An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[b&wpac4]

Still no actual argument though... that's my main beef here.

Do you believe that the Government would be within its rights to allow an unrelated man and woman who were of age and able to consent and also not currently married from getting a marriage? If the answer is no, why do you believe they have a right to be married?

 

[LightHorseman]

Can you prove it in all cases? Or do you assume that all cases on incest involve a minor, and minors cannot decide? And if so, aren't you assuming that minors will never gain rights? And isn't this a rather strange assumption, given there are cases of minors gaining the right to "divorce" their parents?

I didn't say I could prove it, but we are discussing opinion and the justification thereof, rather than "proof". However, it is my contention that ALL cases of knowing incest occur where one partner holds some sort of power over the other. This is obvious in cases involving minors, and less obvious, but still very real in cases involving siblings and similarly aged partners. Families are about love, but there are ALWAYS power relationships in them. I don't believe that a brother and sister, say, can equally agree to an incestuous relationship, as one will always be strongly influenced by the dominance of the other. Its just the way families are, as any of us with a sibling can relate to. Even once one attains his majority, the paradigm of these relationships is firmly laid out, age and maturity doesn't change the dominant/submissive elements of a relationship, thus I contend that incest cannot occur with GENUINE consent, since the submissive partner cannot truly be said to be giving full informed consent.

The case of occult incest, which occurs between long seperated siblings or parents, who fall into a sexual relationship before knowing they are related, is a different matter, but a rare occurence, and not really what we are discussing here.

How, precisely, would you argue that a sheep or dog or cat hasn't given "informed legal consent?" There are any instances of people according them rights, so you can't run down the road of "don't be silly, animals don't have rights, nor can they assent to anything."

Animals can have rights, certainly, but this does not make them capable of giving informed adult consent. I simply don't believe that animals have the ability to make an informed choice in such matters, as they simply do not grasp the world in our terms. Humans have the ability to understand the concept of "beastiality", animals do not. Further, in the case of active beastiality (I'm not going to draw a diagram, but as opposed to passive beastiality) I would contend that animals don't even give the appearance of consent, and it is active beastiality that is generally considered when condemning the practice of beastiality.

 

[LightHorseman]

Why not cite some and quote them? You are a fan of specific examples after all.

The Sin of Interracial Marriage « David Ben-Ariel
30 Apr 2008 ... Then again, ‘Satan is going to use interracial marriage as the next attack upon ... Condemnation of such relationships is explicitly laid-forth throughout ... results of the fall of man from the Christian point of view. ...
davidbenariel.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/the-sin-of-interracial-marriage/ - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMYChristian Reconstructionism arose out of conservative Presbyterianism in the .... Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his ...
www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm - 77k - Cached - Similar pages

Chronicles magazine condemns interracial marriage | JAMES EDWARDSObama’s mother wasn’t a Christian; she was the furthest thing from it. And just how many “radical leftists” were promoting the idea of ... No, they were promoting interracial marriage, and that’s just what Chronicles is condemning here. ...
www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2008/11/07/chronicles-magazine-condemns-interracial-marriage/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

So, theres a few out there.

Plus, you know, they used to lynch black men in the South for LOOKING at a white woman, so, you know, theres that.

 

[riw]

I'm mixing replies here, in the name of time and simplicity.

I would have accepted it as current US law. Agreement or not does not make it law or not law. One can fight against laws they do not agree with, and those on the other side can fight to keep those laws. Ironically, both sides are always sure "God" is on their side.

In other words, you support laws you agree with, and don't support laws you don't agree with, and you can't see any point in referencing anything from God's laws, or natural law, or anything else, to back up your opinions. There's no point in trying to reason from natural law, or anything else, because, after all, everything is relative.

Except gravity.

Also, you are misquoting Darwin. He never said anything to suggest he thought races were analogous to species, or that there should be no inter racial breeding. Nor do I think you can claim that his ideas published in 1871 were responsible for the millenia of condemnation of inter racial marriage.

What Mr Darwin actually said:

Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species.

