NationStates Jolt Archive

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it. Seriously? I've never heard this particular odd exception. I have a hard time imagining a justification for why lesbianism is all fine and good, but male homosexuality is bad (besides the obvious "lol, lesbian porn rawks," anyway...).

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it.
What religion are you? I can't think of one where that's true.?


If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it.
Does your religion provide you with any reasons for that? I mean, can you argue why lesbianism is OK but gayness not, without resorting to the authority of a book or church which many of us here give no special weight?

If you answer nothing else, Glorious Freedonia, please attempt this.

============

Okay, for starters, the Talmud ...

GF didn't actually say their religion was Judaism, and some of the later details in that post strongly suggested Christian.

Interesting and scholarly answer, though. :)

Gays = awesome. Anyone who has ever had a gay friend would tell you this.

GF didn't actually say their religion was Judaism
Like many modern Jews I struggle with

Unless he meant something else that escapes me, I think that counts as an identification. :)

Okay, for starters, the Talmud quite explicitly prohibits female homosexuality. According to the most traditional interpretations of Jewish law, neither male same-sex relations nor female same-sex relations are legitimate.

(Of course, the Conservative Movement in the US is rather ambivalent on this question... they have issued contradictory responsa on the topic and left the matter to individual institutions, if I recall correctly. So in modern times there is some support for a more tolerant position, even from a fairly traditional perspective.)



I have a better struggle for you: what about the countless teachings in the Jewish tradition that emphasize the value and dignity of all human beings? Doesn't Rabbi Hillel say that the whole Law can be boiled down to "Don't do to others what is hateful to yourself"?

How can you reconcile that with the fact that you apparently seek to deny sexual and romantic happiness to millions of people?

Perhaps Christianity can handle this, since in many varieties celibacy is something of a holy ideal, but Judaism has never understood sex that way. Some of this is from the commandment to "give fruit and multiply," true, but people forget Genesis 2:18 too often:

"And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

No mention of procreation there, though apparently (see Gen. 2:24) this story is the Biblical origin of marriage. Surely same-sex relationships can fit within this ideal?



Considering that Judaism demands that you pursue justice, you should.

My understanding of the Jewish view of lesbianism over time can pretty much be summed up by the idea that it might be naughty but it is not sinful. I never heard anything to the contrary. I would appreciate it if you could let me know more about how I can read about it actually being sinful.

Yes there is a recognition of the inherent dignity of man. However, there is also the recognition that man is capable of losing his dignity by doing things that are abominable. Not all sins are of that level of course. However the man on man sex is one of those things.

People should have sexual and romantic happiness. However, this should be done in accordance with sexual laws as much as possible. We as a community are able to set ourselves apart which is the essence of holiness. One of the ways that we can do this are through our sexual laws.

I see nothing in the Old Testament that in any way supports homosexuality by man as an acceptable practice.

Judaism does demand that justice be pursued. I am not sure that homosexuality is justice though. I would be interested in reading the discussions on the nature of man on man sex in the commentaries on that subject. They usually shed some pretty good light on the topic. There are perspectives that come out that can really open up the mind to seeing things in a new light. My mind is till open on the subject but the direction of my mental magic 8 ball are pointing to male homosexuality and gay marriage being a no-no.

The genesis passage that you cited is very difficult to construe as the intention that a man should have sex with another man considering that this quote led up to the creation of a woman. Perhaps you are saying that a gay man is created by the Lord so that other gay men may not have to be alone?

This analogy suggests that you see man/woman marriage as akin to a river. Water flowing downhill in a natural way, forming a river in its interaction with the land.

The same could be said for any social institution -- hereditary poverty and privelege, jails, war, the gender-division of labour, or any traditions of government.

This is an argument of "the way things are are the natural way, we should not interfere with how time has made things."

Leading me to think, that while you might see law as a human device, which we are entitled to change over time, that you see marriage as God's work and not ours to change.

Needless to say, I completely disagree. Marriage is an institution of law, and we are entitled to change it whether we believe in God or not.



Does your religion provide you with any reasons for that? I mean, can you argue why lesbianism is OK but gayness not, without resorting to the authority of a book or church which many of us here give no special weight?



No. Perhaps YOU should move to "some country" where the law is based on religious teaching. The US is a secular country.



Weirdly enough, I agree. But only under the circumstances that people are free to move from any country to any other. There should be real diversity of different political systems (including theocracy) but not imposed by a majority on whoever is essentially trapped in that country by their birth.



I utterly reject that. If people don't have the freedom of their own bodies, they have no freedom worth speaking of. The idea that their rights depend apon having a church to speak for them is quite creepy.



There you have it. Fun is bad. Let's have a Crusade against fun.

Here is where we part ways. Forgive me for barely skimming the rest of your post.

The river analogy was simply another topic where I have a belief that is not necessarily rooted in logic. Good arguments can be made to change the course of waterways and gay sex and gay marriage but these things just seem wrong to me. Please do not read too much into it.

The USA is not a secular government. It is a government that does not have a national religion. It is also a government that does not permit the state to interfere with religious groups. This by no means makes the USA a secular government. It is a government that is created to protect religious liberty. It is a reaction to the horrible wars and interfaith oppression, torture, and murder that plagued European monarchies and latter Roman rule.

A real and legitimate religion is one that people actually practice. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody of religion and is therefore not a legitimate faith. However, we should recognize that some people honestly worship a bizarre religion. Our judicial system has struggled with these questions in the past, particluarly regarding conscientious objectors I seem to recall.

In answer to some of your questions, I am Jewish.

I honestly don't care who you (anyone type of who) love, as long as its not anybody that wants nothing of it. I'm straight, but love is love :0)

This is a phenomenon we call "prejudice."

This is sophomoric. I have heard the arguments and still have not been swayed. This is postjudice. How does this also apply to an instinctive belief that rivers courses should not be altered by man despite the arguments in favor thereof?

This is sophomoric. I have heard the arguments and still have not been swayed. This is postjudice. How does this also apply to an instinctive belief that rivers courses should not be altered by man despite the arguments in favor thereof?

how does this apply? Are you arguing for or against? (Honest question)

are we now not helping straight couples that are having problems getting pregnant?

I am very unsure what you mean.

My understanding of the Jewish view of lesbianism over time can pretty much be summed up by the idea that it might be naughty but it is not sinful. I never heard anything to the contrary. I would appreciate it if you could let me know more about how I can read about it actually being sinful.

It's a Rabbinic prohibition on account of not doing what the Egyptians did. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_of_homosexuality#Lesbian_sexual_activity)... yes, it's Wikipedia, but it cites the Mishneh Torah, and I've read this repeatedly in more reliable sources that at the moment I can't be bothered to track down.

Not all sins are of that level of course. However the man on man sex is one of those things.

You're imposing the typical English translation--"abomination"--on the Hebrew word--"toevah."

The Hebrew word doesn't necessarily have the same connotation at all. It refers to wrongness, surely, but not necessarily to abhorrent, horrific moral wrong. And, in any case, even the Rabbis were willing to circumvent Biblical law when they found it highly inhumane... how many capital crimes are there in the Bible? But the Talmud suggests that a court that sentences a person to death every seventy years is a bloody court, and the death sentence required so many witnesses that it was nearly impossible to carry out.

For Jews, it's never been as simple as "The Bible says...."

People should have sexual and romantic happiness. However, this should be done in accordance with sexual laws as much as possible.

Fair enough. But what about when the sexual laws themselves circumscribe the possibility of sexual and romantic happiness? The Rabbis, at least in the sources we have, considered nothing of the sort. Yet the current scientific evidence indicates that this is the situation with respect to homosexuality.

What God of "loving-kindness" would do such a thing to people?

You surely know how important circumcision is to Judaism. But if a circumcised child bleeds to death, the Rabbis decreed that the next child of the same parents didn't have to be circumcised... because, again, they were willing to put human welfare over absolute obedience. And there's support for that in the Bible, too--"live by them", it says. Not "make martyrs of yourselves for them."

I see nothing in the Old Testament that in any way supports homosexuality by man as an acceptable practice.

Well, there's the case of David and Jonathan, but I'll grant that the text isn't explicit there.

More importantly, why should it matter whether there's explicit support for homosexuality in the Bible? There's not explicit support for lots of things. But there is plenty of explicit support for treating people decently, which cannot be reconciled with condemning homosexuality.

I would be interested in reading the discussions on the nature of man on man sex in the commentaries on that subject. They usually shed some pretty good light on the topic.

I'm not sure, but I think there are references with the sex laws in general to differentiating Jews from the other nations... which, frankly, as a basis for denying people an important component of happiness seems rather weak.

The genesis passage that you cited is very difficult to construe as the intention that a man should have sex with another man considering that this quote led up to the creation of a woman.

You're misinterpreting me. I'm not saying the passage explicitly endorses homosexuality. I'm saying the reasons the passage gives for heterosexuality apply just as well to homosexuality, that if companionship is the purpose of marriage, then same-sex marriage fits the bill just as well as opposite-sex marriage does.

The USA is not a secular government. It is a government that does not have a national religion.

No, the First Amendment goes further than that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This by no means makes the USA a secular government.

The Supreme Court, who have the responsibility for Constitutional interpretation, has interpreted the phrase to indicate a "separation of church and state."

How does that entail anything but a secular government?

It is a government that is created to protect religious liberty.

Right, and that surely entails a government that does not enforce the views of one religion upon the population.

It is a reaction to the horrible wars and interfaith oppression, torture, and murder that plagued European monarchies and latter Roman rule.

And a reflection of the religious dissidence that so many of the Founding Fathers shared.

A real and legitimate religion is one that people actually practice.

And I've cited plenty of examples of actual cultures that have accepted homosexuality. What more do you want?

This is sophomoric.

No, it isn't.

I have heard the arguments and still have not been swayed.

