Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

gondath · 06-08-2004, 03:21 AM

Yes, Derwood, you are chief but not exclusively the person that was aimed at since you asked. I don't normally quote and then counterpoint and nitpick my way through. I don't want my posts to descend into the realm of personally directed attacks. It's just not my style.

Anyways, marriage as it has existed with multiple wives or for money has no bearing on the current state of marriage. I guess gays now want a slew of constant sexual partners like people have in the past or is it that they just want to marry by class now? The point here is that traditions of marriage don't much matter as they existed outside this country, unless you want me to make comparisons on gay traditions through history. Stick to the current state of affairs.

I did actually make several more points than mentioning how gays make worse parents, which by the way is subjective. There is no way to measure quality of parenting, or quality of anything period, without being subjective. I don't much care for the lifestyle, but I can assure you this issue is separate. I don't normally do more than ignore them and go about my business. Most supporters seem to be coming up with excuses or laying down heavy slander. I am at least attempting to tread on solid ground here without labeling dissenters as intolerant, afraid, etc. Several people here also still seem to think making random comparisons to other unrelated civil rights issues is somehow relevant to the issue at hand. Comparisons alone do not an argument make. have yet to see a solid line leading from gays not being permitted to redefine marriage to a world of oppression, cruelty, and intolerance towards gays.

Lets restate that marriage is a religious affair as it exists in this country for the great majority of people, as the quote from the pastor proved. A sermon is a sermon. Progressive religion is an oxymoron. I don't find his master's degree in theology to be meaningful in the slightest. I've talked to many theologians and found them all to be along the same strain. My beliefs are supreme, your's are evil and backwards, etc. Also, people tend to get married in a church or by a religious figure. The very nature of conflicting religious views means you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Mentioning love is a bad path to follow here.

Let me state for the record that I am in no way religious, religiously affiliated, or spiritual in any way. I am a diehard atheist, so think before sliding me casually into any kind of religious group. I do not also call myself liberal, conservative, right-wing, or left-wing. I see issues as they exist independently without either labeling all people who oppose as part of one group or by allowing some larger, intangible political body to dictate my thoughts for me.

Marriage seems to be the key problem here. Gays are fighting to get accepted into a fundamentally broken institution. If you don't think it's broken, then you must like at least some of its customs. Laws of marriage aside, it's the traditions as they've existed in this country here that seem to lend it any appeal at all.

Not only are they fighting for perceived rather than tangible gain, but they are encouraging public officials to break federal law to do it. I don't see people rising up against what seem to be just about every right in the Constitution being broken by the Patriot Act. The country has bigger issues going on. The draft issue comes to mind... Anyways, it's not a good thing when states get involved against the federal government and publicly flout it. That has never gone over well in the past.

A truly modern and progressive thing to do would be to get rid of marriage altogether. I do think it should be labeled a civil union, not religiously affiliated, and not connected to perceived emotions like love. I don't see too many of the pro-gay marriage crowd lobbying for multiple wives and husbands, the right to marry a person under 18, or the right to marry an animal. I can't think of too many compelling arguments against those without going into the realm of personal standards. Heck, we might as well go for marriage to objects, too. The laws can be changed to fit a wider definition if necessary. That's enough for me but probably not everyone else.

Anyways, I'm summarizing here, so I hope my meaning is a bit more clear and rises above my rambling and apparently woefully limited perceptions. I can only hope to emulate the patterns of posters on this board for my enlightenment to begin. I request a summary to keep this on track if it's not dead already.

06-08-2004, 03:21 AM	#96 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	Yes, Derwood, you are chief but not exclusively the person that was aimed at since you asked. I don't normally quote and then counterpoint and nitpick my way through. I don't want my posts to descend into the realm of personally directed attacks. It's just not my style. Anyways, marriage as it has existed with multiple wives or for money has no bearing on the current state of marriage. I guess gays now want a slew of constant sexual partners like people have in the past or is it that they just want to marry by class now? The point here is that traditions of marriage don't much matter as they existed outside this country, unless you want me to make comparisons on gay traditions through history. Stick to the current state of affairs. I did actually make several more points than mentioning how gays make worse parents, which by the way is subjective. There is no way to measure quality of parenting, or quality of anything period, without being subjective. I don't much care for the lifestyle, but I can assure you this issue is separate. I don't normally do more than ignore them and go about my business. Most supporters seem to be coming up with excuses or laying down heavy slander. I am at least attempting to tread on solid ground here without labeling dissenters as intolerant, afraid, etc. Several people here also still seem to think making random comparisons to other unrelated civil rights issues is somehow relevant to the issue at hand. Comparisons alone do not an argument make. have yet to see a solid line leading from gays not being permitted to redefine marriage to a world of oppression, cruelty, and intolerance towards gays. Lets restate that marriage is a religious affair as it exists in this country for the great majority of people, as the quote from the pastor proved. A sermon is a sermon. Progressive religion is an oxymoron. I don't find his master's degree in theology to be meaningful in the slightest. I've talked to many theologians and found them all to be along the same strain. My beliefs are supreme, your's are evil and backwards, etc. Also, people tend to get married in a church or by a religious figure. The very nature of conflicting religious views means you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Mentioning love is a bad path to follow here. Let me state for the record that I am in no way religious, religiously affiliated, or spiritual in any way. I am a diehard atheist, so think before sliding me casually into any kind of religious group. I do not also call myself liberal, conservative, right-wing, or left-wing. I see issues as they exist independently without either labeling all people who oppose as part of one group or by allowing some larger, intangible political body to dictate my thoughts for me. Marriage seems to be the key problem here. Gays are fighting to get accepted into a fundamentally broken institution. If you don't think it's broken, then you must like at least some of its customs. Laws of marriage aside, it's the traditions as they've existed in this country here that seem to lend it any appeal at all. Not only are they fighting for perceived rather than tangible gain, but they are encouraging public officials to break federal law to do it. I don't see people rising up against what seem to be just about every right in the Constitution being broken by the Patriot Act. The country has bigger issues going on. The draft issue comes to mind... Anyways, it's not a good thing when states get involved against the federal government and publicly flout it. That has never gone over well in the past. A truly modern and progressive thing to do would be to get rid of marriage altogether. I do think it should be labeled a civil union, not religiously affiliated, and not connected to perceived emotions like love. I don't see too many of the pro-gay marriage crowd lobbying for multiple wives and husbands, the right to marry a person under 18, or the right to marry an animal. I can't think of too many compelling arguments against those without going into the realm of personal standards. Heck, we might as well go for marriage to objects, too. The laws can be changed to fit a wider definition if necessary. That's enough for me but probably not everyone else. Anyways, I'm summarizing here, so I hope my meaning is a bit more clear and rises above my rambling and apparently woefully limited perceptions. I can only hope to emulate the patterns of posters on this board for my enlightenment to begin. I request a summary to keep this on track if it's not dead already.