Oh, my, did Darwin really say that? It's not like this is so surprising, really, since the entire basis of evolution is that man 'evolved' from something else, and hence, there must have been other 'species' of 'men' before the current one came along. Do a search on "Homo" with any word following, I'm certain you'll find a number of species of man that are not classified as "homo sapiens."

Yes, this concept of different 'species' of man actually was a major support in the argument against interracial marriage, up until very recently.



Russ

 

[Shane Roach]

Do you believe that the Government would be within its rights to allow an unrelated man and woman who were of age and able to consent and also not currently married from getting a marriage? If the answer is no, why do you believe they have a right to be married?

Firstly, I do not understand the question. Secondly, when is it ever going to be your turn to answer any questions?

Seriously... Where's your argument? Let's pretend for a moment that marriage has existed and has been specifically limited to opposite sex couples for the last several thousand years in almost all of the cultural traditions existing in the nation you find yourself living. What is your argument that this was somehow wrong and needs to be changed?

 

[LightHorseman]

Oh, my, did Darwin really say that? It's not like this is so surprising, really, since the entire basis of evolution is that man 'evolved' from something else, and hence, there must have been other 'species' of 'men' before the current one came along. Do a search on "Homo" with any word following, I'm certain you'll find a number of species of man that are not classified as "homo sapiens."

Yes, this concept of different 'species' of man actually was a major support in the argument against interracial marriage, up until very recently.

Notably none of the different races are taxonimically refered to as being other than Homo sapiens sapiens... and Your quote of Darwin didn't mention inter racial marriage, let alone condemn it.

 

[b&wpac4]

Firstly, I do not understand the question. Secondly, when is it ever going to be your turn to answer any questions?

Seriously... Where's your argument? Let's pretend for a moment that marriage has existed and has been specifically limited to opposite sex couples for the last several thousand years in almost all of the cultural traditions existing in the nation you find yourself living. What is your argument that this was somehow wrong and needs to be changed?

I hate bringing it up, but slavery existed for thousands of years and was a cultural tradition and existed in the nation I am currently living in and...well... we found reasons to change that.

I note your avoidance at answering what I think is a straightforward question. If you don't think the government should block the marriage of two consenting opposite sex couples, why does changing the gender of one of them make it different?

 

[LightHorseman]

Firstly, I do not understand the question. Secondly, when is it ever going to be your turn to answer any questions?

Seriously... Where's your argument? Let's pretend for a moment that marriage has existed and has been specifically limited to opposite sex couples for the last several thousand years in almost all of the cultural traditions existing in the nation you find yourself living. What is your argument that this was somehow wrong and needs to be changed?

May I answer the question?

My argument that this is somehow wrong and needs to be changed is that there are people who are negatively effected by the status quo, who would be better off if it were changed. If the status quo were changed, no one would suffer any obvious deleterious effects, while some people would clearly benefit. Thus, net benefit, combined with no negative effects= status quo should be changed.

 

[riw]

I didn't say I could prove it, but we are discussing opinion and the justification thereof, rather than "proof". However, it is my contention that ALL cases of knowing incest occur where one partner holds some sort of power over the other.

In other words, you believe marriage should not be allowed when one person has some "hold" over the other. I assume you would argue that such holds would include emotional ones, based on your statement above.

Logical conclusion: Anyone who is "in love" is liable to be unable to give informed consent, and hence cannot get married. Marriage is henceforth allowed only among strangers.

I would contend that animals don't even give the appearance of consent, and it is active beastiality that is generally considered when condemning the practice of beastiality.

Your argument hinges on two points:

1. Animals are not sentient.
2. Since animals are not sentient, they cannot give consent.

Both of these walls are currently being broken down, I assume you'll support marriage between a dog and a human once someone shows they can tell if a dog can give consent through a particular wagging of the tail.



Russ

 

[riw]

Notably none of the different races are taxonimically refered to as being other than Homo sapiens sapiens... and Your quote of Darwin didn't mention inter racial marriage, let alone condemn it.