Right. The question is, why?

You've already admitted you don't have a reason. That's prejudice. You ignore the reasons other people give you without any reason to do so.

The mere fact that you listen to arguments isn't good enough.

How does this also apply to an instinctive belief that rivers courses should not be altered by man despite the arguments in favor thereof?

It applies perfectly, for exactly the same reason. Of course, in that case apparently you don't actually have a problem with it... at least not such that you oppose actual instances of it happening.

No, the First Amendment goes further than that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I'm curious. Does that mean that a state could "establish" a religion and ban other religions from being practiced in that state ... and the First would prevent Congress from interfering in that?

I'm curious. Does that mean that a state could "establish" a religion and ban other religions from being practiced in that state ... and the First would prevent Congress from interfering in that?

I am so not an expert on Constitutional law.

I'm pretty sure protections of religious freedom have been incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, but I don't think the First Amendment has anything to do with that either way (except as an indicator of what constitutes "liberty.")

So you would only be in favor of gay marriage being legal in the U.S. if there was I religion that you approved that endorsed it?

*sniffs*
I smell closet bigot

Where are you finding a closet?

Seriously? I've never heard this particular odd exception. I have a hard time imagining a justification for why lesbianism is all fine and good, but male homosexuality is bad (besides the obvious "lol, lesbian porn rawks," anyway...).

Leviticus only mentions men.

Leviticus only mentions men.

Yes, but virtually no one's religious laws are limited to "What Leviticus says."

The Jews have the Rabbis, and the Christians have Paul, both of which condemn lesbianism too.

I must say it seems bizarre to be tolerant of lesbians but intolerant of gays.

I'm fine with people finding one or the other "icky" and having personal preferences, but to suggest making laws (ie to grant or forbid marriage) based on that? It's hard to imagine any defence of it other than "it says in my religion."

And "it says in my religion" is no reason to make a law.

Anyone else want to try to explain why lesbians should be allowed to marry, but gays not? (It seems Glorious Freedonia has taken a break for now.)

A real and legitimate religion is one that people actually practice. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody of religion and is therefore not a legitimate faith.

What about all the pagan religions that are fine with homosexual marriage?

For that matter, how do you know that no one actually practices FSMism, thus making it according to you a "real and legitimate religion"? Just because it began as a parody doesn't mean it hasn't gained any real followers.

For that matter, how do you know that no one actually practices FSMism, thus making it according to you a "real and legitimate religion"? Just because it began as a parody doesn't mean it hasn't gained any real followers.

That's the mistake people made about Christianity...

Yes, but virtually no one's religious laws are limited to "What Leviticus says."


Hey, I'm just trying to find a semi-logical excuse for someone else's bizarre statement.

Marriage, unfortunately, means different things to different people.

We aren't going to persuade believers that it is not a religious institution. To them, it IS. They want the church in their bedroom, and it's futile to try to interfere.

So I say we wash our hands of the word, and remove any legal recognition of marriage.

You want your marriage, go to the church. You want your civil union, come to the government. Government should not recognize marriage at all ... then we can move on to the question of whether government should treat people differently because of a private contract they have made with each other.

We aren't going to persuade believers that it is not a religious institution.

We already have. We have civil marriage. Catholics can divorce. Jews can intermarry.

To them, it IS.

Religious marriage, maybe. But the government is not, and has never been, in the business of defining religious marriage.

So I say we wash our hands of the word, and remove any legal recognition of marriage.

Why should we concede it to the religious? Doesn't the term have secular cultural significance, too?

We already have. We have civil marriage. Catholics can divorce. Jews can intermarry.

You point to reforms within the churches. All fine and well, but really: their business.

Religious marriage, maybe. But the government is not, and has never been, in the business of defining religious marriage.

You're missing my point. If government sees utility in people swearing oaths of fidelity to each other, and intermixing their legal rights ... it should come out and say so, and say why. It doesn't have to do that, because of the secular tradition of marriage. And to the religious, government recognition of what is to them a religious ceremony IS a link between church and state.

I don't disapprove of contracts between individuals, but I think the benefits and penalties for breaking such a contract have to be written into the contract and dealt with by civil law, at the expense of the parties.

Government, simply, should have no stake in who has sex with whom (consenting adults of course). They should neither reward nor punish it.

Why should we concede it to the religious? Doesn't the term have secular cultural significance, too?

Why? To show that we are better than them.

It's just a word. If there is any value to the secular tradition of marriage, it will subsist just as well in a new and more rational form.

For instance, separating "marriage" into discrete contracts. One for sexual fidelity. One for a vow to care for or support each other. One for custody or support of children. One for powers of attorney, etc. I see no reason why all these should be bundled into one take-it-or-leave-it package.

Let them keep the muddied and confused mess that their era of Establishment has made of the word.

Sometimes something just seems wrong. It just does not seem right. It might be hard to say why it is wrong and it may be difficult to come up with a logical reason why it seems wrong. Gay marriage is one of those topics for me. I respect the opinions but it just seems wrong to me.

Are you saying that you find it difficult to come up with a logical reason to deny people recognition of their relationships and the ability to share and enjoy crucial benefits?


I am trying to think of an analogy. Ok, it seems wrong to purposely alter the course of a stream or river. There are lots of smart arguments that can be made for moving the course of a stream or river such as flood control and irrigation. However, it just does not seem right that human should have the power to alter the course of a river. Now I do not have anything against canals, I really do not. However, I do not like the idea of changing the course of a natural body of water, It just seems wrong.

This is kind of an offensive analogy, because what I gather from this is that you're saying that tradition and traditional marriage is a river, which of course, being natural, deserves not to be changed. So, for an authoritarian status quo which humiliates sexual minorities, you would like us to think of the rivers?


If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it. Maybe this is why gay marriage seems wrong to me.

First, this is a blatantly sexist view, to say that lesbianism is moral and male homosexuality is not.

Second, even if you're view is 100% right, are you saying that lesbians and bi women who want to have same-sex relationships should be denied access to legal benefits because male homosexuality is immoral?

I can see a bunch of pissed off lesbians right now.



If there was somebody whose religion was ok with men marrying men, it would be bigotted of me to try to deny them this. However, I guess there is really nothing stopping them from moving to a country whose family law policies are based on that religios teaching.

So, is your view that your religion is superior to other religions? You won't be bigoted and deny those who observe that religion their view, but you won't let them have policies according to their view? And they should move to another country?


I think that every faith should have a piece of ground where they are free to live out their religious teachings. The patriotic American in me would be proud if that place could be the USA. Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

I am absolutely horrified that you are saying a religion has to support something for you to support it. Why can't Glorious Freedonia have a place in moral deliberation that amounts to more than "well, I'm throwing in with G-d."?

And again, think of lesbians and bi women. One of the things about these debates is that it's really easy to focus on how much people don't like male homosexuality. Nothing you have offered so far gives me any reason to see how you shouldn't support recognition of same-sex unions between women. So why the focus on men? Are you trying to make lesbians and bi women suffer?


The prohibition on gay sex is followed by a prohibition on allowing the joys of gay sex to fluorish in any country. Perhaps this should be a matter for the various states. I think that states should be able to experiment in new social policies. I think people should be able to vote with their feet by moving to a state that allows gay men to marry each other.

Why should any state ever be able to experiment with social policies that are oppressive? I'm a bit hung up there.


The problem though lies in our full faith and credit clause of our Federal constitution. If a Constitutional amendment permitted states to refuse to recognize foreign state marriages of homosexuals, this would make me a lot
more willing to accept the practice.

What do you mean by "more willing"? Will you support it or not?


If I was free to vote against it in my state and not have my state recognize the other state's gay marriages, I might be able to avoid sinning by being soft on gaiety. I do not know. This is a difficult question. It is so much easier to say no to it than try to justify it. I guess in the end I am opposed to it completely if for no other reason than to have the opportunity of maybe bringing some holiness into my life by opposing it.
So, "in the end," you are "completely" opposed to gay (male) marriage for no "other reason" than to have the "opportunity of bringing some holiness" into your own life by opposing it?

Are you saying that your state of grace with the LORD is more important than the lives and happiness of your fellow human beings, (many of whom, I again remind you are lesbians and bi women)?

And you don't have to change your mind, by the way. All I want you to do is admit that you care more about a state of grace than actual people.

*snip*
And you don't have to change your mind, by the way. All I want you to do is admit that you care more about a state of grace than actual people.

Everyone should have a go at that post. It's a BIG BIG target. :p

Everyone should have a go at that post. It's a BIG BIG target. :p
Quite. And I really don't care if he agrees. I'm just amazed that a person could be so sexist about it and so inhumane. Opponents of LGBT marriage usually try to maintain the pretense of caring about others.

You point to reforms within the churches.

Not at all. I point to the facts of civil marriage.

The Catholic Church still doesn't allow divorce. Traditional Jews still don't allow intermarriage. But with civil marriage, Jews and Catholics can break these rules--because civil marriage has already been divested of religious content.

And to the religious, government recognition of what is to them a religious ceremony IS a link between church and state.

Civil marriage is not a religious ceremony, and not even the religious claim it is. Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. They are typically joined together, but they don't have to be.

It's just a word. If there is any value to the secular tradition of marriage, it will subsist just as well in a new and more rational form.

But human societies, human cultures, human symbols are not perfectly rational... it may be "just a word", but (like any word) it's a word that has been invested with content, with meaning, with a particular social importance.

You can't just attach the legal rights to a different word and expect it to be the same. It's not.

For instance, separating "marriage" into discrete contracts. One for sexual fidelity. One for a vow to care for or support each other. One for custody or support of children. One for powers of attorney, etc. I see no reason why all these should be bundled into one take-it-or-leave-it package.

Allowing such possibilities in no sense necessitates abolishing civil marriage.

