Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jedi Merkurian, Jun 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    Bruno-Fett, if you personally have no problem with gay people being gay, why is it you want them to have an inferior status compared to yourself based on their being gay?

    Where exactly have I mentioned that?

    Homosexual couples, in your opinion, should not be seen as equal compared to heterosexual couples.

    Never said that either?

    There has to be some reasoning behind your assumption that they should have less-than-equal status when it comes to marriage.

    Not if that is not my assumption.

    The only reason I and most others can think of is that you dislike (maybe hate?) gays, think they are in some way deviating from some standard you think should be imposed on society, and think they should be punished for their actions.

    Where do you get this BS from? Am I suppose to thank you for explaining to me what is in my head and my reasoning? I am absolutely fed up with YOUR reasoning of MY freaking argument.

    Marriage is one man and one woman. Thats it. Thats my reasoning and argument. Everytime you open your mouth you make a bigger arse out of yourself. Think before you put words in my mouth or proclaim thoughts in my head!
  2. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Cheveyo,


    Let me try this again...I have taken university courses in anthropology and sociology.

    I do happen to know precisely what am talking about. Which, by contrast of your initial statement, is exactly how I know---not merely conjecture---that your posts reflect a conspicuous lack of factuality and a relative unfamiliarity.


    The only question now is whether an intellectually honest conversation can be held with you, or whether this is your idea of having a good time by intentionally relying upon extemporization and distortion?


    "The relevence here, of course, is that it was not until 1563 that marriages were declared to be official only if presided over by a priest, thus merging the official use of marriage with religion."

    Uh huh. Find one sociologist or historian to agree with your radical interpretation of an otherwise straight forward presentation of fact (as contained at the linked-article). Indeed, write to the author of the article.


    Ever heard of the Old Testament? Known also as The Torah.
    It records marriages officiated under divine ordinance in the dim distant past in it's oldest sections.

    IN FACT, THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE YOU CITED MENTIONED THE HEBREWS IN HER OPENING PARAGRAPH.

    ANCIENT JEWISH LAW ALONE PREDATES 1563 BY 1000'S OF YEARS.

    Marriage did not begin in Rome.
    Marriage did not originate in 1563.
    Marriage did not entail a religious connotation, or ceremony beginning in 1563.
    In 1563 the Church took steps to prevent Christians, the congregation, from seeking marriage apart from the blessing of God and the Church, being that marriage is considered a sacrament.



    You wrote:
    "I'm shocked! You read one of my sources. Thank you. Of course, it seems you skipped over the part I actually quoted, but I realize that I'm asking too much to expect you to read everything."

    If you are going to be sarcastic, at least cover your bases, as apparently you didn't bother to read the article you presented, whereas I did, which is also how I knew this paragraph directly preceded the one you posted pertaining to 1536.

    Once AGAIN, from your own stockpile of "evidence";

    "The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years."


    Had you bothered to read the article fully, and without an attempt to merely desperately quote-mine, you'd have noted that "POPE" is a religious title, and 866 is 697 years BEFORE 1563.

    Furthermore and incidentally, Roman society was predominately pagan from inception, not "secular." Even so, marriage did not originate with the Romans.


    Anyway, this dialogue has exemplified the adage,"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink."

    What began as a modest correction of a boldly erroneous assertion presented under the auspices of factuality within your post, has become a protracted absurdity over numerous posts.


    The initial statement from your post which resulted in this odyssey;

    "Not true. Marriage began in a very secular, even capitalistic, manner. It wasn't until much later in human history that religion got involved and "gave the okay" for marriage (as long as it was performed by them, of course). In essence, religion hijacked the concept of marriage."



    That is simply not fact based, nor historically corroborated.

    The content of your posts have now been corrected not on the single initial error of that posted paragraph, but a number of errors through multiple posts.



    "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive."


    Everybody screws up. Everyone makes mistakes. That's why there are editors and proof-readers, and m
  3. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    Where exactly have I mentioned that?

    You haven't, I asked you a question. Would you like me to respond in kind?

    Heterosexual couples currently have more privileges than homosexual couples granted by the government, which means that, according to the government, homosexual couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. You obviously prefer this situation since you keep proclaiming that the status quo should be maintained. It's basic reasoning: from what you say, I can deduce your positions on other things.

    For instance, if a man says he hates black people, I can assume he hate's Kanye West; it's simple logic.

    You keep on saying that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, barring homosexual couples from enjoying privileges that other people have. Yet you wish us to believe that you hold nothing against homosexual couples? Please.

