Anti-Gay Marriage and the Black Church

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by V Chip

You really are not ready to have a real discussion on this. That's why I didn't reply with a point-by-point refutation because 1) it would waste my time, 2) it would have no effect because you think you already have this argument figured out when you are sadly mistaken, and 3) you're not really trying to have a conversation, you're dropping bombs and seeing the reaction.

Originally Posted by VVextreme

Ya'll have fun with this debate. I'd really like to bow out now. Thank you.

Ahh the sweet smell of prescience.



Well either it's called that or "seeing the blindingly obvious," I always mix up the two.

[Wolbrat]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

Six pages, not to mention dozens of threads on the topic over the years, and I have yet to see one person that can explain how they will be harmed if I marry a man.

If you marry a man, all of the dinosaurs will die.

[VVextreme]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

I taught a college course last semester on the history of sexuality. I'm not an expert in the field, although it's one of several areas I work on as a historian. Still, I know more than enough to say that you're wrong.

I could get into a point-by-point discussion with you. I could show you how not all cultures have a concept of marriage. I could show you how historically, marriage has evolved from being a property arrangement (with the woman one of the pieces of property being traded) between a man and his family and one or more women and their families. I could talk about the origin of the Christian sacrament of marriage in the Middle Ages (the Church never really worried about marriage before then, as it was seen as a secular matter). I could talk about the abundant evidence from evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, anthropology, archaeology, history, and anatomy that indicates that humans did not evolve to be monogamous. I could discuss the radically diverse ways human societies have chosen to structure and define love, relationships, sex, and reproduction. I could show how pervasive same-sex sexuality (even if not defined as a "sexual orientation") has been in human societies for millennia.

But I'm not going to waste my time with that, because you already think what you think and will probably dismiss about a quarter of my evidence by just claiming it's not true and flat out ignoring the three quarters that can't be denied. I've been posting on the EE and now PDB for almost ten years, and I've learned that it's a waste of time. A few posters have shifted their opinions over the years (almost always becoming more liberal rather than the other way around), but most people just keep on believing whatever they want, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And you seem like someone who's particularly prone to thinking that your unquestioned assumptions are unassailable fact.

I'd actually find a lot of that historical context interesting if presented in a historically accurate, unbiased manner. Funny how democrats are always so dismissive of anyone outside of their views. However none of that changes the current law of the land that the definition of marriage is between man and a woman. Basing that decision based upon something that is not biased nor discrematory such as biological purpose is a notion I understand and can get behind. When we arbritralily start setting who should benefit and who should not benefit... I get a little more concerned. I'm losing faith in humanity. I know there's still a lot of good in mankind, but distinguishing between the good and the bad or self-serving is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm leaning towards the government should remove itself from the marriage business and legislating morality beyond protecting the freedom's of it's citizens such as you can't rape people, etc.

I don't really know. I haven't found any pursuasive arguments yet on the subject either.

As I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, but no one seems to want to pick up on. I'm struggling with my own views of morality, religion, truth, the human condition and government's role in our lives. I'm not trying to push any agenda, but many feel that I am.

I'm a big believer in freedom and being able to do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. But I've also seen the depths that mankind are willing to sink to in order to pursue their happiness. If you don't put limits on people, then society ceases to exist and the law of the jungle of the strongest shall survive. I don't really know how to balance the two in a fair & consistent manner if you remove religion from the equation. How much freedom should we sacrifice to obtain the Disney society? And to some, Mad Max is their ideal society... so even that's all subjective.

Personally I'd rather live in a Disney PG type of society than mad max beyond thunderdome, but in everyone of us we have a little mad max and a little Disney inside of us. How close to mad max should we allow ourselves to go?

I don't have the answers, but I sure as heck don't want someone else telling me how I should live my life either. I used to believe in the American Dream. I used to believe in Freedom. I used to believe in our country. But growing up and actually experiencing it, I finally realized what they never really taught you in school. To live in a society, you have to sacrifice at least some personal freedom. There will always be the risk that someone hoses you. Safety and security are all complete illusions. You can't just do whatever you want. You'll never truly be independent or completely free. And it doesn't matter how hard you work to create the perfect system, there will always be those that exploit it and others. And every single time you try to establish a system, you're going to screw a certain segment of your population whether it's by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

And compromise can't solve everything. For those that believe abortion is murder, how do you compromise with that if you are pro-choice? There's no reaching peace and harmony there between those two groups. There's no way to prove who's right and who's wrong. It's all subjective.

