Reply to stop comparing gay marriage and acceptance to race, only gay stuff is documented as wrong

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "stop comparing gay marriage and acceptance to race, only gay stuff is documented as wrong"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]

Pushed things?  What are you talking about?   The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy!   This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.[/quote]

Just as in the earlier discussion of this topic, you appear to think that the only culture in existence is Western Anglo Saxon culture. The idea that the only traditional definition of marriage is one man and one woman is very provincial. It demonstrates a lack of awareness of both history and non-Western cultures. 
[/quote]
I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc. :lol: [/quote]

Could you better explain your point? About half the conservatives here can hardly articulate their points. This poster appears to be holding up the example of societies in which same-sex relationships were common and accepted as an argument against gay marriage. 
[/quote]
I'm not a conservative, so don't hate by default. Anglo-Saxon culture is not the only one in existence, but it is dominant in the Western world. Its major institutions are of Greco-Roman decent. You seem to imply that a traditional marriage is somehow Anglo-Saxon and provincial, and I am the one who cannot articulate a point? Funny, huh.[/quote]

Again, it is not clear to me what you are trying to say. There is not a single definition of "traditional marriage". "Tradition" is relative to societies. The original poster quoted in this post talked about marriage traditions that "predated Christendom". If you are going to put the starting point of the tradition in pre-Christian times, it is reasonable to consider what occurred outside the narrow viewpoint of the poster. You don't have to go back in history at all to find polygamist marriage traditions since such traditions are still observed today. But, you -- just like the original poster quoted here -- seem to want to ignore everything outside the narrow confines of your own traditions. It is particularly ironic to cite the alleged Greco-Roman origins of "traditional marriage" given that same-sex unions were observed in those societies. 
[/quote]

This is an intellectual nihilism.  To say there is no single definition does not mean that there is no definition or no consensus around the definition or aspects of the definition.

Defining marriage to include same sex unions was a revolutionary step -- embrace it rather than hide from that.
[/quote]

The consensus you mention exists only within a specific context. The posters to whom I was replying were describing wider contexts. Speaking of context, these discussions take place within them. Quoting previous messages helps clarify that context. The very first quote included in this post says, "you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom." That quote is what I am discussing. You are welcome to discuss that topic as well, but you seem to want to discuss something different.
[/quote]

Well that quote is true, too.  You have yet to point to any examples of same sex marriage being accepted in practiced in any remotely relevant cultural or religious tradition (including those pre-dating Christendom), trying to hang your hat on polygamy.   Jesus' revolutionary theology did not include or extend to two guys @ Cana.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics