jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

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.

Polygamy is an example of marriage that does not meet the "traditional" (as defined by you and the earlier poster) definition of marriage. The fact that polygamy has a longer history than monogamy and still exists today exposes the quote as false.

When we are discussing traditions that pre-dated Christianity, what Jesus' theology did or did not include is hardly relevant.

Whether same-sex marriages existed in Greco-Roman times gets wrapped up in discussions of what exactly is considered a marriage, but certainly same-sex marriage equivalents existed. I wonder what cultures you consider "remotely relevant"?

God you are mental. The prior post said that no traditional understanding of marriage included same sex unions. Polygamy is not a same sex union. Nobody has ever denied the existence of polygamy as a fringe union. Gay marriage advocates have typically taken the provision that the extension of same sex marriage rights will not bring polygamy back to this Country.

I really think you need mental help.

Anonymous wrote:I think racial minorites are basically the same as the gay population. Both born that way. Both discriminated against. Both had religious teachings bent out of whack against them.
Yep totally the same.
In fact OP of you are a minority you have so much in common with gay people!
You should consider yourself just like them.

And women.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

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.

Polygamy is an example of marriage that does not meet the "traditional" (as defined by you and the earlier poster) definition of marriage. The fact that polygamy has a longer history than monogamy and still exists today exposes the quote as false.

When we are discussing traditions that pre-dated Christianity, what Jesus' theology did or did not include is hardly relevant.

Whether same-sex marriages existed in Greco-Roman times gets wrapped up in discussions of what exactly is considered a marriage, but certainly same-sex marriage equivalents existed. I wonder what cultures you consider "remotely relevant"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

You seem to be confused of the extent of Anglo Saxon migration during the first millennium. I suggest you take a look at a map some day.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

Same sex relationships common does *not equal* same sex marriage.... If someone has to articulate that for you the problem is with your own analytical skills.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

Uh you don't seem to know much about sncient Greece or Rome.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess all Greco-Roman shit is provincial then. Schools, medicine etc.