    Never said that either?

    In saying that you want hetersexual couples to enjoy certain privileges that homosexual couples shouldn't have, you imply that homosexual couples should remain inferior.

    Not if that is not my assumption.

    Hmm.. is your assumption that heterosexual couples should have more privileges? "Marriage is one man and one woman," so only straight couples deserve this privilege, but that in no way means homosexual couples are inferior?

    There is an obvious problem if you have to deny the linear conclusion of the assumptions and arguments you have made.

    Where do you get this BS from?

    It's not BS, it's what I really think. I'm not stating it as fact that you believe these things; I'm asking if you believe them.

    Am I suppose to thank you for explaining to me what is in my head and my reasoning?

    You can thank me for whatever you wish, but I did not once claim to "know" what you are thinking.

    I am absolutely fed up with YOUR reasoning of MY freaking argument.

    Stop being so defensive when people analyze your argument. That's the whole point of arguing in the first place.

    Marriage is one man and one woman. Thats it. Thats my reasoning and argument.

    Exactly.

    Everytime you open your mouth you make a bigger arse out of yourself.

    I don't think I opened my mouth the entire time I typed this post, but thanks for the admonishment.

    Think before you put words in my mouth or proclaim thoughts in my head!

    You yourself put your words in your mouth. I followed your arguments and line of reasoning to their logical conclusion, one that you obviously don't like. Maybe you should rethink your position?
  4. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    For instance, if a man says he hates black people, I can assume he hate's Kanye West; it's simple logic.

    But in your perverse logic you would do ther reverse and state that if you hated Kayne West you hate all black people?

    None of my arguments infer anything about anyone being inferior. Inferiority seems to be something that you are bent on reading into arguments you can not seem to understand. We can all infer things. FOr instance I see that you yourself are in a homosexual relationship because you defend such relationships. You are obviously hiding some ties tot he KKK as per your "if a man hates" example. I could go on but the truth is none of those may be true, nor would I truely claim such unless you posted such as your preferences previously. Your simply trying to lead in a direction that you prefer to go in and yet completely miss the point of the original argument.
  5. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Bruno
    HELLO, that is exactly what I have been saying since something like page 13 of this thread. What should make everyone happy still does not sit well with some who just need to use the discrimination card no matter what. They will claim that they are being discriminated against because it is not called marriage. Other than title of the union ther eis absolutely no difference so I don't see the problem, but of course thats just me being logical again.

    Yeah, we're not talking about the same thing.

    You are talking about marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. You "don't see a problem?" How about "seperate but equal?" That's a problem right there.

    No, what I am talking about is this:

    Get government out of marriage altogether. Getting married at a church will gian you nothing but legitimacy in the eyes of your religion. If a church wishes to marry a homosexual couple, more power to them. If they don't, whatever, it's their religion.

    However, if you want all the rights and privilages that the government currently gives to married couples, you need to get a civil union, which would be open to all couples, both hetero- and homosexual. This keeps marriage "sacred", and eliminates that pesky inequality thing at the same time.

    Do you agree to that?
  6. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    You presented the link to a "history of marriage" article which did not address where anyone believes marriage originated, but it did begin with this first paragraph;

    "Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow."
    [Emphasis mine.]


    True, but marriage in the Old Testament is a totally different animal from the sort of marriage you're discussing here. In the modern era, the purpose of marriage is usually acknowledged to be either love or producing offspring or something else along those lines. The reason the brother of a deceased man was required to marry the widow was for the widow's protection. In other words, after the husband died, it became his brother's responsibility to continue providing for the wife financially and making sure she was taken care of.

    I also find it a bit disturbing because of the overly chattle-like way in which it regards women.
  7. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    However, if you want all the rights and privilages that the government currently gives to married couples, you need to get a civil union, which would be open to all couples, both hetero- and homosexual. This keeps marriage "sacred", and eliminates that pesky inequality thing at the same time.

    Do you agree to that?


    YES! Keep the government out of marriage and make it the entity to declare civil unions. This would certainly make those who are against homosexuality in general on the basis of religious belifs happy as well. However I still think some would eventually start to belive this is discrimination at the religious level and lawsuits would become abundant against the Catholic Church and other organizations that refused to participate in SSM (that is Same Sex Marriage, not Super Sado-Masco).

  8. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    This is what I have been saying for a long time.

