< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3163 OF 4438 ·
|May-17-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <frog: so, the <short answer>: due to *other* changes of society, homosexual marriage is now an actual option; most people don't *need* children and family to secure their own elderly days. where did one buy a pension plan in 1597?> |
So for all of history, the raison d'etre of marriage was to facilitate/encourage/something else a subsequent generation of elder care? If so, why then change the basis from man/woman? Why not just dispose of the institution?
|May-17-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: In the end, they would put people in jail for just being a Christian and thinking that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong.|
|May-17-12|| ||Shams: <OCF><What have we got today? Babble about "equal rights". What, nobody has ever considered equal rights before?>|
One of your more obscure talking points. Nobody has ever claimed the idea of equal treatment is novel; at issue is a novel application of that idea.
|May-17-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Morph: What is scary is when they don't allow you anymore to think that Homosexuality is a sin and is against the laws of God.>|
To speak against a state ordained institution is tantamount to insurrection. That's how the game will be played.
|May-17-12|| ||al wazir: <OhioChessFan: Why not just dispose of the institution?> Why not? |
But it's already being phased out. Premarital chastity? Forget it: <More than two-thirds of married couples in the USA now say they lived together before marriage> (http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifest...). People used to make a big deal about "legitimacy" and "illegitimacy." No more. <Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007>; in Sweden it's more than 55% (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/h...). And remember that line about "till death do us part" (the grammar alone should be enough to tip you off that it's obsolete)? In this country half of all marriages end in divorce (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/div...).
|May-17-12|| ||frogbert: of course marriage, children and family, were together the unit that would support you, all through your life, including providing "elder care", as you put it. so, yes - i assume this to be basic knowledge, and in particular for republicans who fight to move more responsibilities back to the traditional family unit.|
marriage used to be much more a practical arrangement than a story about love and passion, but today when most people marry because they want to (and often for romantic reasons) and not because they have to (for whatever reason), it's rather obvious that people think differently about marriage. it doesn't change the main purpose and role of marriage in the majority of history.
for the same reason it's totally unreasonable and illogical to suggest that man would dispose of "marriage" just because its original function isn't strictly needed anymore. to the contrary: exactly because the role of marriage has changed so much over the past 100-200 years, its new(er) role as the biggest symbol of love and devotion has made it desirable for all kinds of couplse.
anyway, the bottom line is that your old "historical argument" against same sex marriage has been <debunked>; marriage and the family unit used to be necessary for people's survival and it is no longer. marriage has gradually taken on partly a new role among/for people - which is the reason it hasn't been abandoned (yet).
we keep around lots of things we don't strictly need, don't we?
|May-17-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Shams: One of your more obscure talking points. Nobody has ever claimed the idea of equal treatment is novel; at issue is a novel application of that idea.>|
Incredibly novel. Nobody <ever> thought of that application before? Really?
|May-17-12|| ||frogbert: btw, the basis hasn't been *changed* from man/woman to something else, it has been *extended* from man/woman to something more.|
man/woman is obviously by far the most common configuration. :o)
|May-17-12|| ||frogbert: ocf, moot point about "that application" re shams' post; it's mostly about practicality. for the reason i mentioned (amongst others), same sex marriage is now a real option. it didn't use to be, for several reasons. that's it.|
|May-17-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <frog: marriage has gradually taken on partly a new role among/for people ->|
So for this hundreds of years of mariage evolution, it's just in the past 10, 20, however many years, that the world realized that we were way behind the times with our understanding of marriage? Could you show me the Magna Carta of Marriage with accompanying intellectual discussion of the matter?
< it has been *extended* from man/woman to something more.>
Is there any limit to extensions?
|May-18-12|| ||PinnedPiece: ===Obama in History: the "Long" View===
Remember the days when the U.S. had a stable, thoughtful, intelligent vice president? (Joke Biden: "Believe me, the President's got a BIG STICK!")
Here is a Vice President taking a stand on gay marriage, and talking from personal experience:
(No that was not the hack Joke Biden.)
Another example of the media bias that claims Obama has taken a "historic stand", not so. Obama's stand has evloved based on political need. Whereas Cheney, in the link, spoke from the heart with nothing to gain. Anyone with any sense is easily able to compare the moral difference.
Obama comes up short again. To make up for this shortness, his staff (including Biden) work like devils to make him long....
(Man, I love the picture accompanying that article!!!)
All the presidential bios on the official whitehouse site now reference Obama. He is the historic first, even when he wasn't even part of history.