First I legitimate references to religion in moral argument, and now I'm defending marriage.

What has happened to me? :(

First I legitimate references to religion in moral argument, and now I'm defending marriage.

What has happened to me? :(
Oh. Are you not a fan of marriage, either? More of a common-law union person? Just wondering.

Not at all. I point to the facts of civil marriage.

The Catholic Church still doesn't allow divorce. Traditional Jews still don't allow intermarriage. But with civil marriage, Jews and Catholics can break these rules--because civil marriage has already been divested of religious content.

Formally, in the law. And that's good. Neither you nor I can do anything about how they see it though.

Can you doubt that a Catholic is less free to divorce than an atheist? WE don't put those chains on them, but nor should we recognize their legitimacy.

Civil marriage is not a religious ceremony, and not even the religious claim it is.

But they may believe it is. Surely if the pastor has lectured them on the evils of sex before marriage, or of birth out of wedlock, when they get civily married they are doing it to obey the church?

We can't shut the pastor up. We can't make him issue a disclaimer about the legal meaning of marriage being other than what he's lauding as morally right.

But we can stop using the same word.

But human societies, human cultures, human symbols are not perfectly rational... it may be "just a word", but (like any word) it's a word that has been invested with content, with meaning, with a particular social importance.

So tell me, how are you going to purge "marriage" of it's religious meaning?

Not by long, rational explanations. Those who hang onto the religious meaning aren't listening to you. They're seeing their religious union recognized by the state, whether the state intends that or not. They're seeing their foot in the door to make laws based on their religion.

You can't just attach the legal rights to a different word and expect it to be the same. It's not.

The bits that go missing in the conversion are the bits that were irrational.

The whole is more than the sum of the parts, but I argue that in that "more" can lurk all sorts of things we would never choose, like sexist assumptions or ownership of each others' bodies. Or religious assumptions, even for those of us who never were or have renounced religion.

Allowing such possibilities in no sense necessitates abolishing civil marriage.

It makes each of them a specific choice, and one can be abandoned (with the specified penalties) without affecting the other.

I've made it clear, I hope, that I object to government recognition (differing legal rights, different tax obligations, informal standing of a relationship in court) of any such PRIVATE contract. Whatever name it goes by.

Separating civil union from any religious implication comes at a cost, and that cost comes from the legitimacy of the tradition of marriage.

Hooray, I say. Smash it up.

First I legitimate references to religion in moral argument, and now I'm defending marriage.

What has happened to me? :(

We call it a "debating forum" but probably "moshpit" would be more accurate.

So, you came out wearing someone else's hat. Don't worry about it. :D

The USA is not a secular government. It is a government that does not have a national religion. It is also a government that does not permit the state to interfere with religious groups. This by no means makes the USA a secular government. It is a government that is created to protect religious liberty. It is a reaction to the horrible wars and interfaith oppression, torture, and murder that plagued European monarchies and latter Roman rule.

A government that means to protect religious liberty must be separate from religion - hence, secular.

The USA is not a secular government. It is a government that does not have a national religion. It is also a government that does not permit the state to interfere with religious groups. This by no means makes the USA a secular government. It is a government that is created to protect religious liberty. It is a reaction to the horrible wars and interfaith oppression, torture, and murder that plagued European monarchies and latter Roman rule.

I wonder what you think 'secular' means. In context of government, it's usual interpretation is something along the lines of 'not specific to (a) religion'. Secularism isn't opposite to 'religion', although it might be opposite to 'religious'.

Oh. Are you not a fan of marriage, either?

No.

More of a common-law union person?

More of a "Relationships shouldn't be constrained by the primitive, boring, and stifling rules of an obsolete institution warped by patriarchy and heteronormativity" person.

But, after a fashion, I tend to think that radicalism like mine has no capacity for social change, at least at this point... so I find the same-sex marriage campaign productive insofar as it speaks the language of mainstream society.

It's not really a contradiction. It just feels weird.

But human societies, human cultures, human symbols are not perfectly rational... it may be "just a word", but (like any word) it's a word that has been invested with content, with meaning, with a particular social importance.

You can't just attach the legal rights to a different word and expect it to be the same. It's not.

Not to mention the worldwide implications. A "marriage" has implications internationally. Most nations, either through explicit or implicit agreement, recognize the civil marriages performed in another country. A "civil union" (or whatever term you might use) doesn't have those same implications or the same history.

All I want you to do is admit that you care more about a state of grace than actual people.

And I want you to admit that your putting the rights of dead people ahead of the happiness of living ones by banning necrophilia, see how stupid the argument is. It's putting grace into your life, the bi's (those who chose to become straight do to the laws) and the rest of society. Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)), the facct it's unnateral and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race, these are reasons besides grace for it and they affect all of society, most of them not egocentric at all.

You're imposing the typical English translation--"abomination"--on the Hebrew word--"toevah."

The Hebrew word doesn't necessarily have the same connotation at all. It refers to wrongness, surely, but not necessarily to abhorrent, horrific moral wrong.

The word 'abomination' is a problem anyway - it basically means 'bringing bad luck' (from the etymology) and carries a modern connotation of being something monstrous and/or evil. Given that the Hebrew can literally just mean 'unclean', (as in 'not clean'... not a religious term, just needing a wash), it is odd some people insist on the Hebrew text being so forcefully 'anti-gay'.

And I want you to admit that your putting the rights of dead people ahead of the happiness of living ones by banning necrophilia, see how stupid the argument is. It's putting grace into your life, the bi's (those who chose to become straight do to the laws) and the rest of society. Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)), the facct it's unnateral and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race, these are reasons besides grace for it and they affect all of society, most of them not egocentric at all.

Utter rubbish.

Necrophilia and paedophilia both intrinsically involve non-consenting parties. There is no parallel. To attempt to equate those actions with homosexuality is as stupid as saying rape should be legal because the rapist should have the 'right' to engage in a carnal act regardless of the choice of the victim.

The argument of 'grace' is ridiculous - Jesus argued that there is no higher calling than laying down your life for your friend, and that those who SEEK to preserve their lives will lose them. Those who do not, will gain life. A true Christian must (consequently) be willing to risk their own salvation through grace. The 'bringing grace' argument is shown to be unscriptural and spiritually bankrupt.

It's not even worth attacking the 'un-natural' and 'detrimental' arguments - beyond pointing out that members of the 'pack' that do not produce their own young, and yet assist the pack behaviour are actually a bonus to the pack, not a burden... and improve the chances of the success of their pack collectively, even if they do not have their own, individual, offspring.

Can you doubt that a Catholic is less free to divorce than an atheist?

Better question: would a Catholic be more free if the government made his or her civil marriage a "civil union" instead?

I say not. It would cause the social significance of the term to be attached to the religious marriage rather than the civil arrangement. That would make the fact that he or she can't receive a religious divorce more important, not less so.

That's precisely why I say it's conceding to the religious (well, the religious conservatives, really.)

But they may believe it is. Surely if the pastor has lectured them on the evils of sex before marriage, or of birth out of wedlock, when they get civily married they are doing it to obey the church?

In part, perhaps. What of it?

So tell me, how are you going to purge "marriage" of it's religious meaning?

Why would I want to do that?

I don't want to purge "marriage" of any particular meaning. I just want liberal people to remember that it has secular meaning too, that to mainstream society it means something about the character of the relationship that extends far beyond any religious association (and, indeed, is perhaps independent of any such thing.)

A religious Jew probably doesn't have any problem calling a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew a "marriage" (as, indeed, the term "intermarriage" itself suggests.) It's not a valid Jewish marriage, he or she might think, but it retains all the secular features--the rights of civil marriage, but also the ideas of love, commitment, and mainstream social legitimacy that are inextricably bound up with marriage in our society.

But by turning civil marriages into civil unions, by leaving marriage to the religious, you weaken the capacity of any secular union to have such a thing... which is what is to be expected, because this entire line of reasoning is founded upon the (false) notion that marriage as marriage is somehow an intrinsically religious institution.

Those who hang onto the religious meaning aren't listening to you. They're seeing their religious union recognized by the state, whether the state intends that or not. They're seeing their foot in the door to make laws based on their religion.

Right, and precisely because they believe civil marriage should reflect religion, they'll fight you to keep it in place. It's government endorsing a traditional means of legitimizing relationships.

Politically speaking, abolishing civil marriage would be as, if not more, difficult than legalizing same-sex marriage.

The bits that go missing in the conversion are the bits that were irrational.

"Meaning" is always "irrational" in this sense. Is there a reason a word means one thing and not another?

We can't just ignore culture and language because they're necessarily irrational. We may be able to come up with better alternatives in the abstract. But when it comes to changing things, to achieving equality for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (and for women), we have to deal with social meanings as they exist, not social meanings as we would like them to be.

It may be "irrational" that social legitimacy is attached to the "marriage" concept. But it is so.

The whole is more than the sum of the parts, but I argue that in that "more" can lurk all sorts of things we would never choose, like sexist assumptions or ownership of each others' bodies.

That's certainly true. But when it comes to creating the social space for free, sexually egalitarian relationships that have no such assumptions, it hardly seems best to pretend that existing social conceptions and forms of relationships simply don't exist.

We have to fight with them, not against them. We have to transform marriage, not abolish it--because it's what we have, it's what we have to deal with, as long as we are working in this world and not in an imaginary one we conceive in our minds.

Sometimes philosophy isn't productive.

It makes each of them a specific choice, and one can be abandoned (with the specified penalties) without affecting the other.

As a policy matter, that's a great idea. I support it. I just don't think we should advance it as the abolition of marriage.

We call it a "debating forum" but probably "moshpit" would be more accurate.

Hey, I don't much like mosh pits either... last punk rock concert I went to, I spent much of it sitting on the upper floor, reading a book. (Don't get me wrong--I loved the music.)