I don't know how to run Bartertown ethically and morally, because we can't even agree what is ethical or moral.

[TulsaSaint]

Originally Posted by Wolbrat

If you marry a man, all of the dinosaurs will die.

Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.

[crosswatt]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.

Well, have you seen any dinosaurs in any of those countries lately? I think Wolbrat's point is sufficiently made.

[St.Fury]

Well...they definitely are dead...

[Wolbrat]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

Just like all the Argentine, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish dinosaurs died after their countries legalized same-sex marriage.

Coincidence? I think not.

[TulsaSaint]

Originally Posted by VVextreme

I'd actually find a lot of that historical context interesting if presented in a historically accurate, unbiased manner.

Historical accuracy is, to a degree, always subjective. Because we get at history through sources, and sources are written down or otherwise recorded by people. And those people have their own perspectives, knowledge, and agendas that influence what they write down. Then other people's agendas determine whether what is written down gets preserved. Then still other agendas determine whether that document is important enough to get saved in an archive. Then still other agendas determine whether the archive keeps that document and whether they make it available to researchers. Finally, the historian himself or herself has to decide whether that particular document is important enough to include in his or her own research and how it relates to the hundreds or thousands of other documents he or she is using. I think it's easy to see how it could be really daunting, if not impossible, to get at what really happened. In other words, there's no such thing as unbiased history. There's always some sort of agenda. Lots of them, in fact.

In other words, I'm probably never going to be able to present the evidence in a way that you'll find unbiased, because a lot of it will contradict what you believe to be true. Still, if there's a particular aspect of sexuality that I mentioned that you'd be interested in hearing more about, I'd be glad to suggest reading.

Funny how democrats are always so dismissive of anyone outside of their views.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'm actually not a Democrat. I'm an independent. And no offense, but based on what I've read in this thread, you're not really in a position to complain about anyone being dismissive of views that differ from their own.

However none of that changes the current law of the land that the definition of marriage is between man and a woman.

That's actually just the law of a part of this country. Lots of other countries have different laws. Regardless, even if it were the law of everywhere, what would that matter? Law in the United States prohibited certain kinds of marriage for a long time. Laws in other countries have prohibited all sorts of marriages too. Those laws change all the time, marriage changes to fit new circumstances, and the world goes right on turning.

Basing that decision based upon something that is not biased nor discrematory discriminatory?such as biological purpose is a notion I understand and can get behind. When we arbitrarily start setting who should benefit and who should not benefit... I get a little more concerned.

I'm not sure I follow you here. The very selection of a vaguely defined "biological purpose" as the basis of marriage is based upon a preference for a certain group of people's idea about what marriage is supposed to mean. Once again, marriage has meant a lot of different things in a lot of different cultures. Procreation has only been one of those meanings.

What's discriminatory, in my view, is telling me I can't get married because I can't have a kid with the person I choose to marry. Which completely ignores the fact that just like an infertile heterosexual couple, my partner and I could hire a surrogate. Or we could father a child with a lesbian couple. And quite probably raise the child just as well as any other couple or person or family.

I'm leaning towards the government should remove itself from the marriage business and legislating morality beyond protecting the freedom's of it's citizens such as you can't rape people, etc.

I agree.

I'm struggling with my own views of morality, religion, truth, the human condition and government's role in our lives. I'm not trying to push any agenda, but many feel that I am.

Point noted.

I'm a big believer in freedom and being able to do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. But I've also seen the depths that mankind are willing to sink to in order to pursue their happiness. If you don't put limits on people, then society ceases to exist and the law of the jungle of the strongest shall survive. I don't really know how to balance the two in a fair & consistent manner if you remove religion from the equation. How much freedom should we sacrifice to obtain the Disney society? And to some, Mad Max is their ideal society... so even that's all subjective.

I mean, it's a really easy limit. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. There are plenty of other moral codes besides religion. I don't see why religion (and one interpretation of one religion in particular) should determine what I can and cannot do and who I can marry or not marry (as long as they're an adult old enough to consent).

I don't have the answers, but I sure as heck don't want someone else telling me how I should live my life either.

So can't you step back for a moment and see why I don't want someone telling me how I can live my life? And when my rights are violated by idiotic constitutional amendments like the one we're about to vote on here in North Carolina, that's exactly what happens. See how you feel when they start putting your civil rights up for a vote.

