Hiding In Plain Sight.

[FIND]

Are people supposed to take you seriously when you start a conversation in a condescending manner and fall back on insulting, cheap excuses like this when it becomes clear that your condescension was hasty, presumptuous and uncalled for?

Are people supposed to take you seriously when you pick apart comments out of context and don't have any basis for what you are saying? I mean, sure, Foss will stroke your balls for these types of comments, but don't you have a modicum of shame or self-respect? Wouldn't you like to try and maintain some degree of intellectual integrity?

Where in the constitution does it give the states the right to restrict abortion?

Ever hear of federalism? What a cheap response.

You keep trying to redirect to substantive due process so you don't have to face everything that was involved in the decision, and I suppose that is fine for you, it is a safe place to argue from, and makes your argument easier, since you can respond as vaguely as possible, but unless you want to discuss the decision by the supreme court, and not your version of the decision, or the version where you decide what the justices were thinking despite the fact that it may be contrary to their opinions, then I have no further interest in discussing this with you. I've honestly heard enough of your conspiracy theories.

 

[hrmwrm]

And will you later be embracing cannibalism and human sacrifice too, since that can also be found using your cultural relativism and "historical context?"

can't find that under the definition of marriage.
can you provide a link?

If that's the case, if we just call it something else, or do something as I outlined, the problem is solved. If this is about "rights" or legal protection, there's no reason to redefine the word. We would have overwhelming consensus, unity, and couples would have the legal protections that were prevent the horror stories of "I couldn't visit my partner in the hospital" anymore.

could be. but then, i'm not protesting for either side, just making some points.
to say marriage is between a man/woman only, is not historically correct.
that would only be one of the more recent meanings assigned and accepted.
many same sex marriages of yore did have great celebration with them.
and are accepted equivolently of marriage.

Where in the history of Western civilization has marriage been used to include homosexual unions.

that alone states your limitation of definition.
you only care to include history after it was outlawed by christian doctrine.

 

[shagdrum]

Ever hear of federalism? What a cheap response

If you ignore Federalism it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand the Constitution. It is at the heart of this matter and to dismiss that notion is to demonsrate a lack of interest in the truth or in understanding the Constitution.

You keep trying to redirect to substantive due process so you don't have to face everything that was involved in the decision

"substantive due process" IS WHY THE RULING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

YOU were the one who demanded to know why anyone would think the ruling was unconstitutional. Now that the reason is given you are dodging and attempting to reframe the debate to focus on the moral issues involved. Is that how you deal with an answer that is inconvenient to your viewpoint?

The only one doing ANY redirecting here is you. I really tire of these baseless insults and accusations you constantly level at me in order to avoid your own foolishness...

 

[shagdrum]

that alone states your limitation of definition.
you only care to include history after it was outlawed by christian doctrine.

You are the only one imposing a limited definition; specifically, as whatever is expedient to your point of view.

The understanding Cal is talking about is derived from the history of civilized society.

Do you really not realize how ignorant and flimsy your argument truly is? Or do you simply not care and prefer to be contentious for it's own sake?

 

[Calabrio]

to say marriage is between a man/woman only, is not historically correct.

We can find historical precedent of all kinds of behavior and activities, particularly when we view ancient civilizations that have no association with ours.

Using those examples to establish some kind of historic justification is inappropriate. Entertainment can mean throwing Christians in with hungry lions. I can find historic examples of that, but it doesn't mean that we should consider doing it as well. Those actions don't apply to Western civilization, it's antiquity.

The examples that you provided, those examples that are used quite frequently to as an argument to undermine the definition of marriage, demonstrate just how infrequently throughout all history any kind of homosexual union has been institutionally tolerated. It also shows just how disingenuous the argument actually is because in none of the examples are the people actually "married" or considered equal to a heterosexual couple.

could be. but then, i'm not protesting for either side, just making some points.

Could be.

That alone states your limitation of definition.

Is the purpose of a definition to obscure and confuse things until they no longer have any real meaning? There is a word for that. It's called "deconstructionism."

I do not support or believe in that concept or practice.

you only care to include history after it was outlawed by christian doctrine.

Correct. Because this is a conversation about Western Civilization and America. It doesn't matter to me what a tiny handful of failed societies of antiquity or obscure tribes in Asia or Africa tolerated.

And how can anyone honestly argue some historical precedent for this redefinition when, after examining history and cultures throughout time and around the world, you literal can only find a handful of societies that briefly TOLERATED homosexual couples, though they still differentiated them from the heterosexual ones. You're literally trying to redefine an institution by pointing to rare exceptions.

 

[hrmwrm]

Again, let me know where in history marriage has ever meant a homosexual union.

this was the original question posed by you.

Using those examples to establish some kind of historic justification is inappropriate.

it fits the original question asked. you should be more limiting next time then and you might recieve the answer you were looking for.
you didn't say the definition had to be from the past 2 centuries only.

Entertainment can mean throwing Christians in with hungry lions.

yes it could. could mean burning witches at the stake. these actions don't apply, woops, guess they do. but we don't want to bring them back either.
but then, we aren't talking about that. we are still talking on the narrow definition applied to the word marriage by certain people. who find it politically expedient to do so.

Is the purpose of a definition to obscure and confuse things until they no longer have any real meaning?

it's still the same meaning. just the players aren't so narrowly defined.
it's still a union between 2 people.
actually, it already has a meaning in western culture as a union between a man and women, which has precedent even today.

 

[Calabrio]

this was the original question posed by you.

I know, but you still can't provide an answer that is relevant.
Don't feel bad though, it's not your fault. None exists.

Even in the select few examples that are so often repeated, the culture is obscure and unrelated, and, I'll say it again, the relationship is not considered equal or the same as the union between a man and a woman. The couples were treated differently. I know this is true with the Roman example you provided, the citizens simply tolerated it.

I don't know the answer to this, but I would also bet that the citizens had a different name for the homosexual couples too. That's just a hunch though.

 

[hrmwrm]

I don't know the answer to this, but I would also bet that the citizens had a different name for the homosexual couples too. That's just a hunch though

really, a different language with a different name? how original. you mean they don't use english nouns?
but i bet if you translate it, it comes out the same.
but then, if you don't know the answer, you are just making an assertion without proof.
that's a null arguement from you then.

 

[FIND]

I know, but you still can't provide an answer that is relevant.
Don't feel bad though, it's not your fault. None exists.

Even in the select few examples that are so often repeated, the culture is obscure and unrelated, and, I'll say it again, the relationship is not considered equal or the same as the union between a man and a woman. The couples were treated differently. I know this is true with the Roman example you provided, the citizens simply tolerated it.

I don't know the answer to this, but I would also bet that the citizens had a different name for the homosexual couples too. That's just a hunch though.

It was in wide practice in china all the way into the 1600s. Might be later than that, but I can't really recall. But of course you aren't interested in that, because European examples are the only thing relevant to you right?

The roman citizens did far more than "tolerate" same sex marriage. Even Emperors practiced it. It was a fairly common practice until some of the early christian emperors outlawed it.

Of course there was a wide practice of it in ancient Europe (outside of the roman empire) too, that is before the spread of Christianity.

Christians are the reason gay marriage does not exist. Christians redefined marriage to suit their own beliefs and perspective. Then they rewrote history to say that gay marriage was never marriage and now persist in saying that anyone who wants gay marriage is trying to change the fundamentals of society that have been around since the beginning of time.

 

[shagdrum]

Why the disregard for the uniqueness of culture and the wisdom of tradition? Laws and policy necessarily need to take take that into account and reflect those truths. There are very few universal moral truths, as least that we are capable of knowing. And to try and deduce some abstract truth through reason alone and impose that truth on society almost always leads to failure.

Cultures don't just survive and thrive by accident or by luck. They evolve through systematic trial and error. There is an inherent wisdom in culture and tradition that cannot be fully understood or articulated but can be (and far too often is) easily taken for granted. It is foolish and arrogant to think that humans are intelligent enough to start tinkering with that evolved social order; to be able direct social progress.

Is Western Culture inherently offensive to you because it is rooted in Christian teachings? Weather or not Western Culture is rooted in Christianity is beside the point; the fact is that Western Culture has not only stood the test of time, but has thrived and it's history serves as very strong evidence in it's favor. The only areas where Western Culture declines is in areas where a select and powerful few inflate the importance of articulated reason and overestimate the scope of their intellect and look to reorder society; to improve on society through rational principles alone.

If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, "dizzy with success", to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
-Friedrich August von Hayek, Lecture in the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 11, 1974​

All this pointing out of homosexual unions supposedly being accepted in Asian cultures or in Africa (the veracity of which, in the context of this discussion, I question) is irrelevant. They are nothing like our culture (or, more broadly, Western Culture) and to assume that they are analogous is to foolishly abstract one's self from reality and arrogantly assume that one is capable of knowing, in absolute, some universal moral truth.

It is rather interesting that no one is bringing up areas of Western Culture where gay marriage has been tried. If you want to cite a culture that might be relevant, that is where you should go. However, the track record there is questionable at best.