Given that the Hebrew can literally just mean 'unclean'

That's almost certainly not the sense of the verse, though, since it is a prohibition, and in one of the two instances (Lev. 20:13 I believe) it calls for the death penalty.

Ritual uncleanliness (I can't think of any Biblical legal reference to non-ritual uncleanliness) has different terminology, and acts that bring it about (like menstruation) aren't proscribed.

I think there's space for acceptance of homosexuality within Judaism, but I don't think it can be found by trying to contest the dominant historical, and almost certainly correct, reading of the Leviticus verses.

It's putting grace into your life, the bi's (those who chose to become straight do to the laws) and the rest of society.

A person who is bisexual does not choose to become straight. He may choose only to date members of the opposite sex, but that does not magically get rid of his attractions to members of the same sex.

Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)),

I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with legally consenting adults....

the facct it's unnateral

I assume you're going for "unnatural" here. What, precisely, is your definition of the word "unnatural" that does not include natural animal and human behavior?

and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race,

How so?

And I want you to admit that your putting the rights of dead people ahead of the happiness of living ones by banning necrophilia, see how stupid the argument is.

I guess I'm too dense to see how this makes sense. Is there some problem with me calling him on being inhumane?


It's putting grace into your life,

What's "it"?


the bi's

Is this relating to the grace? So confused here.


(those who chose to become straight do to the laws) and the rest of society.

I don't know what this is. Please restate it.


Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)),

Why not just apply situational ethics?


the assertion it's unnateral

Fixed. And why does "it" (whatever "it" is) have to be natural?


and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race,

I would say the fact that we are all here talking about it is proof in itself that what you're saying is empirically denied. Humans have been around for a long time.


these are reasons besides grace for it and they affect all of society, most of them not egocentric at all.

Uh... Ok.

No.

:fluffle:



More of a "Relationships shouldn't be constrained by the primitive, boring, and stifling rules of an obsolete institution warped by patriarchy and heteronormativity" person.

But, after a fashion, I tend to think that radicalism like mine has no capacity for social change, at least at this point... so I find the same-sex marriage campaign productive insofar as it speaks the language of mainstream society.

It's not really a contradiction. It just feels weird.
Well, it kind of sucks that we can't really talk about how permanent relationships could work differently. Le sigh. :(

"Anarchist, not liberal"... I want that on a t-shirt. :)

Well, it kind of sucks that we can't really talk about how permanent relationships could work differently. Le sigh. :(

Well, we can talk about it... we just have a good deal of cultural distance to travel before we can get there, at least beyond the margins.

How you seen the Beyond Marriage (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/index.html) statement?

Can you doubt that a Catholic is less free to divorce than an atheist? WE don't put those chains on them, but nor should we recognize their legitimacy.


Why, yes I can deny that. They are just as free to divorce as the rest of us are. However many of them do not wish to do so because they are Catholics and frown on divorce.

Much as everyone is free to eat broccoli, but some don't wish to.

Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)),

A: You just did.

B: What is allowed between consenting adults does not apply in any way to minors.

the facct it's unnateral and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race,

Neither of these are "facts".

And I want you to admit that your putting the rights of dead people ahead of the happiness of living ones by banning necrophilia, see how stupid the argument is. It's putting grace into your life, the bi's (those who chose to become straight do to the laws) and the rest of society. Besides, religon, the fact that it's a slippery slope (why allow gay but stop pedophiles (PS I am not comparing the two)), the facct it's unnateral and the fact that it is detrimantal to the human race, these are reasons besides grace for it and they affect all of society, most of them not egocentric at all.

The Most Serene Republic of Spectaculawesomeness in no way endorses this individuals ability to speak publicly. Furthermore, it shall be stated as the opinion of said nation to believe that, sadly enough, stupid people will continue to perpetuate themselves. Now, although the rationally thinking population of the world may see this inferior "breed" of humans perpetuating themselves as a blatant contradiction to the laws of natural selection, we must acknowledge that it clearly occurs.

Having said this, it should be equated that the laws of what is 'unnatural' no longer apply to the human species which, as someone stated, has been around for a long time, and has clearly defied several of these laws (no doubt as a result of mans propensity to think with his penis).

Thus, since the laws of naturalism (as it were) have become contradicted in this perpetuation of stupidity, it must also be acknowledged that saying homosexual relationships are unnatural is a logical fallacy, as there is clearly no standard definition of what is "natural."




Ok... enough being silly; on a serious note:

Don't ever talk about the grace of marriage when the divorce rate is over 50%.

Religious, Atheist, Cowfucker, Necrophiliac, whatever you may be...

It doesn't really matter. The institution of marriage has been flawed for some time.

Anytime a marriage occurs because "i knocked her up", or an equally garbage reason, that marriage is doomed from the beginning, because it isn't based upon the principals of marriage (or civil union, if you prefer to call it that, allowing for the absence of religious connotations).

Whether or not you believe in God, or Buddha, or whatever... Love is the reason people get married (supposedly), and for any other reason is simply taking advantage of the system. If this were not the purpose for marriage (civil union), what's to keep me from marrying my good friend, just so I can take advantage of his superior insurance?

Bleh

I'm not saying it's right, just saying that's how it is.

Now i'm going to continue to drink, and possibly watch a movie, so don't bother trying to flame my post; I'll probably never see it.

The Most Serene Republic of Spectaculawesomeness

Better question: would a Catholic be more free if the government made his or her civil marriage a "civil union" instead?

No. What I'm imagining is that they would still have access to a religious marriage, and be bound only by their obligation to the church, with no effects beyond that.

But I can see that all the church needs to do to get it's foot back in the door is say "as proof of your dedication to this holy marriage, you must now go and get a civil union."

I say not. It would cause the social significance of the term to be attached to the religious marriage rather than the civil arrangement. That would make the fact that he or she can't receive a religious divorce more important, not less so.

I'm about giving them a more informed choice. That they may choose the moral stricture of a religious marriage is something we will never be able to stop, other than by banning religion (which I obviously wouldn't.)

So I'd want the two things, religious and civil marriage, to be as clearly distinguishable as possible. Starting with what we call it.

I don't want to purge "marriage" of any particular meaning. I just want liberal people to remember that it has secular meaning too, that to mainstream society it means something about the character of the relationship that extends far beyond any religious association (and, indeed, is perhaps independent of any such thing.)

....

But by turning civil marriages into civil unions, by leaving marriage to the religious, you weaken the capacity of any secular union to have such a thing... which is what is to be expected, because this entire line of reasoning is founded upon the (false) notion that marriage as marriage is somehow an intrinsically religious institution.

Not intrinsically! Partially. Neither you nor I would dare speculate what the "origin" of marriage is, so it makes no sense to speak of what it "intrinsically is."

I was brought up atheist, but the first image that pops into my mind to characterise marriage is "bride and groom on the steps of the church." Whether that's from films or what I don't know.

Religious ideas have contributed to the current ball-of-wax idea of what marriage "is" and I really can't see that changing much unless the whole idea is recreated from its essential parts, and the religion is left out.

We can't stop religions claiming marriage as their own, and all our historical facts won't sway someone who is sublimating their sexuality and their very purpose in life to religious virtue. We can't stop that -- but we can make a clear distinction between whatever virtues are embodied in secular marriage, and similar virtues in their religious form.

Right, and precisely because they believe civil marriage should reflect religion, they'll fight you to keep it in place. It's government endorsing a traditional means of legitimizing relationships.

Politically speaking, abolishing civil marriage would be as, if not more, difficult than legalizing same-sex marriage.

Er, um, yes.

"Meaning" is always "irrational" in this sense. Is there a reason a word means one thing and not another?

No, probably not. They all exist in a relationship to other words, even a dictionary does not define a meaning without resort to other words.

But we should be very wary when a lot of meaning is carried by one word, that both speakers mean the same thing by that word.

When I hear "marriage is holy matrimony, the sacred bond between a man and a woman" it's perfectly plain that I'm hearing someone with a different definition than mine. But if they just use the word "marriage" ... how do I know what they mean?

We can't just ignore culture and language because they're necessarily irrational. We may be able to come up with better alternatives in the abstract. But when it comes to changing things, to achieving equality for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (and for women), we have to deal with social meanings as they exist, not social meanings as we would like them to be.

But coining new words is a recognized way of changing perceptions!

Look at the words we ourselves are using. It would be quite accurate to describe "gays and lesbians" as "homosexuals" but we don't do that, because collectively those people have chosen to be called "gays and lesbians" or "GLBT".

We can still use the word "homosexual" but it has connotations of sexual pathology which "gay and lesbian" does not. That's a changed perception, right there.

(B)ut when it comes to creating the social space for free, sexually egalitarian relationships that have no such assumptions, it hardly seems best to pretend that existing social conceptions and forms of relationships simply don't exist.

No, of course not. To do that would be to act on incomplete information, and blunder.

We have to fight with them, not against them. We have to transform marriage, not abolish it--because it's what we have, it's what we have to deal with, as long as we are working in this world and not in an imaginary one we conceive in our minds.

I'm more concerned with not validating someone else's imaginary world. An imaginary world that looks at a vow between two people and sees God's work being done.

I just don't think we should advance it as the abolition of marriage.

Well, I went too far there. I just meant that protecting the "institution of marriage" shouldn't stay our hand. If it harms the institution to clearly divorce the state from the church, in the definition of civil union, then sobeit.

Why, yes I can deny that. They are just as free to divorce as the rest of us are.

Legally! I speak of more general freedom.

However many of them do not wish to do so because they are Catholics and frown on divorce.

Much as everyone is free to eat broccoli, but some don't wish to.

A more accurate analogy would be "much as everyone is free to eat meat during Lent" ... more or less free, depending on the strictness of their observance.