Note you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Darwin condemned interracial marriage. I said the evolutionary belief that different races were actually different species was one of the primary supports under the argument against interracial marriage.

Try reading "From Darwin to Hitler." It might shock you out of your belief that all the horrible ideas in the world have originated in "fundamentalist Christianity."



Russ

 

[b&wpac4]

Sorry, that was a bit more harsh than I wanted it to be.

 

[Shane Roach]

I hate how the new quote system works. It drops context left and right, but here:

Just as a generation ago banning interracial marriage was seen as having valid reasons (it is interesting that the same reason given as to why banning interracial marriage was valid are repeated today by those trying to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Did the fact that some people chose to misrepresent religion and logic to justify bans on interracial marriage make that ban moral or valid or just?



The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.




The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.

the law of the land calls for impartiality

I just googled "Christian condemnation of inter racial marriage" and there were 10,700 hits... some pro, some con, but there are certainly some sites claiming that the Bible condemns it.

Also, you are misquoting Darwin. He never said anything to suggest he thought races were analogous to species, or that there should be no inter racial breeding. Nor do I think you can claim that his ideas published in 1871 were responsible for the millenia of condemnation of inter racial marriage.

According to this, the same reasons used for banning interracial marriages are being used to resist gay marriages. Can you please go a step further and cite the passages from the three links you gave that are the same as, or similar to, any reasons you have seen put forward for resisting gay marriage?

 

[riw]

Here I quoted the wrong person, I think. Sorry--I've edited to answer the question as a praphrase, since picking up the original is a real pain:

What is your argument against same sex marriage?

I have made my argument multiple times:

1. Marriage is not a right.
2. The state only sanctions marriage because it has a specific interest in the institution. Historically, this interest has been in the creation of children, which has generally been attached to marriage.
3. The sanctioning of same sex marriage does not further the state's interest.

You can argue that marriage and children no longer go together, and you can argue that not all heterosexual couples have children--but both of these are arguments against the state sanctioning marriage at all. They are decidedly not arguments for the state to sanction same sex marriage.



Russ

 

[LightHorseman]

In other words, you believe marriage should not be allowed when one person has some "hold" over the other. I assume you would argue that such holds would include emotional ones, based on your statement above.

Logical conclusion: Anyone who is "in love" is liable to be unable to give informed consent, and hence cannot get married. Marriage is henceforth allowed only among strangers.

That isn't what I meant and you know it.

One falls in love through their own volition, even if they do not consent to such, it is an internal process. Any form of external coercion, whether benign or malignant, is an external influence, and thus negates consent.

Your argument hinges on two points:

1. Animals are not sentient.
2. Since animals are not sentient, they cannot give consent.

Both of these walls are currently being broken down, I assume you'll support marriage between a dog and a human once someone shows they can tell if a dog can give consent through a particular wagging of the tail.

I don't really think this thread is the correct place to discuss animal sentience and self awareness. I would contend (but cannot prove) that my recently deceased dog was self aware, and that he loved me and I him, in an appropriate way. However, even though I believe he was certainly self aware, I don't believe he had the mental faculties to give genuine informed consent to a marriage like relationship, since dogs lack the mental structure to understand many of the fundamental concepts intrinsic in such, for example, the nature of a long term commitment.

My partner has cats, and she loves them and they her, in their cat-y way. I believe they too are certainly self aware, but again, lack the means to either have or express genuine informed consent in relation to a complex non physical concept like marriage, or even beastiality.

 

[Shane Roach]

May I answer the question?

My argument that this is somehow wrong and needs to be changed is that there are people who are negatively effected by the status quo, who would be better off if it were changed. If the status quo were changed, no one would suffer any obvious deleterious effects, while some people would clearly benefit. Thus, net benefit, combined with no negative effects= status quo should be changed.

Wouldn't that require you to demonstrate both that the lack of marriage is at the heart of whatever gay's problems you believe have to do with marriage, and that no harm will come to changing the fundamental meaning of an institution very nearly unchanged through most cultures for all of recorded history?