 

[04SCTLS]

Athens and Rome were the birthplace of Western culture where homosexuality was accepted and they stood a longer test of time than what we have currently come to since the dark ages.

 

[Calabrio]

This isn't about accepting homosexuality or tolerating homosexual activity.
We're a tolerant society, that's not at issue here.
Either you accept the redefinition of marriage to include anything or you're an intolerant person who wants to persecute homosexuals is a false choice.

And Find, first of all, you're right.
I don't particularly care what an Eastern/Asian society did during the Middle Ages, it's irrelevant to me and to our society.

But just as important- none of you are providing examples of societies that considered gay couples the same as heterosexual ones. These are all societies that TOLERATED openly homosexual couples, not embraced it or held it with the same value as a normal couple. In some cases, this just means they weren't prosecuted or killed. The examples you give,upon examination don't support your weak arguments.

 

[FIND]

Athens and Rome were the birthplace of Western culture where homosexuality was accepted and they stood a longer test of time than what we have currently come to since the dark ages.

 

[shagdrum]

Petey? Is that you?

 

[shagdrum]

Athens and Rome were the birthplace of Western culture where homosexuality was accepted and they stood a longer test of time than what we have currently come to since the dark ages.

As Cal pointed out, that is not what is being discussed and not what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned homosexual unions, but even that wasn't totally accurate. We are talking about a view of marriage that includes homosexual unions. Can you point to that in Athens and Rome?

 

[shagdrum]

Also, Rome is an often cited example against homosexuality. The idea comes from the bigger notion that a civil, ordered society doesn't happen simply because of government.

Government is only one among many factors that make a thriving civil society possible. Naturally evolved social customs institutions, etc play just as big of a part in that. For example, could any society be possible without means of communication? Language is probably the most basic example of a social custom evolving that allows for a more ordered and thriving society.

Rome is a classic example of a society collapsing in on itself due to many of those customs and institutions being incrementally rejected.

 

[hrmwrm]

This isn't about accepting homosexuality or tolerating homosexual activity.
We're a tolerant society, that's not at issue here.

well, some are tolerant.

Either you accept the redefinition of marriage to include anything or you're an intolerant person who wants to persecute homosexuals is a false choice.

no one is redefining it. as history shows, it is merely including a lost part of that definition. the one before christianity redefined it, which is now thought to be the status quo.
so is it being redfined? technically yes, but back to it's original meaning before it was narrowly defined.

 

[04SCTLS]

As Cal pointed out, that is not what is being discussed and not what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned homosexual unions, but even that wasn't totally accurate. We are talking about a view of marriage that includes homosexual unions. Can you point to that in Athens and Rome?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

Excerpted paragraph

Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.

 

[FIND]

Also, Rome is an often cited example against homosexuality. The idea comes from the bigger notion that a civil, ordered society doesn't happen simply because of government.

Government is only one among many factors that make a thriving civil society possible. Naturally evolved social customs institutions, etc play just as big of a part in that. For example, could any society be possible without means of communication? Language is probably the most basic example of a social custom evolving that allows for a more ordered and thriving society.

Rome is a classic example of a society collapsing in on itself due to many of those customs and institutions being incrementally rejected.

Funny how Rome didn't collapse until they started adopting Christianity. Rome fell September 4, 476 under Romulus Augustus. Christianity became the state religion of Rome in 380. Weird huh?

Now tell me, when is Rome cited as an example against homosexuality?

 

[FIND]

As Cal pointed out, that is not what is being discussed and not what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned homosexual unions, but even that wasn't totally accurate. We are talking about a view of marriage that includes homosexual unions. Can you point to that in Athens and Rome?

Did you read anyone's posts? Homosexual marriage was a practice in Rome.

Emperor Nero for instance had married a male slave. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. Same sex relationships were commonplace in ancient Rome and Greece. Are you aware of what went on at the orgies and bathhouses?

 

[shagdrum]

Again, '04, you are citing a culture that collapsed in on itself. Not the best example for supporting gay marriage. At best, you can say that gay marriage didn't play a part in the collapse, at worst, gay marriage did play a part. Either way, Rome is not a ringing endorsement of gay marriage.

Here is a good book on the fall of Rome...

Amazon.com: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volumes 1-3 (Everyman's Library) (9780679423089): Edward Gibbon: Books


There are modern countries that allow gay marriage, with more empirically verifiable track records. Maybe you should look at those.

FIND, I am really tired of putting up with your cocky ignorance. Either grow up or leave and let the adults talk in peace.

 

[Calabrio]

so is it being redfined? technically yes, but back to it's original meaning before it was narrowly defined.

Yes, it's being redefined to include same sex unions. Not expanded, completely redefined.