I don't want to purge "marriage" of any particular meaning. I just want liberal people to remember that it has secular meaning too, that to mainstream society it means something about the character of the relationship that extends far beyond any religious association (and, indeed, is perhaps independent of any such thing.)

In fact - as you yourself already hinted at - a secular marriage has a far more clearly defined meaning than a religious one. Jews, Christians and Muslims of all different flavours already have vastly different ideas of what a marriage actually entails. Let alone non Abrahamic religions like Hinduism. Some believe childrape is ok if you say you "married" the 9 year old. Some believe arranged marriages are the only sensible way. Some glorify polygamy. And there are even a few religions that have no problem whatsoever with same sex marriages ;)

What a civil marriage entails however is the same for everyone in the country.

So indeed - let us split them up. One a union of consenting adults before the law, one whatever perversion your God/gods demand of you.

To the reproduction question:

Imagine that two women are exclusively lesbian, won't suffer a man to sleep with them even for procreation, and don't have access to turkey-baster technology.

Imagine that two men are exclusively gay and won't sleep with a woman even for the good of the tribe.

Now, it seems to me that the lesbians are a greater loss to the "breeding-up" capacity of their tribe. There are practical limits to how often women can reproduce, but relatively few restrictions for men. The stud duty of the gay men can easily be fulfilled by some other man, whereas some other woman can't have the lesbian's baby "for her." She'd be either full-up, or infertile between pregnancies.

From this it would seem that anyone who puts the "gayness is wrong because we'd all die out" position must find lesbianism more wrong than gaeity!

Legally! I speak of more general freedom.

Which they have in equal measure.



A more accurate analogy would be "much as everyone is free to eat meat during Lent" ... more or less free, depending on the strictness of their observance.

Or much as everyone is free to eat meat at any time, Buddhists just don't want to. Seriously, their religion doesn't remove the choice from them.

Hello,


Hello...


Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

Don't questions have question marks?

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays

I think that if any two consenting non-related adults who love each other should be recognised equally under the law.

I think that if any two consenting non-related adults who love each other should be recognised equally under the law.

Why only 2 ? If someone is silly enough to want 2 mothers-in-law..

Which they have in equal measure.

I think it's fair to say that if Soheran took my point without dispute, I can safely disregard your quibbling.

I think that if any two consenting non-related adults who love each other should be recognised equally under the law.

Non-related! Now there's a new note in the general dischord!

Why shouldn't brother and sister marry each other?

Does allowing them to marry somehow endorse their having children (which I would agree is a bad thing) ...?

Non-related! Now there's a new note in the general dischord!

Why shouldn't brother and sister marry each other?

Does allowing them to marry somehow endorse their having children (which I would agree is a bad thing) ...?

Oh gods, not this again...:eek:

We're not discussing incest here. We're discussing if gays and bisexuals should be allowed to get married.

Oh gods, not this again...:eek:

We're not discussing incest here. We're discussing if gays and bisexuals should be allowed to get married.

Umm gay brothers?

Cats and dogs, should they be allowed to marry?

Umm gay brothers?

:p
I'm refraining from giving an opinion on that too.

Cats and dogs, should they be allowed to marry?

Cats and dogs, are they capable of giving informed legal consent?

No?

Well, that sure was a tough question to answer.

Cats and dogs, are they capable of giving informed legal consent?

No?

Well, that sure was a tough question to answer.

How do you know, can you speak either cat or dog?

What a civil marriage entails however is the same for everyone in the country.

Or, in the US, everyone in the state.

So indeed - let us split them up. One a union of consenting adults before the law, one whatever perversion your God/gods demand of you.

You mean like we already have?

The homophobes of the forum will be out in force soon, as will the rest of us both atheist and religious who support gay rights. What the Bible states is completely irrelevant as the Bible is not an acceptable basis for the law. Nor is the Koran, Torah, Principia Discordia, or your favorite book by Richard Dawkins.

YOU DARE TO DOUBT PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA :mad:

YOU are one doomed chump!!!!

Here by, using the powers confer to me by myself I excommunicate you for ever and ever.

Period...

Now on a more serious sense... I think the goverment should annul all marriages. The government shouldnt have authority to decree who can marry and how.

"Anarchist, not liberal"... I want that on a t-shirt. :)

It would be sweet, eh? I have never seen it, though...


Well, we can talk about it... we just have a good deal of cultural distance to travel before we can get there, at least beyond the margins.

How you seen the Beyond Marriage (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/index.html) statement?
Oh, no I have not. How neat!

Cats and dogs, should they be allowed to marry?
Look, asshole. Cats and dogs are unable to communicate with us their desire to have their permanent relationships recognized. So if anything, "the question to ask is not should they be allowed to marry?" But "Are we really stupid enough to think we can actually communicate with Chuckles and Spot?"

:headbang:

Look, asshole. Cats and dogs are unable to communicate with us their desire to have their permanent relationships recognized. So if anything, "the question to ask is not should they be allowed to may?" But "Are we really stupid enough to think we can actually communicate with Chuckles and Spot?"


Many people are of the belief that they communicate regularly with their cats and dogs.

And how do you know that cats and dogs don't communicate with one another?

Cats and dogs can communicate.... most animals are capable of some sort of communications... but it doesnt means complex abstract concepts being communicated... like marriage.

Im pretty sure that when some cats come to my backyard and my dogs barks and runs behind them... the cats get the message.

Many people are of the belief that they communicate regularly with their cats and dogs.

On a basic level, sure. Saying "I wanna get married" is a little more complex. How many barks/meows does it take to communicate a desire to humans for two cats to marry each other? Should they do it in Morse code? Or are we supposed to just "understand" by the way two animals spend time together?


And how do you know that cats and dogs don't communicate with one another?
I don't claim they don't communicate with each other. But that's irrelevant to the argument.

Speaking of which, I don't see the point of your argument.

Complimenting your puppet (or complimenting yourself with your puppet) just makes you look like an idiot.

I'm not his puppet,
just his relation.
And I happen to agree with him.:(

If, as seems likely, you are the same person posting under two names, STOP DOING THIS.

One of your puppets replying to the other is known as PUPPET WANKING, and it is frowned apon.

I'm not reporting it at this stage, since your moronic quotes are somewhat entertaining. Just don't go any further with that, into faking debate between your puppets.

I'M NOT HIS PUPPET, I'M HIS SIBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh noes, it's the mighty Imperium Sock Puppet brigade!

Imperial, yes
puppet, no

YNow on a more serious sense... I think the goverment should annul all marriages. The government shouldnt have authority to decree who can marry and how.

How are you defining "marriage", here?

And do you really think the myriad of legal implications of marriage are all bogus?

That's almost certainly not the sense


Hence 'can'.

The point is that it is a mistake to attach too much significance to the word 'abomination'. (Especialyl since it's actually a pretty poor traslation).

...of the verse, though, since it is a prohibition, and in one of the two instances (Lev. 20:13 I believe) it calls for the death penalty.


And, in one of them, it seems likely that the verse being translated as being about homosexual congress, is actually about not sleeping with menstrual women. Because it makes you 'unclean'. Worth a thought.

'Abomination' is a mixed bag. To assume all 'abomination' is equal (or even, evil) is a joke.


I think there's space for acceptance of homosexuality within Judaism, but I don't think it can be found by trying to contest the dominant historical, and almost certainly correct, reading of the Leviticus verses.

I don' think the main strength for that justification is there, either. I certainly don't think that Christianity needs to justify tolerance of homosexuals by semantic arguments. On the other hand, where the dominant historical translations are questionable, it's hardly bad form to suggest it.

Where are you finding a closet?

It's the one he's using to hide the fact that he is a bigot from himself.

I'm not his puppet,
just his relation.
And I happen to agree with him.:(

I'M NOT HIS PUPPET, I'M HIS SIBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm, why do I find this hard to believe?

And, in one of them, it seems likely that the verse being translated as being about homosexual congress, is actually about not sleeping with menstrual women.

Such interpretations have been tossed around, but I'm quite skeptical of them. The meaning seems pretty clear to me... especially since both pretty clearly refer to men (either second person or third person) lying with "zachar" (mankind).

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

From a Government stanpoint, there should be no interference in personal freedom.

But I disagree on the assertion that the Bible does not forbid it.

No. What I'm imagining is that they would still have access to a religious marriage, and be bound only by their obligation to the church, with no effects beyond that.

That's an angle I hadn't thought of. But what use is this benefit? Socially speaking a person in a religious marriage, at least one widely recognized as "legitimate" (whatever the rules there would turn out to be), would be in the same place, and marriage as a legal institution is mostly beneficial (to the couple, anyway).

I'm about giving them a more informed choice. That they may choose the moral stricture of a religious marriage is something we will never be able to stop, other than by banning religion (which I obviously wouldn't.)

Right, but I'm not interested in stopping them. I'm interested in keeping "marriage" such that we retain the capacity to say something about the legitimacy of same-sex relationships with our legislation... such that we don't turn it into a purely legalistic, private contract without the same kind of social legitimacy.

In legalizing same-sex marriage, ideally we are doing more than granting equal rights--ideally we are declaring something about the kind of society we believe in, a society where all human beings are to be regarded as of equal worth regardless of which sex they choose to pursue relationships with.

The conservatives have this part right, when they say that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional notions of marriage. Sometimes politics and social movements are really about symbols, especially when you're trying to change a culture, and sometimes symbols are of critical importance. By granting equal marriage we grant equal legitimacy, at least in a mainstream secular sense. By moving the discourse to be about purely legalistic "civil unions" we don't talk about legitimacy at all. We privatize our capacity to speak as a public, and as a consequence we hand such considerations to the private institutions--like traditional religion--that dominate social perceptions of marriage. I'm not so sure that that's a good thing at all.

Not intrinsically! Partially.

I'll take that. Let's not give them all of it.