I used to believe in the American Dream. I used to believe in Freedom. I used to believe in our country. But growing up and actually experiencing it, I finally realized what they never really taught you in school. To live in a society, you have to sacrifice at least some personal freedom. There will always be the risk that someone hoses you. Safety and security are all complete illusions. You can't just do whatever you want. You'll never truly be independent or completely free.

Of course, that's a basic principle of any human society. They all have agreed-upon rules. But each society has very different rules, which implies an extent of arbitrariness. And that implies that as societies change, they can re-write the rules. And that's what happening in the West when it comes to marriage. And it's not the first time the rules about marriage have been rewritten either.

And it doesn't matter how hard you work to create the perfect system, there will always be those that exploit it and others. And every single time you try to establish a system, you're going to screw a certain segment of your population whether it's by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The history of our country, until now, has been one of steadily expanding the right to participation. First we abolished slavery, then we gave women the vote, then we took away limits on black people's political participation. We've steadily tried to screw fewer and fewer people. (Although I'd argue that the vast majority of us are screwed by a tiny wealthy percentage of the population, but that's for another thread.) The point is that the fact that society isn't fair isn't an excuse to deprive me of the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. See how you feel if I decide that a group you're a part of is the one that needs to be screwed to make the rest of us happy. It's not a nice feeling, let me tell you.

And compromise can't solve everything. For those that believe abortion is murder, how do you compromise with that if you are pro-choice? There's no reaching peace and harmony there between those two groups. There's no way to prove who's right and who's wrong. It's all subjective.

The abortion debate is based on a philosophical difference about when personhood begins. And being a philosophical rather than biological question, it can't be resolved objectively. I'm reluctant to limit a woman's right to choose based on some people's subjective opinion about when personhood begins.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting but I feel like you're needlessly complicating matters and muddying the waters. It's really simple. What gives some people the right to limit the personal freedom and civil rights of others if their actions are not hurting anyone else? I have yet to hear a convincing answer to that question.

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by Wolbrat

If you marry a man, all of the dinosaurs will die.

That's not true. Everyone knows that if you allow same sex marriage the next step is people marrying dinosaurs. Then we will end up with human dinosaur hybrids who will eat all of the pure breed humans.

In short, Tulsa wants us all to be hybrid dinosaur food.

[neworleanshoo]

Originally Posted by saintfan-n-alex

Being not gay nor married I could care less

so you only care about issues that directly effect you? and you think that makes you, what, cool?

[El Caliente]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

Six pages, not to mention dozens of threads on the topic over the years, and I have yet to see one person that can explain how they will be harmed if I marry a man.

Show us your picture.

[TulsaSaint]

I think some of our lady friends posting here might enjoy seeing a picture of me kissing a man. But I'll spare the rest of you.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by Saintamaniac

V, I think you are missing the point of what I posted.

I don't know what you consider to be a marriage or the reason to marry but for me, if there were no "benefits" to being married, I would have still married my wife because I love her and wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. I didn't marry her because the government promised me benefits for doing so.

In essence, you are saying that if there were no government benefits to being married, then marriage as we know it would not be marriage.



The point would be to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Are you saying that the only reason people are against gay marriage is due to the benefits they receive? If that's the case, then the objection has no religious grounds to stand on.

V, I think you are missing the point of what I posted.

I think you're missing the point of his reply.

Without any government-granted benefits, the term "illegal" is moot regarding marriage. It's neither legal nor illegal since there's no "legal" process involved. You're just getting a preacher to say some stuff.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by VVextreme

These are just some of the games you can play once you've found your partner that single people do not have the right to enjoy because they are unlucky in love or are unloveable.

No. You poor sods still have the right. You just need to find a partner (of the opposite sex) who'll say "I do".

Considering your bizarre debate style...good luck with that.

[wizard1183]

Originally Posted by neworleanshoo

so you only care about issues that directly effect you? and you think that makes you, what, cool?

Why does a person have to care about this as much as you or anyone else? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we kept our noses out of places where we don't belong? If you're a straight guy, this has absolutely no effect on you unless it meant your kid was going to a sleep over at their friends house. You may draw the line somewhere, but when something takes place that does nothing to your life one way or the other, why do you care? To give you something to debate about? Other than that what is there?