    Peace,

    V-03
  9. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
  10. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    I do not see the government as the solution to every problem, but government plays an important part in society. When I speak of what should be done about gays, I think on more of a societal level than a government one. I do not think it is right, but I see giving a civil permit of some sort to gays the same as giving benefits to the mistress. I don't think it is right, and the destruction of the family is the destruction of society, but if the majority of people want to give that to those people, I say let them do it, I'll let God take care of it. All I must do is to do my part to keep the family intact, and that starts with my own, and then that reponsibility moves out from my community to a nation.

    I don't blame God for not taking away all my temptions, I do not rule out the possiblity that there are some people that may have those feelings their entire lives, no matter how much prayer and sacrifice they make, but what I do know is that a loving Heavenly Father will not leave them to themselves, and that he will help them through their trial, even if he doesn't take it away. I don't pretend to understand completely that particular trial, but I know something of the ridicule that they must face, and wouldn't wish that upon anyone, and I know something of the trial of controlling your passions, I don't think there is a man that doesn't, and I know how hard that can be, and yes, sometimes it does seem almost impossible.

    What do I think government should do? I don't really think that if we allow adultery that we should prosecute sodomy, so I don't really think homosexuals belong in jail, I just don't think that society should support the institution.

    What the real problem I just realized is that here in America we are far too liberal, in classical sense of the word, in that we are far too individualistic, and that is why ideologies such as communism and fascism have gained any degree of support. I am in part a communalist. We are not just as a set of atoms bouncing off each other in a blob of matter, we are a living organic society in that we all depend on one other, and the actions that we take and the things we have allow do not only affect just our own lives, but that of the society as a whole. Personal liberal is only a good thing in moderation. Complete personal liberty is in fact slavery.
  11. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Jiffers, you're a damned smart guy. So I know you can do better than that. :)
  12. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    Complete personal liberty is in fact slavery.

    1984, anyone?
  13. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    So homosexuality = self-enslavement?

    God, I LOVE this place!
  14. DarthBreezy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 2002
    star 6
    I'm sorry, there's just so much I need to pick apart here:



    "Done about 'Gays'"? As if gay people are some kind of sub-human class? o_O


    I assume you're using the term 'mistress' interchangably with the idea of an unmarried lover, but that makes no sense as one must be married to have a 'mistress' (or kept man).




    What 'responsiblitity' are you refering to? Respect for your fellow human being?





    The act of Sodemy isn't exclusive to gay men you know...


    Someone has already beaten me to the Orwellian aspect, but I find it ironic that you throw out 'facism' in the same post where at least some of your own ideals seem to reflect it.


  15. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    Bruno

    For an example of a right-winger who lacks any rationale in this issue, look no further than Espaldapalabras. I've not yet seen any left-winger who opposed the idea we discussed, only right-wingers.

    Pardon me if I worry a bit.


    Not being avian I have have no wings and therefor have no idea what you are talking about. Why do peopel have to be classified as left or right? We can all write with at least one hand so whats the difference unless we are using scissors?
  16. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I need to clarify:

    1) Communism is not individualistic; it's collectivist.
    2) America has no radical left; so I fail to see how communism could have "gained any degree of support.

    E_S
  17. JFMephisto Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 15, 2005
    An excellent comic on the issue.

    The definition and meaning of marriage changes over time. To paraphrase the comic above (talking in an American timeline):

    - In revolutionary times, a woman, when married, became effectively the property of her husband with few rights - much less property rights - of her own (to divorce would always leave a woman destitute, unless her husband was feeling particularly benevolent or she had a father able to care for her). This marriage was effectively between a 'man and his chattel' (to quote the comic directly).

    - In the slaving states, marriage was forbidden between slaves - even freed ones. This marriage was effectively between two free white people.

    - Prior to 1967, sixteen states refused to recognise mixed race marriage. Thus, marriage was only between two white people or two black people.

    ***

    The point? The definition of marriage changes over time. There's really no objective argument - as I see it - to disallow gay marriage. I don't take seriously the idea that allowing gays to marry would actually weaken the institution of marriage, any more than giving women equal property rights and alimony weakened it. I think objections are primarily religious or homophobic in nature (and I don't wish to use those terms critically), and thus should not be the defining factor of any legislation on the issue.

    Having said that, I don't think churches should be mandated to perform gay marriage. Rather, each private institution and religious group should have the ability to practise its beliefs as it sees fit, and if it doesn't wish to marry two same sex people that should be their prerogative. However, those who are married by willing churches should have the dignity of being treated the same as their heterosexual counterparts.

