Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 5 of 20
Quote:I’m not sure what you’re talking about, rue. But my confusion aside, I never said it was necessarily illegal, although in many places and times it was. What I said was that, historically, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman, and that is true. Common Law clearly states that marriage is between a man and woman. You’re attempts to pull some quasi-Christian isolated ancient village out of history and claim this disproves what has clearly been the predominate definition of marriage is disingenuous. You can imagine yourself 'shooting holes' in my theory all you want, but it's just lunacy to pretend that same-sex marriage was a norm anytime in recent history. I don't understand your obstinacy in this, to be honest. Is it really that hard to believe that marriage has historically been defined as being between a man and woman in the Western world, particularly a Western Christian world?
Originally posted by rue:
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed.
That does not quite address marriage, but I'll work with it.
In Ireland? That was the only reference I could find. But that certainly puts a hole in your argument that gay marriage has been illegal in Christian-English law for 1700 years. If I do the numbers correctly, it works out to only 110 years.
Quote:The time period for King Arthur ranges between 460 AD and 560 AD.
Originally posted by rue:
Your original claim did get me to thinking, though. When did Christianity come to the British Isles? King Arthur is presumed to have existed around 550 AD, and Christianity was not the dominant religion of the common class at the time. What was the status of British religion around 300 AD? I could look it up, but haven't, it's just a side note. I was wondering if you happen to know offhand.
This thread is getting tastier with every post. Smacks lips. Looks forward to this evening.
And in 300 AD Christianity was a major if not dominate influence among the common class in Britain. All the southern Romano-British Cities (Britain below the Hadrian wall) probably had very large Christian populations in 300 AD. Christianity was the religion of the common class; that's where its strength existed. The reason for this fast spread of Christianity in Britain was that the Roman legions stationed in Britain were largely from the Eastern Empire, which was largely Christian. To say nothing of the oppressive nature of the Roman and other pagan state-religions, which tended to foster a support for non-Roman, particularly unsanctioned, religions. But Christianity would not gain a permanent stable foothold in Britain until probably the late 6th to early 7th century.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holy crap, I get busy for a few days and look what happens. I guess it was to be expected.
Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
A sect practiced it recently in Canada and the US, actually. Some group clinging to Mormon orthodoxy. Not sure if they've been broken up yet.
Point of fact, this isn't Mormon Orthodoxy.
A few years ago I took an intro religion class and at the end we got to pick (as a class) 4 representitives for certain religions to come in and give a short talk. One of them was Mormon.
The first words out of his mouth was (paraphrase), "We do not practice poligamy nor do we agree with it. We praticed it until there was laws made against it; we obey the law. Anyone that does so is not a Mormon nor would be even have a hope of being recognized by our church."
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Point of fact, this isn't Mormon Orthodoxy.
Bad wording. I had presumed that meant the "old ways", when a simple dictionary check proves me wrong. It seems to represent a strict old-school sect when applied to other religious groups.
Mormons did (past tense) practice polygamy, hence my use of the word clinging. I didn't mean to imply current Mormons. The group I referenced was using old Mormon teachings, combined with the usual nutjob fascination with abuse, and mainly it seemed because got them several easily controlled wives.
Air cleared.
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...so I'll simply say that in fact with the recent politicization of the gay marriage arguments, there have already been attempts by polygamists to seek state sanctioning of their polygamy. So this slippery slope exists and is currently in practice working its way through the courts as we speak.
Pardon me, but I was talking about the rediculusness of saying that allowing homosexuals to marry would incurr other things. Just because some people are trying doesn't mean that the slippery slope exists.
But, since gay marriage isn't legal, how can this be related? How can legalized gay marriage produce polygamy when it isn't legal? Hmmm...
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But today, we condemn a man for refusing a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from a court house, but not a Mayor who commits 5000 counts of a felony by signing marriage licenses he has no right to sign.
It's call SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
The second is called a political statement. I whole heartedly agree with what was done and condem those that forced the stopage of it. If you want the mayor put to justice for what he did, then start a campain for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The media can't seem to recognize that the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was not an example of mass pedophilia, but rather gay perverts abusing the priesthood to impose themselves on impressionable young men, in the same way that straight perverts have been known to impose themselves on impressionable young women.
Reference please.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The gay community cannot seem to express themselves without stripping down to a pink thong and dry humping each other on a float in full view of children or openingly having sex in the parking lot of Disney World.
What?!?!?!?
What you don't seem to understand is that you can't take the actions of a few and apply it to the many.
Also, what about the straight people who have sex in parking lots? What about straight people who grope eachother in public?
It seems to me that when people find the straight version happening the will at most shake there head and be disappointed. But, if there are gays doing the same thing, then all holy hell breaks loose! Hipocratical Bigotry!
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...when in reality there is a lot about the gay community that needs to be criticized and aired out before we pull it into the mainstream of American families. Society simply does not seem to have the framework or the maturity to deal with this issue right now.
You are right, but not in the way you think. These stereotypes must be abolished for the FUBAR that they really are.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one.
< sarcasm >
Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.
< /sarcasm >
I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually it’s called Tyranny. That’s what you call it when the government, under the control of a single person, usurps the will of the people and imposes his own will in its place.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The second is called a political statement. I whole heartedly agree with what was done and condem those that forced the stopage of it. If you want the mayor put to justice for what he did, then start a campain for it.
Quote:I agree.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.
Quote:The truth can have that affect on people.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Quote:
Marriage has a definition in our society. It has had that definition for a very long time.
