, are just gullible or easily indoctrinated due to poor critical thinking.

As far as there being words that are identical with profoundly different meanings, I wouldn't say those are treated nor labeled the same. For example, if you read an advertisement for bows, you'll see a picture to tell you which bow they're talking about and a price that differs greatly between each type of bow. In sentences, the context will explain which bow. There is zero potential for confusion due to contextual differences and different treatments. Not remotely true when conflating a gay union with real marriage.

The courts and schools will adopt your gay dogma, and there will be no pictures, price tags nor differences in context to imprint on people's minds the importance of, for example, biological parenthood. The authority of the gov't will convince the impressionable (unlike me) that biological parenthood means nothing in relation to marriage. Furthermore, a picture of two men versus a man and a woman, to show the difference between a gay union and a marriage would not illustrate the important differences. The profound differences, you can't show in a picture. It's quite easy to confuse people about the importance of the connection between marriage and biological parenthood, unlike with your bow example.

Sadly, in our society where superficiality is becoming more and more the prevalent "philosophy," people don't want to think about the long-term sociological effects of severing the relationship between marriage a biological parenthood. People care so much about power, their egos and fitting in, they will conspire to trick people that a gay union and a marriage are identical, using the authority of government to further their agenda. This is all so homosexual adults will feel normal; who cares about wide spread, long-term emotional suffering and societal degeneration caused by lack of family values, right?

[Mars]

What do I think, when people talk about "gay marriage?" I think it's ridiculous, because I know this debate well and have good critical thinking. Of course, I've never said that I might get confused, only that society, in the long run will get confused. Young people and unusually gullible or those prone to group think, on the other hand, are quite impressionable and actually believe there are no significant differences. People on this board have said many times, "There are no significant differences between a gay union and a marriage!!! You're a bigot!" They obviously are prone to group-think, are just gullible or were indoctrinated at a young age.

As far as there being words that are identical with profoundly different meanings, I wouldn't say those are treated nor labeled the same. For example, if you read an advertisement for bows, you'll see a picture to tell you which bow they're talking about and a price that differs greatly between each type of bow. In sentences, the context will explain which bow. There is zero potential for confusion due to contextual differences and different treatments. None of that is true with "gay marriage."

The courts and schools will adopt your gay dogma, and there will be no pictures, price tags nor differences in context to imprint on people's minds the importance of their differences. The authority of the gov't will convince the impressionable (unlike me) that biological parenthood means nothing in relation to marriage. Furthermore, a picture of two men versus two women, to show the difference between a gay union and a marriage would only show a superficial difference. The real and significant differences, you can't show in a picture. It's quite easy to confuse people about the importance of the connection between marriage and biological parenthood, unlike with your bow example.

This I like.

[Jaybear]

Also, I like how you resort to insults, when you've lost this particular part of the debate very badly. You helped prove my point that calling lead, "gold," is comparable to calling a gay union, "marriage," inadvertently.

Its a very poor analogy, because nobody actually calls or considers lead to be gold.

A much better analogy, would be whether its appropriate to call Mormons "Christians".

Its a shame there is no such thing as government sanctioned Christianity. If there were, you might actually gain some valuable perspective on this issue.

[Jaybear]

This I like.

Good. Since you think alike, perhaps you can explain what he means by "gay dogma." He has refused to provide a clear consise statement of he considers gay dogma.

[Mordecai]

Its a very poor analogy, because nobody actually calls or considers lead to be gold.

True, because there is so much money in preventing people from getting confused. Also, it's well known that lead is poisonous. The "poison" of spreading your gay dogma is not well known nor understood. It's not a perfect analogy, but then again, it wouldn't be analogy if they were exactly the same.

A much better analogy, would be whether its appropriate to call Mormons "Christians".

That is a pretty good analogy, because just like with "gay marriage," the government definitely should not officially declare Mormons to be Christians. Of course, in this case, it's true that we're Christians to thinking people. Still, the gov't needs to stay out of that debate, just like with your gay-dogma. Also, Christian is a general term that wouldn't eliminate the unique designations for Mormons, unlike with my lead/gold analogy. Eliminating a unique designation by calling a gay union "marriage" or by calling lead "gold," introduces all kinds of problems, like giving two people identical social security numbers.

My analogy is better.

Its a shame there is no such thing as government sanctioned Christianity. If there were, you might actually gain some valuable perspective on this issue.

It's a shame there is government sanctioned liberal group-think, because it's destroying people's perspective on this issue, including yours.

...perhaps you can explain what [you] means by "gay dogma."

You want me to do that again? I already did so earlier in this thread in response to your question in the other.

[USU78]

Agreed. And by the time Peter and Paul wrote. And by the time the word "Sodomy" began to be used to refer to gay sex. And by the time people began citing the Bible in opposition to gay marriage.

Thus my remarks about how some degree of eisegesis is pretty much inevitable in any enumeration of Sodom's sins, canonical or otherwise.

EDIT: Oh, I guess I misread your comment. You're suggesting that "Sodom" here is a mistranslation? Or perhaps a metaphor? Ezekiel 16:55 distinguishes Sodom from Samaria, so they aren't the same.

Who is Judah's sister? Israel/Samaria.

Prophets often talk in code. Suggesting by code names the specific societal/personal behaviors they are talking about. Isaiah, when he talks about Egypt, may not be talking about Egypt at all, but rather the "Sisters." When prophets speak of Babel, they're usually talking about the Sins of Babel as committed by Israel/Judah.

It is dishonest to assume Ezekiel, on the road to the real Babel, when speaking of the "sins of Sodom" must necessarily be speaking of the long-dead city-state . . . and to build a counter/anti-gospel upon it. The Velvet Mafia has much to answer for, perverting Ezekiel as they have.

[Mordecai]

This was in response to your (Jaybear's) questions about my explanation about why I call gay dogma, "gay dogma."

@jaybear

With regard to my claim that a gay union is not the same as or "significantly different from" a real marriage: By gay union, I mean the thing in itself, as in, two people of the same sex living together "as husband and wife," regardless of how the gov't recognizes them.

To answer another question, marriage is in the state's jurisdiction, because it is the primary means by which society procreates, because it is a good for children to have their biological parents present, because there are parental rights involved, because all of civilization was built on marriage. If you take these away, why is the state involved at all? Should it play Cupid and promote romantic love? When you start talking about "gay marriage," legally, you have a cascade effect, essentially rewriting past laws to become laws that include something that shouldn't be included in state jursidication.

Are judges supposed to be rewriting past laws to make them nonsensical? Point being, a gay union and a marriage are so fundamentally different from the standpoint of what is good, necessary and rational and profoundly so, how is it remotely rational, legal or just to now pretend a gay union and a marriage are the same?

To answer another question, the gov't giving something profoundly different the same label and the exact same treatment is irrational and suggests the gov't is just living in a fantasy world or "pretending." This should be self-evident, or if it's not, we ought to consider that integral to justice is treating different things differently. To stop doing so might be described as "pretending different things are the same."

As far as people insisting that gay unions be treated equally, people have no right to be treated equally unless their behavior is essentially the same, much less do things have a right to be treated equally. A gay union, being a thing, certainly should not be treated the same as something significantly different, since treating different behaviors as if they are the same is the opposite of justice. Should our justice system officially endorse injustice?