I was brought up atheist, but the first image that pops into my mind to characterise marriage is "bride and groom on the steps of the church."

That doesn't tell us so much about the nature of the institution as about the setting of its inception. What does marriage mean? What does it symbolize about a relationship? Is it so obviously, so clearly, a matter of divine sanctification?

Religious ideas have contributed to the current ball-of-wax idea of what marriage "is" and I really can't see that changing much unless the whole idea is recreated from its essential parts, and the religion is left out.

You're right. My point is not that there is no religious element. My point is that there is also a large secular element. And it's one that civil marriage can extend to diverse relationships in a way that civil unions perhaps cannot.

We can't stop religions claiming marriage as their own, and all our historical facts won't sway someone who is sublimating their sexuality and their very purpose in life to religious virtue.

No, it won't. Why should it? Let them do as they will.

We can't stop that -- but we can make a clear distinction between whatever virtues are embodied in secular marriage, and similar virtues in their religious form.

But we can't. We can't just manipulate culture like that. The secular and religious elements are combined in the idea of "marriage", and we can't neatly separate them by government decree.

But we should be very wary when a lot of meaning is carried by one word, that both speakers mean the same thing by that word.

With marriage, while conceptions certainly differ, we are, if you will, all playing with the same lump of clay.

Social meanings are always ambiguous, always disputed. That's precisely why they contain the possibility of transformation, of redemption--and why we need not simply discard cultural institutions like marriage (and religion, and gender) because of how they have been historically used to entrench oppression.

But coining new words is a recognized way of changing perceptions!

Sometimes, yes, especially when we deal with the terminology brought into being by social movements trying to draw attention to a problem that has been ignored. Hence a word like "sexism", which can change social perceptions by bringing a new concept into the vocabulary.

But here we already have the concept--marriage--and it's a very old, very entrenched one.

Look at the words we ourselves are using. It would be quite accurate to describe "gays and lesbians" as "homosexuals" but we don't do that, because collectively those people have chosen to be called "gays and lesbians" or "GLBT".

Right, and if within the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community there developed a "marriage" terminological equivalent that similarly asserted the worth and legitimacy of same-sex relationships, I would be all for using it. But the term "civil unions" has nothing to do with that; indeed, it is coined precisely to avoid any such sense, to grant recognition that is "purely" legal (indeed, just as "homosexual" is purely descriptive.)

No, of course not. To do that would be to act on incomplete information, and blunder.

My point was not made in respect to an information problem, rather to the political position that wants to wipe the cultural slate clean.

Why would we ever want MORE love in this world? Geez, everything's so happy and loving already. Too much love is quite fatal, don't you know?

You mean like we already have?

Not in the eyes of the public. That needs to be remedied.
As well as the whole "if you allow gays, next we will have people marrying their dogs" argument the religious people like to use every time - which is moronic because that is something certain religions actually allow. Not states - religions.

So protect the sanctity of marriage... against religion.

I think it's fair to say that if Soheran took my point without dispute, I can safely disregard your quibbling.

I disagree, just because one person over looked the portion that I disagree with you on does not mean my disagreement is in any way invalidated.

YOU DARE TO DOUBT PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA :mad:

YOU are one doomed chump!!!!

Here by, using the powers confer to me by myself I excommunicate you for ever and ever.

Period...

Sorry, I've already de-re-excommunicated myself (no backsies). :p

Besides, I don't doubt it, I just don't find it a valid basis for law any more than I find other "holy" books to be valid (what the hell is the plural of basis???) for the law. I would think most other Discordians would agree. But then you're probably just being silly.

Imperial, yes
puppet, no

I notice you didn't deny that you're a sock. So are you a sweaty stinky gym sock, an elegant bit of ladies hosiery, or some other variety of sock?

... we got government out of the business of marriage and instead defined the 1000+ "marriage benefits"

(such as the right to make medical decisions for someone who is unconscious, or even to have the right to visit someone in the hospital, get a burial flag for an ex-military person, or receive survivor's benefits under Social Security)

as "domestic relationship benefits"?

Religions and churches would be free to define the relationships and responsibilities of people they marry to one another. If you get married by the RC /papist/ Church, you play by their rules. You marry in the Jewish faith, you play by different rules. Hindi? Zoroastrian? Jain? and so on ....

The various sects, denominations, and major branches of religions could compete in very practical terms -- both in the criteria for being joined in "marriage" as well as the process for dissolving that relationship. (In at least one religion I know of, divorce is as simple as the man saying to the woman "I divorce you now and forever" three times in sequence.)

And non-religions ventures could become very creative in organizing new and better forms of domestic relationships, and of the terms and conditions for beginning, sustaining, and ending such relationships ... as well as agreements on the process of adding new partners to the relationship (children, amahs, wetnurses, nannies, elderly relatives, etc.) and their status when and if someone leaves the relationship (through choice, or death, etc.)

It could create an entrepreneurial renaissance.


On the other hand ... perhaps we could just require that all gays -- and everyone of the non-homosexual persuasion, too -- marry before having sex.

Just make divorce convenient and inexpensive.

I disagree, just because one person over looked the portion that I disagree with you on does not mean my disagreement is in any way invalidated.

It doesn't seem relevant to the point I was making.

Perhaps you could define what YOU mean by freedom. I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

... we got government out of the business of marriage and instead defined the 1000+ "marriage benefits"

(such as the right to make medical decisions for someone who is unconscious, or even to have the right to visit someone in the hospital, get a burial flag for an ex-military person, or receive survivor's benefits under Social Security)

as "domestic relationship benefits"?

Sounds great. If you'd be so good, please explain that to the people who want to control queer sexuality as a matter of public policy.

It doesn't seem relevant to the point I was making.

Perhaps you could define what YOU mean by freedom. I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Main Entry:
free·dom Listen to the pronunciation of freedom
Pronunciation:
\ˈfrē-dəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
before 12th century

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d: ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home> 2 a: a political right b: franchise, privilege


Paraphrased from the Illuminatus Trilogy (or was it one of the appendixes?): Doing what you want and then taking the consequences that come from it.

Any coercion or constraint a Catholic feels about divorce is self inflicted by virtue of their choosing to be Catholic, therefore I feel the definition still applies. The second, non-dictionary definition is much broader and easy to apply to damn near anyone.

I'M NOT HIS PUPPET, I'M HIS SIBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Real life sibling ? If so, I apologize.

Role-play sibling ... then no, don't do that.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Main Entry:
free·dom Listen to the pronunciation of freedom
Pronunciation:
\ˈfrē-dəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
before 12th century

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d: ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home> 2 a: a political right b: franchise, privilege


Paraphrased from the Illuminatus Trilogy (or was it one of the appendixes?): Doing what you want and then taking the consequences that come from it.

Any coercion or constraint a Catholic feels about divorce is self inflicted by virtue of their choosing to be Catholic, therefore I feel the definition still applies. The second, non-dictionary definition is much broader and easy to apply to damn near anyone.

See, you're half-way to taking my point already. Though the second definition is bunk.

People think freedom is about choice but in a very real sense, choice removes freedom. Taking one thing, you exclude the other ... and if you later reverse your decision, there's a real chance you may end up with neither.

When a person chooses* to be Catholic, they have presumably weighed up the costs and benefits, and found the benefits to outweigh the costs. They accept the restraints the church asks of them, in exchange for some spiritual guidance or certainty about what happens after death ... or whatever it is that people get from religions.

The benefits CONSTRAIN the person's ability to reject the whole package to avoid one of the costs.

This is "less free" in the sense that I am not free to cut my arm off because my hand won't stop itching. It's not absolute freedom (clearly, I could cut my arm off with my chainsaw, right now, if I so chose.)

Perhaps it would help if you went back and looked at Soheran's reply. Here:

Formally, in the law. And that's good. Neither you nor I can do anything about how they see it though.

Can you doubt that a Catholic is less free to divorce than an atheist? WE don't put those chains on them, but nor should we recognize their legitimacy.

Better question: would a Catholic be more free if the government made his or her civil marriage a "civil union" instead?

I say not. It would cause the social significance of the term to be attached to the religious marriage rather than the civil arrangement. That would make the fact that he or she can't receive a religious divorce more important, not less so.


* I use this word with reservation, trying to respect your terms of argument the way I have asked you to respect mine. This is a very strange kind of choice, since it is very unlikely that a person ever, in one chain of thought, goes from being Catholic to being Protestant, or any similar conversion. There may be a well-defined event of "loss of faith" but their faith was almost certainly weakened already by similar "choices."

Non-related! Now there's a new note in the general dischord!

Why shouldn't brother and sister marry each other?

Does allowing them to marry somehow endorse their having children (which I would agree is a bad thing) ...?

There is no way I'm getting into this fucked-up discussion again.

There is no way I'm getting into this fucked-up discussion again.

You mention it. I question it. You refuse to discuss it.

Wtf?

You mention it. I question it. You refuse to discuss it.

Wtf?

I didn't really mention it - I said who I thought should be allowed to get married, and I was making myself clear.

I don't want to discuss it because it's been argued on NSG a million times.

I didn't really mention it - I said who I thought should be allowed to get married, and I was making myself clear.

I don't want to discuss it because it's been argued on NSG a million times.

Umm then why even reaply to the topic if you don't want to talk about it?

Something doesn't add up there ummm?

I didn't really mention it - I said who I thought should be allowed to get married, and I was making myself clear.

I don't want to discuss it because it's been argued on NSG a million times.

:eek:
I remember avoiding that thread last time. Now that I read it (the March one,) it's quite good!

You put your position well, but among the many posters you took on were , UNIverseVERSE, Grave-n-idle, Soheran, The Alma Mater and a surprisingly good poster I've never seen before, one Bornova.

Don't take it too hard, I doubt Voltaire would prevail against that mob.

Umm then why even reaply to the topic if you don't want to talk about it?

