Biblical Definition of Marriage (Video) [Archive]

View Full Version : Biblical Definition of Marriage (Video)

KillerGremlin

06-04-2009, 01:41 PM

Angrist

06-04-2009, 05:18 PM

The Catholic church is not telling the people everything? Shocker!! :p

Professor S

06-04-2009, 06:20 PM

While this was pretty funny (before it became a redundant effort to misinform to argue a political slant), it obviously mistakes the historical aspects of the Bible with the instructional aspects. Also, it makes no differentiation between the Old and New Testaments. You can say these omissions and misstatements were done in the name of comedy to make the jokes work, but I often believe there is a far more insidious objective, especially once the joke is drug out long after the punchline is given.

Yes, I know it's just a joke, but jokes can greatly mislead if they take the context seriously. It's called the "Politics of Ridicule" made popular by Saul Alinsky. Basically, it stats that you attack and deride people and ideas, often in a satirical/humorous manner, to get your point across without actually having to enter a real discussion.

See The Daily Show for a perfect example.

And for the record, I'm pro gay marriage. I'm also pro honest discussion.

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 05:48 AM

While I agree that this is not the right approach for a lot of issues, in this case it seems fine since the argument against gay marriage is pretty retarded anyways.

To call it insidious seems kind of absurd though.

Professor S

06-05-2009, 08:25 AM

Angrist

06-05-2009, 08:51 AM

Bond

06-05-2009, 10:31 AM

TheGame

06-05-2009, 10:32 AM

My opinion on this subject is a bit strange. I strongly disagree with calling a union between two men or two women a marriage. Why? Because I personally think that its putting a good label on something that is immoral.

I think that the only compromise that could be made that I'd agree to somewhat is no longer letting law define marriage. Call everything a civil union under law, and allow the churches and different religions decide what marriage is (And let them decide who they want to marry and who they don't). I think the problem right now has more to do with the term marriage itself, and not the legal side of it.

Angrist

06-05-2009, 01:33 PM

Does the Bible really directly forbid pre-marital sex? If I recall the Bible forbids "sexual immorality," but this is a rather broad term that you could attach several different connotations to... not trying to make this into an enormous religious debate, just curious.
Interesting question, I did some research.
Yes, it's called fornication and it's always been forbidden in the bible.

The Hebrew word for it was zanah.

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5).
As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

If people had broken the law by having sex before getting married, they didn't need to die, but they did have to get married. For life.

The Greek word for it was porneia. Jesus mentioned it among murder, stealing, etc. (for example Matthew 15:19,20). Acts 15:19,20 says: Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
It's mentioned way more often than this.

So to answer your question, yes, the bible is pretty direct about it. :)

BreakABone

06-05-2009, 01:35 PM

That's the weird thing I get about marriage.
I always thought it was more of a legal term, and as far as I know there is a clear distinction between religion and law in this country (or so it says). On a legal basis, I don't see how a union between two people (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) can be deemed anything but a marriage.

From a religious standpoint, you may be against it, but as long as they aren't getting married in a church... I believe it falls way outside of their jurisdiction.

Angrist

06-05-2009, 01:49 PM

Ah yes of course, I don't believe religion should ever get involved in politics. Even though I don't approve of many things, I don't want people forced to stop them.

So whether a state allows gay marriage or not is out of my interest.

KillerGremlin

06-05-2009, 02:05 PM

it obviously mistakes the historical aspects of the Bible with the instructional aspects. Also, it makes no differentiation between the Old and New Testaments.
Historical vs. instructional? WHAT? It's a literal translation or it's bunk! You can't just start interpreting it how you want....:p

Also, some religions *coughJudaismcough* are mostly based on the teachings of the Old Testament. Although you are correct that much of the Old Testament was modified. Two Bible changing events included the Great Flood where God killed all those sexing mufuckas and then of course Jesus Christ came to earth. Unless you're Jewish and you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God....

And for the record, I'm pro gay marriage. I'm also pro honest discussion.
How can you have an honest discussion with people who use a book as their only source and refuse to listen to any logical argument? :ohreilly: Not so say that all religious people are like that, but some are.

For the record, I'm of the opinion the marriage is a religious thing. If atheists can get married, gay people should be allowed to get married too. Society hasn't quite grasped that concept yet, so I think we need to change all non-religious marriages to "unions." This way all the atheists, gays, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever can happily celebrate unions of love.

Bond

06-05-2009, 02:12 PM

How can you have an honest discussion with people who use a book as their only source and refuse to listen to any logical argument? :ohreilly: Not so say that all religious people are like that, but some are.
Well, you can have a discussion over religious fact or fiction, and personal religious opinions. But I agree, a logical argument over the legality of marriage can not be had if one participant wishes to use the Bible as his or her main source of argumentation. Logic doesn't allow that kind of discussion, as both parties have not agreed upon the legitimacy / interpretation of the Bible.

KillerGremlin

06-05-2009, 02:18 PM

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5). As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

This doesn't strike you as being sexist, or at least being written by a bunch of guys 3000 years ago in a country that basically oppresses women? I mean, where is the male virginity test. Are we just going by personal testimony that the males are virgin? Why does the male need to get a blood sample. Also, not to bring science into religious discussion (:lol:) but the hymen often is broken before any sexual encounter just from physical activity or doing things like horseback riding. It can break from just normal physical activity.

KillerGremlin

06-05-2009, 02:25 PM

Well, you can have a discussion over religious fact or fiction, and personal religious opinions. But I agree, a logical argument over the legality of marriage can not be had if one participant wishes to use the Bible as his or her main source of argumentation. Logic doesn't allow that kind of discussion, as both parties have not agreed upon the legitimacy / interpretation of the Bible.

Agreed. Or as we say in Mass, "Amen."

Btw, how's the new DMB? :p I heard it was really heavy which makes sense since their Saxophone player passed away....I'm quite partial to Under The Table and Dreaming, Crash, and Before These Crowded Streets. Although admittedly I can't stand Dave Matthew's fan club....

Typhoid

06-05-2009, 02:59 PM

I'm anti gay marriage, like I am anti homosexuality, just like I am anti pre-marital sex.
And that's just like I am anti killing, anti lying, and anti everything else the bible condemns.

The bible is pretty clear on all those things, the question is if you accept it as an authority.

See, this is why I don't "like" religion.

Religion is fine and dandy as something to believe in if you feel the need to comfort yourself and believe in a higher power. Great, I won't stop you (Not you, Angrist, a general you), If it comforts someone being in a big organization of like-minded people, great. Power to you.

However, it's when that comfort you have takes away from the rights of other people. When it makes people judge others without even knowing them, meeting them, or even knowing anything about them in the first place.

Homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so. Well, if I recall the bible (depending on which one you "believe" - and don't even get me started on that) makes note that slavery is alright.

So homosexuality bad - Slavery A.O.K?

I'm entirely pro gay marriage. They deserve the same rights everyone else has. They've done nothing wrong, and deserve the same amount of respect straight people get. It doesn't harm my life, nor does it ever interfere with my life if two gay men/women get married.

And the only reason the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, is because homosexuality does not produce offspring - so it doesn't produce more followers of the religion the parents belonged to. Yet two gay men/women can adopt children, therefore bypassing the "no children" clause.

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 03:38 PM

To clarify, I don't think the argument is insidious, merely the methods. Ridicule destroys public discourse and Alinsky knew this when he wrote the book on using it in politics, and I think we've seen how political ridicule has affected the public discourse of today: there isn't any.

Any argument deserves a full and honest debate (I'll admit I don't always meet my own lofty goal, but I try). When that is allowed to take place, the sillier ideas will always be exposed for what they are and minds can be changed through reason. When you simply try and destroy ideas that are opposed to yours with no sense of fairness to them, then no one is enlightened because people on your side are given misinformation about the opposition that they never challenge because it fits their predisposition, and the opposition can just dismiss your argument as hateful and ignorant.

I've taken a long, hard look at both sides of the gay marriage debate, mainly because some people I greatly respect as true thinkers on the right are against it, but in the end I remain pro gay marriage. I better understand the opposing view though, and my arguments and position on the topic are stronger for having given the opposition a fair shake.

However, many of those towing the anti-gay marriage line entirely fail to engage in a thoughtful debate.

Their arguments range from the near eloquent "I simply cannot agree with it from a moral standpoint since God expressly forbids it in the Bible" to the slogan "God hates fags" you will sometimes see on anti-gay marriage protest signs.

Most people are unable to back up their arguments with quotes from the Bible, and instead base their argument on something they have not expressly read, opting to condemn fellow human beings for something in their life they have no control over. After all, you never chose to be straight. You are heterosexual by nature. This is not open and honest debate, this is discrimination without a thoroughly researched basis. Though I don't find researched discrimination to be any better.

Unfortunately marriage is incredibly political and very much tied up in law. To deny fellow countrymen the rights that come along with marriage and the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy seems childish and in my opinion inexcusable. It shows that by and large America (and many other nations) see homosexuals as undeserving of basic human rights that the rest of us can enjoy. And to place them on a sub-human level is nearly repeating the civil injustice that African-Americans underwent and had to fight through. People can't choose their sexual orientation any more than they can choose the color of their skin.

Ask Moogle. He once told me the pain he went through trying to make himself straight. He failed to do so and not only hurt himself but also someone he cared very deeply for (Sorry if that info was privileged John but I think my heart is in the right place). All of this over something that barely even effects the lives of the heterosexual majority. If anything gay marriage would at the very least help slightly stimulate a failing economy and on the upswing, your country could enjoy the fact that it can be a tolerant, forward-thinking nation instead of a country who like some Islamic nations use ancient scripture to retard the advancement of civil rights for their citizens.

The other thing that peeves me is the willingness to re-interpret other rules (the most common example is no meat on Friday). There are a slew of rules that not only do not apply to our current society but seem downright ludicrous by today's standards. So what do we do? We discount them. Brush them neatly under the rug because living by rules set for a society thousands of years ago does not quite make sense in our modern world. Yet still, some religious leaders cling steadily to the rules that allow them to get away with their prejudices, allow them to play the part of Lord and condemn their fellow men for acts that are not only private but do not concern them in any way.

So yes, I think this video is a fair retort to a religious tidal wave of intolerance that has no interest in arguing the merits of gay marriage in a fair and logical way. If the religious right can take the Bible out of context, why not those who argue on the opposing side?

And a note to you Angrist:

I challenge you to look through the Bible and look at each rule we still uphold as opposed to the countless ones that we do not. As a human being with the passion and compassion that I know you possess, think hard about whether or not you would have a problem with gay people had someone else not told you you should.

I am thoroughly ashamed for all of you which would look down on homosexuals as something less, or as immoral people. This sort of rhetoric would not be acceptable were it pertaining to someone with a different skin color. And God willing it will soon be equally ludicrous to persecute homosexuals in the same way.

A homosexual relationship is victimless and there is no excuse for prejudice wrapped in the protective coating of Bible verses. If I hear one more cry that the allowance of gay marriage will spark the death rattle of the white Christian majority I may simply lose my mind.

Angrist

06-05-2009, 03:59 PM

Pff, when did this get an everybody-against-Angrist thread?
I'm the only one to actually show my sources, and I get flamed. At least that's how it seems to me. This doesn't strike you as being sexist, or at least being written by a bunch of guys 3000 years ago in a country that basically oppresses women? I mean, where is the male virginity test. Are we just going by personal testimony that the males are virgin? Why does the male need to get a blood sample. Also, not to bring science into religious discussion (:lol:) but the hymen often is broken before any sexual encounter just from physical activity or doing things like horseback riding. It can break from just normal physical activity.If you read my post carefully, you would have found out that it was a way to protect women. Men could easily lie about their woman's virginity, that's why they got proof. You should read that bible passage, it's very clear.
However, it's when that comfort you have takes away from the rights of other people. When it makes people judge others without even knowing them, meeting them, or even knowing anything about them in the first place.Did you read my other post? I clearly stated that everybody's free to do as he wants. Please stop accusing me (and others) of things we don't do.

Dylan, I don't really know what you're trying to tell me. ... look at each rule we still uphold as opposed to the countless ones that we do not.So because most people don't care about the instructions in the bible, neither should I?

I hope you understand the difference between the 'old' and the 'new' 'testament'. The 'new' one is for Christians. If you're talking about rules like eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that's the old testament.
The old one's not useless, we can learn a lot from it, but we don't have to follow its rules anymore.
And I'll have you know I take the new testament pretty serious.

Again: I don't think homosexuality is any worse than having sex before/outside marriage. And even then, it's up to those people to make up their mind.
It's a reason why I'm politically neutral. I don't vote. Never have, never will. (And I know people always find arguments why that's a bad thing.)

Now I remember why I never took part in religious discussions anymore. Count me out of this one, before I get frustrated. (And I know how terribly tempting it is to make 1 last argument... but it never ends that way.)

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 04:12 PM

I'm not attempting to flame you or anything.

Being the one person on a side of an argument will make you the person the other side will try to present their thoughts or evidence to.

But if you have to bow out because you don't wish to discuss your opinions or you don't want to read something someone might believe that contrasts your views, that's fine.

My interest more lies in how the opposing of homosexuals (I believe) transcends the status of rule into the status of prejudice, rather than which Biblical rules we should still be following.

I know if you keep up the discourse, it will most likely ruffle your feathers (as your arguments will mine), but I'm slightly disappointed that you will be making yourself unavailable as a member of this discourse since you're probably the most conservative religious figure on the boards and would provide opinions that would otherwise not show up here.

But I see how it's easy to feel like you've taken on the role of punching bag when others don't take your side.

Professor S

06-05-2009, 04:18 PM

KillerGremlin

06-05-2009, 04:30 PM

If you read my post carefully, you would have found out that it was a way to protect women. Men could easily lie about their woman's virginity, that's why they got proof. You should read that bible passage, it's very clear.

I don't know how this protects the women. There is this underlying obsession with Virginity and Purity throughout the Bible and post-Christ literature and the punishments for not being pure are often barbaric (especially in Islamic nations). Most of this is directed at the women by the way. I don't know about you but I wouldn't stop loving someone if I found out their hymen wasn't intact or if they had past sexual encounters.

By the way I'm not picking on you or flaming you. I respect your beliefs and your right to practice them. I wish you luck on your quest to find a woman with her hymen intact. :D

KillerGremlin

06-05-2009, 04:35 PM

Also, there are a lot of arguments aginst gay marriage that are not religious based, but socially based. Basically they view traditional (one man/one woman) marriage/family as the foundation of civilization, and are concerned that to alter the traditional form of marriage may undermine that foundation. While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage. Their concerns are mainly based on conjecture based on "what might happen" and "society acceptance vs. governmental acceptance". It's an interesting and I think considerable argument when it comes to public policy, much more so than a biblical one that is ruled out because of theocratic implications, but in the end not the correct one, IMO.

What would happen if we allowed homosexual marriage? It wouldn't infringe of the rights of heterosexual marriage....gay couples could adopt kids desperately in need of families...it would stimulate the economy....

I can't really think of any cons.

Professor S

06-05-2009, 04:45 PM

What would happen if we allowed homosexual marriage? It wouldn't infringe of the rights of heterosexual marriage....gay couples could adopt kids desperately in need of families...it would stimulate the economy....

I can't really think of any cons.

The arguments revolve around gender confusion, devaluing man/woman marriage more than it's already been devalued, and much of it is based on the belief that sexuality is more based on choice than a inherent state of being.

There is some truth to the choice aspect and some data to back it up, but not for the majority of homosexuals. Most homos identify as being strictly homos. They are as they were born. Because quite honestly, if you realy had a choice why would you choose to be gay considering how they've been treated in the world?

Also, I think if sexuality is really a choice, we would see more fluxuations in the percentages of those who identify as gay, increasing as it has become more acceptable over time (some even think fashionable) and I haven't seen that in any data over the last 30-40 years.

EDIT: This is a pretty good debate on the subject from both sides, with the ever too rare reasoned response in opposition. A response I disagree with, but respect.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vTE9zWaQc_Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vTE9zWaQc_Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 04:48 PM

Dyflon, the correct response to ridicule or hateful/ignorant speech is not more hateful/ignorant speech. When we "respond in kind" we simply keep the cycle of unreasoning attacks going instead of talking to each other like human beings. Also, arguments based on ridicule do more damage because they attract the ignorant and emphasize ignorance, rather than promoting learned responses and socratic methodology.

Also, there are a lot of arguments aginst gay marriage that are not religious based, but socially based. Basically they view traditional (one man/one woman) marriage/family as the foundation of civilization, and are concerned that to alter the traditional form of marriage may undermine that foundation. While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage. Their concerns are mainly based on conjecture based on "what might happen" and "society acceptance vs. governmental acceptance". It's an interesting and I think considerable argument when it comes to public policy, much more so than a biblical one that is ruled out because of theocratic implications, but in the end not the correct one, IMO.

I feel like you're confusing satire with hateful and ignorant speech. And I don't mean this as a dig at you, but you've never seemed all that down with satire in my opinion. I agree with your points about the proper way to argue things but I feel that an absurdist approach to an absurd argument is sometimes necessary if only to make you laugh at the absurdity of it all. In essence, if people can gay-bash, light-hearted biblical fun-poking should also exist within our realm of discourse. I wouldn't use that video in any serious argument, and I don't think it's the serious argument that they're going for. And I feel like you're a wise enough person to not see it as a threat to reasoned argument.

The one man/one woman family societal stability argument can be seen as equally ludicrous as the biblical argument. The nuclear family is an invention of the 50's and 60's and it wasn't until then that this was talked about as "the traditional family unit".

Now, don't think I'm arguing that this model hasn't been the norm for centuries, because it has.

However, it hasn't been until recent centuries that polygamy has been outlawed and historically, polygamist marriages have been present all over the place (including the Bible). So it hasn't always been just one man/one woman.

