Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

Oct 30, 2012#1

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-against-same-sex-marriage-dennis-prager?pg=1

Alright, let's hear it, champ, I'm all ears :thumbsup:

Oct 30, 2012#2

Covar

Because they're actually closeted homosexuals of course. </thread>

Oct 30, 2012#3

Charlie Don't Surf

Covar said:
Because they're actually closeted homosexuals of course. </thread>

That argument / joke is ENTIRELY offensive and tired

Oct 30, 2012#4

Covar

when I stop hearing it as an argument I'll stop saying it as a joke.

Oct 30, 2012#5

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.

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.

Oct 30, 2012#6

GasBandit

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.

Oct 30, 2012#7

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
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.

Na, not if it was a common law shack up...

Oct 30, 2012#8

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.

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.

Oct 30, 2012#9

Hailey Knight

When added to Americans’ aversion to discrimination

The horror.

Oct 30, 2012#10

Ravenpoe

A good person is also capable of being absolutely wrong.

Oct 30, 2012#11

North_Ranger

So... allowing same-sex marriage leads to societal collapse? Gee, who'd have thunk it?

Oct 30, 2012#12

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
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.

Greeks/Romans/Japanese/Russians/Etc. don't vote in America.

Oct 30, 2012#13

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
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.

How does that compared to live-in boyfriend/girlfriend breakups, abuses, and murders?

Oct 30, 2012#14

North_Ranger

sixpackshaker said:
Greeks/Romans/Japanese/Russians/Etc. don't vote in America.

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.

Oct 30, 2012#15

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.

Oct 30, 2012#16

bhamv3

There are worse things to hold a society together than love.

Oct 30, 2012#17

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
How does that compared to live-in boyfriend/girlfriend breakups, abuses, and murders?

Allow me to introduce you to my good friend who I don't believe you've met before... the freakin' joke.

Oct 31, 2012#18

Krisken

Abuse and murder... waka waka waka!

Oct 31, 2012#19

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
Greeks/Romans/Japanese/Russians/Etc. don't vote in America.

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.

Oct 31, 2012#20

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Abuse and murder... waka waka waka!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Oct 31, 2012#21

Dave

GasBandit said:
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Is this some joke of which I'm unaware? Seems like quite the accusation. What am I missing?

Oct 31, 2012#22

GasBandit

Dave said:
Is this some joke of which I'm unaware? Seems like quite the accusation. What am I missing?

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.

Oct 31, 2012#23

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.

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.

Oct 31, 2012#24

Dave

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.

Okay so it's a general joke and not leveled at Krisken.

Oct 31, 2012#25

GasBandit

Dave said:
Okay so it's a general joke and not leveled at Krisken.

Correct. It was demonstrating the precedent of domestic abuse being used in comedy.

Oct 31, 2012#26

Dave

GasBandit said:
Correct. It was demonstrating the precedent of domestic abuse being used in comedy.

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.

Oct 31, 2012#27

Bowielee

Dave said:
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.

I never heard it before, nor do I understand the joke.

Oct 31, 2012#28

Dave

Bowielee said:
I never heard it before, nor do I understand the joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Basically asking that question paints the person into a corner. They can neither answer yes or no without looking like they are a wifebeater.

Oct 31, 2012#29

Bowielee

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

Oct 31, 2012#30

GasBandit

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

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.

Oct 31, 2012#31

Frank

Viva l'amour, we die togezzer!

Oct 31, 2012#32

GasBandit

Frank said:
Viva l'amour, we die togezzer!

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.

Oct 31, 2012#33

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.

Oct 31, 2012#34

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).

Nov 10, 2012#35

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.

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.

Forums