It wasn't on-topic. That's a reason I'd accept not to talk about it.

Such interpretations have been tossed around, but I'm quite skeptical of them. The meaning seems pretty clear to me... especially since both pretty clearly refer to men (either second person or third person) lying with "zachar" (mankind).

I seem to recall that the whole 'a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman' thing translates about as well as 'a man shall not lie in a woman's bed' (which would be separate to the marriage bed, and thus - consistent with other OT references - might well be a 'menstrual couch' reference).

Definitely worth consideration, at least.

I seem to recall that the whole 'a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman' thing translates about as well as 'a man shall not lie in a woman's bed'

Yeah, people do weird things with the "mishkevai ishah" part of the phrase, which translates literally as "lyings of woman." What the hell does that mean, anyway?

But there's no doubt that there are two men in the verse, and they are "lying" together in a sense that is almost certainly sexual... and that suggests that "mishkevai" ("lyings of") connects back to the earlier "yishkav" ("lie" in an implied sexual sense) such as to support the traditional interpretation of the verse as being a proscription on male-male anal sex. (Rabbinic commentators extended the Biblical prohibition to broader physical expressions of sexual attraction, too, just as they did for the other various sexual prohibitions.)

Part of the problem here may be a misreading of Hebrew verb forms. In the Lev. 18:22 version, the verse is addressed in second person, so only once is "mankind" directly referenced--but the verb is "tishkav", which is second person masculine, so the same meaning is there.

Umm then why even reaply to the topic if you don't want to talk about it?

Something doesn't add up there ummm?

It's not on topic.

:eek:
I remember avoiding that thread last time. Now that I read it (the March one,) it's quite good!

You put your position well, but among the many posters you took on were , UNIverseVERSE, Grave-n-idle, Soheran, The Alma Mater and a surprisingly good poster I've never seen before, one Bornova.

Don't take it too hard, I doubt Voltaire would prevail against that mob.

Lol, it's not that I care that I didn't "win", I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG would fuck their sister.

Lol, it's not that I care that I didn't "win", I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG would fuck their sister.
If only that were the point of the argument, I'd have more faith in humanity. The real purpose of the argument is to distract everyone from the real issue.

Lol, it's not that I care that I didn't "win", I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG would fuck their sister.

And I think it is sick you once again deliberately misrepresent your opponents position. Why would someone "who does not care about winning" do that ?

Let us correct your statement for honesty:

I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG thinks that consenting adults should be allowed to have sexual relationships, even if they are brother and sister, regardless of the icky factor involved.

See how easy that was ? Now you try :)

And I think it is sick you once again deliberately misrepresent your opponents position. Why would someone "who does not care about winning" do that ?

Let us correct your statement for honesty:
"I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG thinks that consenting adults should be allowed to have sexual relationships, even if they are brother and sister, regardless of the icky factor involved."
See how easy that was ? Now you try :)

What's pathetic is that you're actually misinterpreting me. If you go back and read what I said, I said the "ick" factor is not a component that should be regarded, and if you read, I tell everyone who says it should be illegal because it's "eww" that that's not the reason why it should be illegal. Now, if you also read back, you will see that some people pose hypotheticals that are along the lines of "if I had a really hot sister, I'd fuck her", and to me that is sick not because of the "eww" factor, but because it's morally and ethically wrong.

Save your sarcasm for someone who deserves it.

Maybe you can practice in the mirror?

Lol, it's not that I care that I didn't "win", I just think it's a ridiculous argument and that it's sick that about 70% of the male population on NSG would fuck their sister.

I'm sure you can provide a source for this number. Other than your asshole, of course.

I'm sure you can provide a source for this number. Other than your asshole, of course.

70 percent may be an exaggeration, but if you go back to the posts that were surrounding the issue, you'll see that there were remarks made along the lines of "if I had a hot sister, I'd fuck her".

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13666356&postcount=6) is the original topic. Please wander back to it. Without insults.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13666356&postcount=6) is the original topic. Please wander back to it. Without insults.

Yes of course they should, which fuckin' idiot says no?

Ohhh sorry sorry, no insults.

If I had a hot sister.... I'd probably still hate her.... >.>

And ethics is always an iffy debate. Take for instance that you have a man and a woman, both are adopted children, who fall in love and are about to get married. They take a blood test, or perhaps find their birth records, whatever, only to discover they're related. Brother and sister even.

Now is that wrong? Have they commited a moral or ethical violation? Would you have them throw away the love that they've built for each other simply because they discovered they were related? Is that fair to them?

Now, I'm not saying incest is right, but I'm not saying it's wrong either.

I don't know why I said anything at all... I should just keep my big trap shut.

Edit: Bisexuals and homosexuals should be entitled to the same misery as the rest of the married couples out there.

Edit: Bisexuals and homosexuals should be entitled to the same misery as the rest of the married couples out there.


I think you'll find that it's an equal 50% split between the happily married and the not.

I don't particularly want to get married, myself, but whenever I hear godbags and homophobes rant about how gay marriage will destroy America I'm suddenly filled with an urge to go pick out china patterns with my girlfriend.

I think you'll find that it's an equal 50% split between the happily married and the not.

just because they stay together, doesn't mean they're happy.

Such interpretations have been tossed around, but I'm quite skeptical of them. The meaning seems pretty clear to me... especially since both pretty clearly refer to men (either second person or third person) lying with "zachar" (mankind).
"zachar" means "memory".
Yeah, people do weird things with the "mishkevai ishah" part of the phrase, which translates literally as "lyings of woman."
"mishkevai" is "beds"; it is indeed from the verb "to lie", but the m- prefix is for forming nouns ("gadal" is "to be big", "migdol" is "tower", etc.).
I have heard the interpretation that "thou shalt not lie with a man like the beds of women" simply means not to use the same bed for sleeping with a man as for sleeping with a woman (one of those "don't let the green beans touch the mashed potatoes" rules like no milk with meat, no crop rotation, no mixed-fiber clothing). I don't think that interpretation is correct (the preposition is k- not b- and means "like the beds of women" not "in the beds of women") but it is not out of the question.

It's a Rabbinic prohibition on account of not doing what the Egyptians did. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_of_homosexuality#Lesbian_sexual_activity)... yes, it's Wikipedia, but it cites the Mishneh Torah, and I've read this repeatedly in more reliable sources that at the moment I can't be bothered to track down.

You're imposing the typical English translation--"abomination"--on the Hebrew word--"toevah."

The Hebrew word doesn't necessarily have the same connotation at all. It refers to wrongness, surely, but not necessarily to abhorrent, horrific moral wrong. And, in any case, even the Rabbis were willing to circumvent Biblical law when they found it highly inhumane... how many capital crimes are there in the Bible? But the Talmud suggests that a court that sentences a person to death every seventy years is a bloody court, and the death sentence required so many witnesses that it was nearly impossible to carry out.

For Jews, it's never been as simple as "The Bible says...."

Fair enough. But what about when the sexual laws themselves circumscribe the possibility of sexual and romantic happiness? The Rabbis, at least in the sources we have, considered nothing of the sort. Yet the current scientific evidence indicates that this is the situation with respect to homosexuality.

What God of "loving-kindness" would do such a thing to people?

You surely know how important circumcision is to Judaism. But if a circumcised child bleeds to death, the Rabbis decreed that the next child of the same parents didn't have to be circumcised... because, again, they were willing to put human welfare over absolute obedience. And there's support for that in the Bible, too--"live by them", it says. Not "make martyrs of yourselves for them."

Well, there's the case of David and Jonathan, but I'll grant that the text isn't explicit there.

More importantly, why should it matter whether there's explicit support for homosexuality in the Bible? There's not explicit support for lots of things. But there is plenty of explicit support for treating people decently, which cannot be reconciled with condemning homosexuality.

I'm not sure, but I think there are references with the sex laws in general to differentiating Jews from the other nations... which, frankly, as a basis for denying people an important component of happiness seems rather weak.

You're misinterpreting me. I'm not saying the passage explicitly endorses homosexuality. I'm saying the reasons the passage gives for heterosexuality apply just as well to homosexuality, that if companionship is the purpose of marriage, then same-sex marriage fits the bill just as well as opposite-sex marriage does.

Lesbianism: Although I have not read the commentary, it seems that this does put lesbianism into the "naughty" class as opposed to the "sin" class of conduct.

However, it seems to me to be the typical BS that you see coming out of places where there was oppression by a foreign culture. Ask any third worlder about homosexuality in their culture and they will most likely tell you that hey never had homosexuality before the white man came. You hear that stuff all the time. It sort of also reminds me of the "do not act white" nonsense that sometimes is bandied about by American blacks.

Would the Lord want males to avoid homosexuality: I do not know, however the biblical prohibitions against this sort of thing is at the very least a strong tradition of our nation's efforts to create a common basis of conduct and self-identity. Any reading of the Old Testament clearly shows that there is not one nature of the Lord. The Lord is a complex character. To say he is merely exemplified by loving kindness is not really accurate.

Gay Marriage: I see nothing in the Jewish tradition or in any other tradition of marriage that recognizes the ability of men to marry one another. I am all for technological innovations but I do not think that societies should stray from their traditions radically. Men marrying men seems bizarre and a radical departure from the ordering of society.

Are you saying that you find it difficult to come up with a logical reason to deny people recognition of their relationships and the ability to share and enjoy crucial benefits?


This is kind of an offensive analogy, because what I gather from this is that you're saying that tradition and traditional marriage is a river, which of course, being natural, deserves not to be changed. So, for an authoritarian status quo which humiliates sexual minorities, you would like us to think of the rivers?


First, this is a blatantly sexist view, to say that lesbianism is moral and male homosexuality is not.

Second, even if you're view is 100% right, are you saying that lesbians and bi women who want to have same-sex relationships should be denied access to legal benefits because male homosexuality is immoral?