Yes, I am aware there are a handful of exceptions to the latter assertion, but not many, and certainly none that are politically relevant now.

I already know what you believe. I have no idea why. After having read dozens of your posts, it is utterly unclear to me why.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It seems highly unlikely to me that people argue that miscegenation will result if gays marry.

Slippery slope was claimed. It was nonsense when it was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples, and nothing has changed.

A generation ago banning interracial marriage was seen as having valid reasons,
The very same reasons given as to why banning interracial marriage was valid are repeated today by those trying to justify anti-gay discrimination.

So, did the fact that some people chose to misrepresent religion and logic to justify bans on interracial marriage make that ban moral or valid or just?

I would like less of the blind linkage between racism and gay issues, and more actual evidence of any alleged similarities.

Been there, done that. The challenge was presented to provide a logical reason why anti-gay discrimination is “valid” that was not used (or is not currently used) to justify racism, anti-Semitism and or bans on interracial marriage. No one was able to present such a reason

Racism is based on judging people due to physical and cultural characteristics. Being against gay marriage is about the idea that marriage is intended to help regulate responsibilities of men and women to each other and to their children.

Incorrect on two counts.
First gays/lesbians have unique culture and (unless you can provide legitimate evidence otherwise) is a physical trait in that it is apparently inborn, just like skin color

Second, racism is about how non-whites act, not any skin color. Racists cite the word of God detailing that blacks are to be the social inferiors of whites and as such racists are upset when people of color try to claim equality. Racists have no issues with blacks who “know their place”

Unless they adopt or somehow make use of other alternatives, gays do not have children when they cohabit.

Just like infertile heterosexual couples. So explain again why infertile heterosexuals should not be discriminated against

There is no reason in the world to just assume all the law associated with marriage applies. Almost none of it does, and what little of it does indeed would likely already be remedied if gays focused on those issues instead of attacking the status quo and wholeheartedly making themselves allies of the anti-church socialist establishment of the far left.

Just like those pesky blacks. If only they would have been happy riding in the back of the bus

 

[LightHorseman]

Note you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Darwin condemned interracial marriage. I said the evolutionary belief that different races were actually different species was one of the primary supports under the argument against interracial marriage.

I've never seen anything to suggest that any half competent evolutionary biologist believes this. Possibly some people who don't understand evolution have based their racism on such a claim, but it is hardly the fault of the theory of evolution if people who misunderstand it go on to misuse it, is it?

Try reading "From Darwin to Hitler." It might shock you out of your belief that all the horrible ideas in the world have originated in "fundamentalist Christianity."

Huh? I never said anything of the sort that all the horrible ideas in the world originated in Christianity... I merely contend that Christianity is not a virginal lily white institution that has never done wrong... and it strikes me as hypocritical when Christians sanctimoniously condemn others for doing things that Christianity as a whole or sub groups of Christians have done themselves, either as bad or worse.

 

[Shane Roach]

I would argue that current understanding of male/female relationships is that men are usually in a position of strength in society, so all marriage fails the power-neutral test.

There are many liberals who actively make this sort of argument. There was a thread on it not too long ago.

 

[riw]

That isn't what I meant and you know it.

Beware the law of unintended consequences. It's not what you intend to say that counts, it's where the argument goes in the end.

One falls in love through their own volition, even if they do not consent to such, it is an internal process. Any form of external coercion, whether benign or malignant, is an external influence, and thus negates consent.

This is biologically and experientially incorrect. Many people have been married without ever having met, and have gotten along just fine. Many have been persuaded by feelings to engage in relationships with people who abuse them.

You need something more than "I know when its right and when its wrong" to build a society on.



Russ

 

[BigBadWlf]

If you claim it is a right, then provide me with the fundamental reasoning behind this assertion. Not a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court also declares that murdering children in the womb is a right. I must assume you agree with them on that one, as well, from your argument here.

No the Supreme Court does. The fact you want to exclude the Supreme Court from your demands shows that you know that marriage is a right but you don’t want it to be for this particular minority.