That's some long legacy he's got!
|May-18-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <(Not to mention none of those were changes to universally held viewpoints). >|
I realize the other side of that could be argued too. Too tired to argue it, so I accept a differing view of it.
|May-18-12|| ||FSR: Dubya has a forthcoming book on how to achieve economic growth! Order your advance copies now! No, this is not a joke. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0... http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...|
As observed in one of those articles, <With a presidential economic record that ranks among the worst in U.S. history, a book on economic growth from W. should be about as useful as a Three Stooges instructional video on how to avoid pie fights.>
|May-18-12|| ||Shams: <OCF><Nobody <ever> thought of that application before? Really?>|
Whether an idea is "original" is irrelevant to whether it is just, fair, or proper, Mr. "Wisdom of the Ages".
|May-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: <johnlspouge:> Well put. Keep an open mind.|
This get harder, as one reaches middle age. I was against same sex marriage, as a younger guy. Now, I realize that by denying same sex marriages, you are taking away the freedoms of other peoples by denying them the right to have their civil union.
These couples, both di-male and di-female have adopted kids and have had a splendid time of it all. Don't force your morals on them.
It's ok if you don't like George Michaels videos, but don't mess with one's constitutional rights.
|May-18-12|| ||SatelliteDan: What occupation boast's the highest rated player's?|
|May-18-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <jls: < <OhioChessFan> wrote: [snip] Every civilization, in all of history, has not. Seems to me to take on the verdict of history means the burden of proof is on you to show why everyone else was wrong. >|
Magna Carta, American Revolution, abolition of slavery, universal suffrage...
Note that argument from tradition seems small-minded after history sweeps it away.>.>
Human History, (thought and action) Advances in One Direction Only?
Recent posts on this page point to a belief in the advancement of human culture toward gay marriage, as though the direction is inevitable and/or "right".
That this is coming from the Left, primarily, is contradictory and internally confilcted thinking at best, and must set up some of that famous "cognitive dissonance" normally attributed to other types of believers (usually on the right, on this forum).
American Liberal Believers in inevitable human progress toward the good, with regard to gay marriage, need to think for a moment of humanity's progress from using stone tools to tearing off mountain tops to get at coal. Consider:
* Humanity's progress in its march toward filling the skies with the dangerous carbon molecule.
* Humanity's progress toward stripping the earth of its fantastic rain forests and carpet of jungles.
* Humanity's progress toward spreading untreatable bacterial diseases, which are evolving much faster than any "miracle medicines" can contain them.
* Humanity's invention of "Ethnic" black music which has progressed to flaunt crudity, violence, and denigration of women in the worst ways.
* Humanity's progress toward communal and collective society which has been responsible for the torture and death of millions of Koreans, VietNamese, Chinese, and Asians (part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) to name only a few of the places where such "inevitable progress" (according to Marx) scored victories.
So, all human historical trends are progress toward good? No?
Ah, but YOU are smart enough to spot the ones that are. How comforting.
|May-18-12|| ||FSR: <SatelliteDan: What occupation boast's the highest rated player's?>|
Erroneous apostrophe eliminators.
|May-18-12|| ||Shams: <FSR> Lotta job security in that field.|
|May-18-12|| ||FSR: <PinnedPiece> Letting gay people get married is hardly the same as polluting the environment, destroying the rainforest, and slaughtering millions of people. Unlike those other things, if two gay people get married, it doesn't hurt you or anyone else.|
|May-18-12|| ||King Death: < HeMateMe: ...couples, both di-male and di-female have adopted kids and have had a splendid time of it all. Don't force your morals on them.>|
A gay couple raising a child in a household filled with love and understanding beats the spit out of a heterosexual couple bringing up the same child in a home where there's negativity. What the couple does in private is their business and there's already way too much of some people telling others how they "should" live.
|May-18-12|| ||SatelliteDan: Ironicly, most people that are con with gay whatever and say how one shold live.., doesn't that sound communist? "We should all live the same way" ?|
|May-18-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <FSR: Unlike those other things, if two gay people get married, it doesn't hurt you or anyone else.>|
As response to my post, my first reaction to this statement from you was "How similar a reaction, to the enlightened Christian belief, which says animals evolved, and have no soul, but Man was a Special Creation, and different rules applied. He was created in God's image." Proof by exemption.
So: to take an <evolutionary biological reproductive anomaly> and elevate it to <equal status to normal reproductive biological activity> in such a fundamental preservative role (marriage) in human societies: that will have zero negative long-term effect on that society?
No other possible arguments?
----- --- ------- --- --- ------------ --- ----------
N.B. Those who know the history of the Supreme Court very well, say that eventually a "liberal" court will use the Loving decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildre... to apply it to gays.
I.e. It's a useless fight to oppose this "progress".
|May-18-12|| ||Check It Out: Cut out the middlemen - do away with state and religious sanctioned marriage, and simply have a public coming-out party when two people decide to commit long-term.|
|May-18-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <SatelliteDan: Ironicly, most people that are con with gay whatever and say how one shold live.., doesn't that sound communist? "We should all live the same way" ?>|
Time for <PinnedPiece> to out himself as a communist.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3163 OF 4438 ·