    Marriage is no longer a solely religious institution. Secular marriage is increasingly common. If that were not the case, I could probably understand the objections to gay marriage. As it is, I do believe it's discriminatory. I would settle for civil unions, though, that merely conferred all the rights of marriage without the title.

    JFM
  18. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    I believe you mean "imply anything about anyone being inferior."

    Unfortunately, I infer that you believe homosexual couples are inferior, because this entire time you have been arguing for civil unions for one set of people and marriage for another. Why the difference? Because "marriage is between a man and a woman"? Great! And why can't we change it? Because "marriage is between a man and a woman"? O..k..

    This whole issue is that society wishes to give a higher status to one set of people and a lower status to another. You can either want to keep that status, change that status to equalize it, or reverse. I know no one who wants to reverse it, and most people I know what equal status given to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

    So let me ask you this: do you think that the government should treat people equally, or should it continue to withold something from another based on sexual orientation?

    EDIT: HaHa that comic was awesome! [face_laugh]
  19. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    This whole issue is that society wishes to give a higher status to one set of people and a lower status to another.

    We have been through this a million times. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. Should a priest be allowed to marry? Is marriage discrimination against men and women of the cloth. And don't get your undies in a bunch and start sayin' that deacons can get married, I know that I am talking good ole Catholic priests.

    Am I discriminated agaisnt because I can not use a womens bathroom? Same but different based upon gender is acceptable. Must I bring up the gynecologist who kicked me out fo his office for having a penis! All discrimination in your opinion right?

    Oh and what is the one thing that has remained constant in that lame excuse for a comic strip. HMMMM., Oh yes it has ALWAYS BEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Rights and priveldges may have changed but the gender point has always been the same!
  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Histrionics aside, Bruno, we're talking not about being born with a wang, but being told, "No, your private business offends my Judeo-Christian sensibilities, you do not deserve to be accorded the same rights as those who don't."

    E_S
  21. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Um, yeah, a priest is allowed to get married here in the States...you do know that, right? Any priest can legally get married here. Whether that is a violation of his vows to his religion is way beside the point.

    I have absolutely no problem with unisex bathrooms at all. Maybe then I'll be able to use a clean bathroom. :p

    As for the gynocologist is concerned, he has every right to do so.
    1) His speciality is in...gynocology, and thus does not have the training for what you need. He's doing you a favor by getting you to someone who can help with what you need.
    2) If you refuse to leave, then you are tresspassing.

    Simple, no?

    Times, they are a-changing.



    Squ33k!
  22. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    We have been through this a million times. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. Should a priest be allowed to marry? Is marriage discrimination against men and women of the cloth. And don't get your undies in a bunch and start sayin' that deacons can get married, I know that I am talking good ole Catholic priests.

    Am I discriminated agaisnt because I can not use a womens bathroom? Same but different based upon gender is acceptable. Must I bring up the gynecologist who kicked me out fo his office for having a penis! All discrimination in your opinion right?

    Oh and what is the one thing that has remained constant in that lame excuse for a comic strip. HMMMM., Oh yes it has ALWAYS BEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Rights and priveldges may have changed but the gender point has always been the same!


    Bruno, you're missing the point. There is discrimination. You're saying it's only discrimination if there is this, and this couldn't be discrimination unless this has always been the same. No. Discrimination is general. It doesn't apply to just certian groups. DISCRIMINATION IS ANYTIME YOU EXCLUDE SOMBODY BASED ON AN ASPECT THAT CAUSES NO HARM TO ANYBODY. That bathroom analogy is retarded. I don't even need to adress that.
  23. Darklord07 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2005
    star 4
    I wouldnt want anyone telling me who I can and Cant Marry.
    if they do thats just wrong.
    That just takes away everything a free contry(sp) stands for.

    sry i am tired.
  24. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    Am I discriminated agaisnt because I can not use a womens bathroom? Same but different based upon gender is acceptable. Must I bring up the gynecologist who kicked me out fo his office for having a penis! All discrimination in your opinion right?

    Yes, but you're not a woman, nor do you claim to be. If you were an m-to-f transsexual who identified as a woman but were kicked out of a woman's bathroom, then you might have the right to claim discrimination, but not as it currently stands.
  25. ClonedEmperor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 4
    Look, you cant use discrimination towards gay marriage, and not use it towards something else. Again, no matter what the changes, marriage has ALWAYS been about 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN... That has NEVER changed. And i think (personally) if we were to vote on an amendment keeping marriage as it was meant to be, it would win.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.