I can see a bunch of pissed off lesbians right now.



So, is your view that your religion is superior to other religions? You won't be bigoted and deny those who observe that religion their view, but you won't let them have policies according to their view? And they should move to another country?


I am absolutely horrified that you are saying a religion has to support something for you to support it. Why can't Glorious Freedonia have a place in moral deliberation that amounts to more than "well, I'm throwing in with G-d."?

And again, think of lesbians and bi women. One of the things about these debates is that it's really easy to focus on how much people don't like male homosexuality. Nothing you have offered so far gives me any reason to see how you shouldn't support recognition of same-sex unions between women. So why the focus on men? Are you trying to make lesbians and bi women suffer?


Why should any state ever be able to experiment with social policies that are oppressive? I'm a bit hung up there.


What do you mean by "more willing"? Will you support it or not?


So, "in the end," you are "completely" opposed to gay (male) marriage for no "other reason" than to have the "opportunity of bringing some holiness" into your own life by opposing it?

Are you saying that your state of grace with the LORD is more important than the lives and happiness of your fellow human beings, (many of whom, I again remind you are lesbians and bi women)?

And you don't have to change your mind, by the way. All I want you to do is admit that you care more about a state of grace than actual people.

Obviously men having sex with men is a lot more contraversial and offensive than women having sex with women. I think that the fact that it troubles people so differently is pretty much proof that the one is offensive to our sense of decency and the other is naughty at the worst. Men having sex with men and therefore by extension, male homosexual marriage is out of the question.

Although female homosexuality is ok, for better of worse the laws of the United States must apply to men and women equally unless there is a very good reason for this not to be the case. I do not think that we can have a state approving marriages for women and women but not for men and men if we are going to allow homosexual marriages.

I am not going to end my analysis here though. Is there some very good reason to allow women to marry women? Is there a historical precedent for this? I am not aware of any. If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?

The opportunity to bring holiness into someone's life is a great thing. I do not believe that this reduces the happiness of others.

That's anti-truth (that is, not just falsehood but near to the direct opposite of the truth). Most cultures never had the concept of criminalizing homosexuality before the white man came.

Did you understand that I wrote that these folks believe (in addition to their belief in penis snatchers and witches) that there were no homosexuals at all in their community before the white man came? This has little or nothing to do with criminalization. If this is true, which I doubt, why would it be criminalized? It does not even exist?

The point is that saying Jewish women should not act like Egyptian by getting it on with other women, is silly for the same reasons that it is silly to say that Africans never had homo men until whites arrived.

Ask any third worlder about homosexuality in their culture and they will most likely tell you that hey never had homosexuality before the white man came.
That's anti-truth (that is, not just falsehood but near to the direct opposite of the truth). Most cultures never had the concept of criminalizing homosexuality before the white man came.

just because they stay together, doesn't mean they're happy.

It's a joke. A bad one, and a not particularly funny one, but a joke nevertheless.

Lesbianism: Although I have not read the commentary, it seems that this does put lesbianism into the "naughty" class as opposed to the "sin" class of conduct.

Um, no, it doesn't. It's forbidden. Therefore it's a sin. Not all sins are punished the same way.

However, it seems to me to be the typical BS that you see coming out of places where there was oppression by a foreign culture.

Perhaps. And why doesn't that reasoning apply to male homosexuality?

Would the Lord want males to avoid homosexuality: I do not know, however the biblical prohibitions against this sort of thing is at the very least a strong tradition of our nation's efforts to create a common basis of conduct and self-identity.

So? Any tradition does that. Why should it be done through a tradition as cruel and inhumane as this one?

Any reading of the Old Testament clearly shows that there is not one nature of the Lord. The Lord is a complex character. To say he is merely exemplified by loving kindness is not really accurate.

Whatever. If you prefer, go with "justice." Justice prescribes treating people fairly: punishing and rewarding them for good reasons. So what's the good reason for denying a whole class of people the possibility of romantic and sexual happiness?

Gay Marriage: I see nothing in the Jewish tradition or in any other tradition of marriage that recognizes the ability of men to marry one another.

Well, I can't speak for your sight, but I'm fairly sure that within some Native American cultures same-sex marriage was practiced... and certainly there have been plenty of examples of socially legitimate same-sex pairings. And if you have that, why not have marriage rights?

I am all for technological innovations but I do not think that societies should stray from their traditions radically.

Whatever their traditions are? Slavery? Sexism? Hell, anti-Semitism?

Men marrying men seems bizarre

It doesn't seem even remotely bizarre to me. I don't see any non-bigoted grounds for labeling it so.

and a radical departure from the ordering of society.

What does who can marry whom (at least as pertains to sex) have to do with the ordering of society?

Obviously men having sex with men is a lot more contraversial and offensive than women having sex with women. I think that the fact that it troubles people so differently is pretty much proof that the one is offensive to our sense of decency and the other is naughty at the worst. Men having sex with men and therefore by extension, male homosexual marriage is out of the question.

Fine. I guess I can't argue with that. You find male homosexuality to be "icky." There is no point in arguing.


Although female homosexuality is ok,

Why is female homosexuality okay?



for better of worse the laws of the United States must apply to men and women equally unless there is a very good reason for this not to be the case.

I agree... but then I read this:


I do not think that we can have a state approving marriages for women and women but not for men and men if we are going to allow homosexual marriages.

So you want men and women to have equal rights but then...?



I am not going to end my analysis here though.

Analysis of what?



Is there some very good reason to allow women to marry women?

When lesbians and bi women who want to have their permanent loving relationships recognized and share crucial benefits that might be necessary for them to survive, why do I have the burden of proof?

The whole point of my engaging you was not to convince you that same-sex couples should enjoy the legal rights of marriage couples, since clearly you disagree and will not come to agree (your mind is made up). Rather my point is this: your position seems to be the following.

1) Male homosexuality is a sin, whereas female homosexuality is okay;
2) It is more important for us to live a life free from and repentant of sin in the grace of God;
3) Legal differences between the rights of women and men in general cannot be tolerated;
4) Finally, because women and men have to have the same legal rights and because male homosexuality is a sin, lesbians and bi women can't be allowed civil unions.

Basically, it all boils down to this: you don't like male homosexuality, so you're going to punish lesbians and bi women because of it.

This isn't fair!


Is there a historical precedent for this? I am not aware of any.

Why need there be?


If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?

Imagine you're living as a serf in feudal society. I am a Lord. You argue that feudalism is unjust, and you suggest an alternative system (that we now call capitalism). I tell you "If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?"

Or imagine that you are a Black slave in Virginia, 1780. You argue that slavery is unjust and suggest abolition. I tell you "If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?"

Or imagine that you are an American woman back east in 1880. You argue that your exclusion from suffrage is unfair and tell me that you should have the right to vote. I tell you "If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?"

Does this answer make sense for any of the scenarios I sketched?



The opportunity to bring holiness into someone's life is a great thing. I do not believe that this reduces the happiness of others.
Then you either ignore or don't care about what other people think about their own emotional state. Please, if you're in the US, go and talk to some lesbians (whose sexuality you don't have a problem with apparently) and ask them how they feel about not being able to enjoy the rights of married couples. Furthermore, tell them that you are not going to help them because you are bringing holiness into their lives and see how they feel then. Then tell them that your not going to help because you believe male homosexuality is sinful. And just see how they feel.

Obviously men having sex with men is a lot more contraversial and offensive than women having sex with women. I think that the fact that it troubles people so differently is pretty much proof that the one is offensive to our sense of decency and the other is naughty at the worst.

Um... or maybe it just proves that at times society has prejudices that are arbitrary.

Seriously, what's the difference between male and female homosexuality? Both are non-procreative. Both involve "misuse of organs" if you believe in that nonsense. Both are religiously proscribed in virtually every religion that bans either.

Oh, but I forgot... prejudiced straight men find male homosexuality icky and female homosexuality titillating. And that's a reason to draw a moral line between the two. Of course.

:rolleyes:

Obviously men having sex with men is a lot more contraversial and offensive than women having sex with women. I think that the fact that it troubles people so differently is pretty much proof that the one is offensive to our sense of decency and the other is naughty at the worst. Men having sex with men and therefore by extension, male homosexual marriage is out of the question.

Isn't that a bit sexist?

Although female homosexuality is ok, for better of worse the laws of the United States must apply to men and women equally unless there is a very good reason for this not to be the case. I do not think that we can have a state approving marriages for women and women but not for men and men if we are going to allow homosexual marriages.

No, we can't.

I am not going to end my analysis here though. Is there some very good reason to allow women to marry women? Is there a historical precedent for this? I am not aware of any. If this is such a great idea, why has not it happened in the past?

There's the exact same reason for allowing men and women to marry - two people choosing to build a life together brings up legal implications that we have chosen to deal with through marriage. Those legal implications exist whether it's two women, two men, or a man and a woman.

Why hasn't it happened in the past? Bigotry, plain and simple.

Seriously, what's the difference between male and female homosexuality? Both are non-procreative. Both involve "misuse of organs" if you believe in that nonsense. Both are religiously proscribed in virtually every religion that bans either.

Only one of them involves a penis. Having a penis is a good thing. Having someone else's penis penetrate you is degrading. So men shouldn't do it.

Or something.

Only one of them involves a penis. Having a penis is a good thing. Having someone else's penis penetrate you is degrading. So men shouldn't do it.

Or something.

That's pretty much the logic at play.

Only one of them involves a penis. Having a penis is a good thing. Having someone else's penis penetrate you is degrading. So men shouldn't do it.

Or something.

Exactly right... ;)

Seriously, what's the difference between male and female homosexuality?

A man "wastes" semen during homosexual intercourse. For some reason that is considered a graver sin than a woman not having all her eggs fertilised.