To summarize-
1- marriage has also been a union between a man and a woman in Western Civilization. And yes, you can argue that this has something to do with the Judeo-Christian belief system. And you'd be right to do so. But our society is based on the Judeo-Christian philosophy. That doesn't mean everyone shares or practices the religion, but the philosophy has shaped our culture and society.

2-You keep saying "before it was narrowly defined," but look how hard it is for you to find examples. Ancient civilizations, pagan tribes, backwards cultures, and we even have one person here who is using Emperor Nero as an example.

Nero was a lunatic who castrated his slave and then included him with his other "wives." That kind of outrageous lunacy doesn't fit our society, it's not an example, nor is it even relevant to include in the discussion. Nero was completely out of his mind and the Emperor or Empire in decline.

The examples aren't relevant because they are outside our culture, but even beyond that, they are the rare exceptions and they don't define the rule.

And if you want to be really honest, you can make a much better argument for polygamy than you can for homosexual marriage. I don't think we should redefine marriage to include multiple wives either, despite the historic precedent, or the "narrowing' of the definition- to use your logic.

 

[FIND]

FIND, I am really tired of putting up with your cocky ignorance. Either grow up or leave and let the adults talk in peace.

So in other words, you don't like the fact that I come here with facts, while you want to say gay marriage caused the fall of Rome.

 

[FIND]

2-You keep saying "before it was narrowly defined," but look how hard it is for you to find examples. Ancient civilizations, pagan tribes, backwards cultures, and we even have one person here who is using Emperor Nero as an example.

Nero was a lunatic who castrated his slave and then included him with his other "wives." That kind of outrageous lunacy doesn't fit our society, it's not an example, nor is it even relevant to include in the discussion. Nero was completely out of his mind and the Emperor or Empire in decline.

The examples aren't relevant because they are outside our culture, but even beyond that, they are the rare exceptions and they don't define the rule.

And if you want to be really honest, you can make a much better argument for polygamy than you can for homosexual marriage. I don't think we should redefine marriage to include multiple wives either, despite the historic precedent, or the "narrowing' of the definition- to use your logic.

That was just an example, I'm quite aware of how messed up Nero was. Hell, the references to the Antichrist in the bible were based upon Nero. I also pointed out gay marriage in the culture of china. Of course, I won't begrudge you for taking a shot at the easy target I left you. Heck, Nero is a perfect straw-man. Reductio ad Neroum YAY COINED A NEW TERM. It must be bad because Nero did it right?

I love how you keep saying all these examples aren't relevant. Moving the goalposts much? So what is relevant to you? Culture only matters to you if it is white christian culture? Last I checked, white christians weren't the only people in this country and this is a secular nation.

Why should we forever define ourselves only by the Judeo-Christian philosophy? The best argument Shag has been able to produce for following christian ideals is the fact that Christians were the conquering horde. If Muslims conquered the world, would you just automatically say that their beliefs must be right because christian society collapsed?

 

[Calabrio]

That was just an example, I'm quite aware of how messed up Nero was.

Then why use him as an example of anything? I know.
Because you're an idiot and hadn't read the next paragraph before you posted it.

I love how you keep saying all these examples aren't relevant.

I've explained this throughout the thread, there's little sense in my repeating it for you to ignore again.

I know you don't like to read, I tend to think that's a problem if you want to engage in dialog on a message board.

Why should we forever define ourselves only by the Judeo-Christian philosophy?

I think so. It's worked out quite well for us and I believe in it. You couldn't have the enlightened period with Christianity.

Do you have a better philosophical foundation in mind?

If Muslims conquered the world, would you just automatically say that their beliefs must be right because christian society collapsed?

You've mischaracterized what Shag said.
If you were an intelligent person, I'd say that you did that deliberately.
Since you've demonstrated just how stupid you are, I trust that it's an honest mistake.

And for the record, you've now demonstrated that you are essentially PeteSweet's mildly retarded older brother.
Was wearing a dunce hat too subtle, you had to post that cliche picture?

But, if you want analyze it seriously, let's take a closer look at that chart. Of course, it's not scientific, but it does make a point.

See that dark spot where the advancement drops real fast?
Do you know what historically happened during the period?
ISLAM.
That's the period of Islamic domination and expansion.

See the part where it jumps back up?
That's right about the time of that the Islamic expansion began to collapse and the Muslim were pushed out of Europe and the Christian renaissance and enlightenment began. You might learn some day that Islam has never had a "renaissance" or "enlightenment." They just conquered people who were more cultured and educated and then broke their will through genocide or dhimmitude.

..you're just too clever by half, Find.