The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996.
The legal definition of marriage follows logically the historical and cultural definition going back to pre-historical times.
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years
common law marriage ... is between a man and woman, and that this has been the definition of marriage throughout most of Western history
Common law is built on English traditional morality. So I suppose that for 1700 years the religious ideals dominating Western morality as prescribed in Christian Dogma ...
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed
historically, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman
You vacillate between saying heterosexual marriage was historical, defined, understood (but inexplicit), and legalistic. You own postings indicate a lot of confusion.
I take my cues from the statement: "The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years ..." In other words, people made assumptions, but it was not addressed explicitly, either by definition, by common law, or by legislation. Thus, the *ss-clenched response to promote, create and defend a new law which did not previously exist, for the sole purpose of explicit discrimination where none previously existed.
I never said that same-sex marriage was approved. I have consistently said the laws have been SILENT on the issue. I don't appreciate being misreprsented time and time again.
Perhaps you should read Unicorn's post, if you haven't done so already. It is not confused, it is rational, complete and eloquent.
On another topic, I went back to just one old thread and pulled a quote from you:
Quote:Apparently you think you support freedom. I'm curious what this supposed freedom consists of in your mind, if it does not include personal liberty.
(we) support freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No one's misrepresenting you. You are ignoring the reality that English common law has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. And current statutory law is simply a statement of what has been understood in Common law and dominate Christian religious tradition for at least 200 years and probably much longer. You're trying to dance around this fact with irrelevant assumptions of what might have been in some as of yet unidentified quasi-Christian ancient village in order to rewrite history to suit your desire to paint Jim Crow on anti-gay-marriage. It's the same old thing: if you don't agree with something then scream racism.
Originally posted by rue:
I don't appreciate being misreprsented time and time again.
Quote:This is a perfect example. You've pulled some obscure statement out of context, and then claim it to be mine in order to draw some conclusion that I don't support personal liberty. The statement may very well be mine. It certainly looks like something I would say, but what relevance does this have to the topic and how do you find in this that I don't support personal freedom?
Originally posted by rue:
On another topic, I went back to just one old thread and pulled a quote from you:Quote:Apparently you think you support freedom. I'm curious what this supposed freedom consists of in your mind, if it does not include personal liberty.
(we) support freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it
I did read Unicorns posts. I don't necessarily disagree with what she said, although I also don't necessarily agree with the notion that prohibiting same-sex marriage is necessarily bigotry or illegal (in fact it is quite legal.) I am, as I've already stated, in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to agree with the emotional rhetoric being thrown around by the anti-anti-gay-marriage camp. Just because I'm in favor of gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to try to rewrite history to redefine the definition of marriage, nor am I willing to contend that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages and therefore should be treated with the same laws or insist that criticism of the gay community is paramount to bigotry. There is an extreme level of immaturity in the pro-gay-marriage camp, that I just can't align myself with.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, because a minority of gay people immaturely choose indiscretion by 'wearing pink thongs in public' and so on, you refuse to align yourself with the completely rational call for equality and justice for all citizens of the U.S.?
That's like saying that because you think afros are too shaggy, you can't align yourself with the civil rights movement.
I don't get it.
There is no such thing as a weed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are two different acts of immaturity here. These pink thong wearing gay men certainly demonstrate a horrendous degree of immaturity by exposing themselves in such a manner that children are likely to see. But heterosexuals are just as likely to do that same thing. There are perverts are both sides. The difference is that if a heterosexual pervert does something that is offensive to me or my family, I can do something about it. I can criticize it. I can insist that there is something wrong with exposing my children to this and most intelligent people in this country will respect my feelings. But if a gay man does something similar and I criticize it, I’m as likely to be called a bigot or a homophobe. There’s no consideration given to the idea that I’m not a bigot or a homophobe. That I have no ill will towards gay people and even have some friends who are gay (who happen to agree with me on many things), or that I, in fact, support gay rights. Just that I criticized a gay man or the gay community is enough to get me labeled a bigot by a segment of the Left in this country. That’s the greater immaturity. It’s not rational, or just or equitable. It’s an immaturity of thought.
Originally posted by Unicorn:
So, because a minority of gay people immaturely choose indiscretion by 'wearing pink thongs in public' and so on, you refuse to align yourself with the completely rational call for equality and justice for all citizens of the U.S.?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As far as the polygamy question goes, those who are interested should really pick up Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner Of Heaven," which is an interesting (as well as disturbing) read about fundamentalist Mormonism, (or, as Mormons prefer to be called, The Church of Latter-Day Saints) and how they are thriving in the American West.
Polygamy does still exist in the U.S. and Canada, albeit illegal. It has everything to do with the original tenets of the Mormon faith, and those who practice polygamy believe in the classical, fundamentalist interpretation of the faith, as begun by Joseph Smith.
It's an enlightening read about a religious segment of the U.S. population that many don't even know about, and how the practice of polygamy is destroying families.
After reading Krakauer's book, you may surprised to learn that almost all of the fundamentalist Mormons (and their huge families) live off the government, using welfare payouts; girls are forced to marry much, much older men and are expected to bear even more children; and that these poor kids and women have barely any education at all.
I'm not a Mormon, so I don't claim to know all about the LDS Church, but reading this book will definitely give you a better idea of fundamentalist religious beliefs that exist in our own country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My office! Burgled! Plundered! Purloined! Ha ha ha...loins."
-- Phil Sebben, Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME