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=Anonymous][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]

According to Catholic World Report, it is very old.  http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx[/quote]

Absurd -- the whole point of the cited passage was for the emperor to mock old conventions and norms because the emperor was above all conventions and norms.    The cited passages stand for the opposite proposition.  Were such unions normal or merely accepted, this reference would not have been recorded in this fashion.

Great citation btw, from a "Visiting Associate Professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville."

I dislike these arguments because I feel they hijack the language itself -- the recent of all these comp lit departments we thought were relatively harmless.

If you'd just say:  pound sand, I stood up for myself and people like me, and go to hell if you don't like it -- that argument has power (because it has truth).   These nonsensical, poorly presented arguments are not persuasive because they are not true.

When I first hear Act Up change "we're hear, we're queer get used to it" -- I thought they were insane.   After five minutes, the genius of this chant occurred to me -- the appropriation of a slur.

I was against gay marriage; I accept you are winning this argument.  I don't like the claims that it is somehow not a departure from tradition, this idea you can shoe horn it in to a definition.  I do wish you all well.

[/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