Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other world religions. But no one — not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment — ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.
Click to expand...
The problem with this quote is how sexuality has changed throughout history. Having sex with a person of the same gender was not considered an identity until around 100 years ago. And that did not get much acceptance until 40 years ago. It was just considered a sexual practice that should be avoided, like any sex outside of marriage.

This issue is really asking our culture to really look at itself and decide if this civil right shall be shared. It will be inevitable, but I give it another decade or two before it will be the law of the land.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
To spare them the horror that is marriage. 100% of all messy divorces began with marriage. Every man who ever abused or killed his wife... married her first.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
The problem with this quote is how sexuality has changed throughout history. Having sex with a person of the same gender was not considered an identity until around 100 years ago. And that did not get much acceptance until 40 years ago. It was just considered a sexual practice that should be avoided, like any sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
Except for all the hundreds of years it was perfectly okay in Greek/Roman/Japanese/Russian/Etc. society. But that's all pre-Christen exposure, so no one counts that.
 
North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Staff member
sixpackshaker said:
Greeks/Romans/Japanese/Russians/Etc. don't vote in America.
Click to expand...
No, but this guy's argument was essentially that since none of the great thinkers of the past had anything - or at least anything positive - to say about same-sex marriage, neither should we. His argument hinges on there being no precedent for recognized same-sex unions.
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Societal collapse- FEH! Feh I say! The only thing that'll change is that people will have proof that they'd love each other, and if they want that then fine.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
Greeks/Romans/Japanese/Russians/Etc. don't vote in America.
Click to expand...
Ancient Greek and Roman culture was more than a little bit responsible for forming the American Republic as it exists today. They were the most successful and prolific example of a democracy in recorded history and the Founding Fathers used their example when designing how our government would work. I'd also like the point out that Rome controlled England for a few hundred years and it helped form their culture as well.

To put it simply, most of the anti-gay cultural stuff that the West deals with can be traced back to the Torah and Old Testament. Before ether Judaism or Christianity came into power, this wasn't an issue at all.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
Is this some joke of which I'm unaware? Seems like quite the accusation. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Seriously, Dave? That joke's about as old as "why did the chicken cross the road?" It was a bit Groucho Marx did. It was even parodied in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
Ancient Greek and Roman culture was more than a little bit responsible for forming the American Republic as it exists today. They were the most successful and prolific example of a democracy in recorded history and the Founding Fathers used their example when designing how our government would work. I'd also like the point out that Rome controlled England for a few hundred years and it helped form their culture as well.

To put it simply, most of the anti-gay cultural stuff that the West deals with can be traced back to the Torah and Old Testament. Before ether Judaism or Christianity came into power, this wasn't an issue at all.
Click to expand...
Careful with the Greek and Roman version of man on "man" love. Normally in those societies the relationships where pederasty. Which most people would frown upon today, except NAMBLA.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Seriously, Dave? That joke's about as old as "why did the chicken cross the road?" It was a bit Groucho Marx did. It was even parodied in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Click to expand...
Okay so it's a general joke and not leveled at Krisken.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Correct. It was demonstrating the precedent of domestic abuse being used in comedy.
Click to expand...
I'd honestly never heard that before. I googled the reference and got the logical fallacy wiki page. Amazing I've never heard this before.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Oh, I understand the loaded question. I never heard that particular one. Still not seeing how it's a joke, though.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bowielee said:
Oh, I understand the loaded question. I never heard that particular one. Still not seeing how it's a joke, though.
Click to expand...
Because, when asked in a setting that demands an immediate yes or no answer, it dupes the target into saying that either he beat his wife in the past or still is doing so. So, flustered, he blurts "No! I mean yes! I mean.."

I guess it's not TOO surprising some people don't remember it.. I guess it's one of those comedy bits the media decided to pretend never happened... like all the cartoons involving joke suicide (like the ending of another Bugs Bunny cartoon where the dog shoots himself in the head is edited to the point where it doesn't even make sense) or blackface after a bomb exposion.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Frank said:
Viva l'amour, we die togezzer!
Click to expand...
Actually, that one I think they left in... they are more picky about "imitatable acts" such as with guns. Apparently they don't think there aren't a lot of kids willing to pretend to be Pepe le Pew stepping off a roof. More fool they.

However, they did edit the part where he tricks her out of the glass box by pretending to shoot himself in the head.

Edit - I stand corrected - google tells me they did edit out that part too.
 
Frank

Frank

I remember that short on the Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show not having the "we die together" line either. It always confused me as a kid since my dad had made me tapes and tapes of Looney Tunes stuff from unedited collections of them.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I think the only way to get the unedited stuff these days is from the DVD collections. I know it's the only way to see the War Propaganda ones (without Youtube anyway).
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

sixpackshaker said:
Careful with the Greek and Roman version of man on "man" love. Normally in those societies the relationships where pederasty. Which most people would frown upon today, except NAMBLA.
Click to expand...
No, they mostly weren't. A popular myth. They were inequal, and usually between someone older/wiser/.. and someone younger/more athletic/..., but they were not, generally, pedophilic/pederastic in nature. Boys weren't interesting; the point was finding a paragon of manliness. Yes, a well-muscled 16 year old boy could easily be part of such a relationship. And yes, in our modern society, we'd consider a relationship between a 16 y/o and a 35 y/o as problematic. But marriage, both in Greek and Roman, but even more so in Medieval, times, was often even earlier - and it still is in many places of the world.
An established man would/could have a relationship with a young , beautiful man, in much the same way as a succesfull business man these days will have a hot young trophy wife. A 50 y/o business man witha 21 y/o blonde bombshell. Do I think it's a great good thing? Not necessarily. But it's a personal choice.
Compared to today's trophy wife, young men in Ancient Greece were mostly better off, or at the very least, not worse. They got help in their own career, and quite a bit of esteem/honour depending on their partner, it was (hardly evver) never permanent, no risk of children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top