The insecurity that a union between two members of the same sex could undermine the foundation of society just plain sounds silly. Think about it for a moment. Let's take our current society for example:

Now, imagine we live in a world exactly how it is. Except: gays can now marry. Let's follow the subsequent sequence of events.

1. Two dudes get married.
2. They continue living their lives as normal, having as much homosex as they please within the confines of their own private domestic life.
3. They open a bank account together and pool their incomes (not saying that they can't do this already)
4. They buy a house together and both get their names on the mortgage.
5. They live in their home together, enjoying the governmental advantages that hetero couples enjoy.
6. When one of them gets sick, the other visits their spouse in the hospital because they are family: which is the only thing they've even wished to be and thank God for gay marriage allowing that.

Alternate course: they have marriage troubles like everyone else at one point get divorced and look for love elsewhere.

So what here has toppled society?

I am going to sum up that foundation argument in three steps:

Step 1: Gays get married
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Society crumbles

Nothing in gay marriage inherently challenges societal stability.

While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage.

You're wrong here. In any argument that argues there is only one way things should be done, it's both an argument for that thing and an argument against the other.

Ex: Only white people should be allowed to exist because historically white people have the best civilization and it's been proven that they are the best kind of people.

Not only is that an argument based on no factual evidence (much like there is no evidence that gay marriage could not work) but it is discriminatory against other races.

But! It's okay. It's only an argument for why white people are better, not against any other type of people.

It doesn't matter that the one man/one woman marriage works historically. That's not the issue. Who cares if it works? It will keep going. Nothing is challenging that institution. The issue is about letting people who aren't fortunate enough to be born straight (irony), enjoy the same basic benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

I don't feel like that is a valid argument to discount gay marriage.

Professor S

06-05-2009, 05:04 PM

I feel like you're confusing satire with hateful and ignorant speech.

I think today most satirists have used satire as a means to propogate hateful and ignorant speech in order to get away with saying hateful and ignorant things. When you can laugh it off as "comedy", no one can call you out on your misinformation. Anyon who calls out the "satirist" is then accused of not having a sense of humor and their argument is dismissed.

To me, true satire is Orwell and Huxley who were both intellectually honest and creative, not some biased, spiteful bitch on YouTube who only has one goal: destroy the other side through ridicule and dismiss it as comedy.

You should Google the 13 Rules for Radicals, though. I think it helps explain where my side of the argument is coming from. I think there are a lot of those ideals hiding in today's version of "satire"

Step 1: Gays get married
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Society crumbles

Nothing in gay marriage inherently challenges societal stability.

I agree. :) I simply am willing to consider and respect the opposing view that has respect for mine. I'd encourage you to watch the video I posted if you haven't already. It's an example of respectful opposition.

You're wrong here. In any argument that argues there is only one way things should be done, it's both an argument for that thing and an argument against the other.

I know, we agree completey. :) Thats exactly what I was pointing out. The fact that there is history that one man/one woman marriage has been successful does not conclude that gay marriage would be unsuccessful. It's never been tried so we don't know, and I'm not willing keep people from marrying based on an argument that uses the unknown as it's foundation. Thats the main reason why I am for gay marriage and would vote for it in my state.

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 05:05 PM

Thoughts on the Prager argument as I watch it:

I find that too often people hide behind the word marriage as a way to deny gays the right to union. It wouldn't alter the world in any way to change the definition to 'a union between two people'.

And nobody would EVER have to ask a child if they were going to marry a boy or a girl. That doesn't make sense. Most kids aren't even aware of their sexual orientation at a young age (though there are some who are).

Oh man...this guy is sexist too...but then his sex argument doesn't make sense. All he's saying is men and women are different. But what does that matter?

Prager's arguments didn't make any sense and didn't address the issue of equality. However he established in the end that men should be allowed to exclude women and vise versa. So I don't feel he argued anything intelligible.

Dylflon

06-05-2009, 05:09 PM

Well I'm glad to hear that, Professor.

However, I'm interested in hearing where the misinformation is coming from in that video as I am not too well versed in the bible. I'd agree to an oversimplification of matters being present.

But I guess my question is: where does comedy become not okay in the matter of exploring an issue? I don't feel like that video has the capacity to hurt anyone.

And I am of course speaking of a specific circumstance, not arguing that fact omission is an acceptable practice in debate or that flat out mockery is either when it comes to dealing with a subject fairly.

Professor S

06-05-2009, 05:19 PM

However, I'm interested in hearing where the misinformation is coming from in that video as I am not too well versed in the bible. I'd agree to an oversimplification of matters being present.

I suppose that comes down to whether or not you feel the oversimplifcation (and complete misunderstanding, quite honestly) is purposeful, meant to argue a point of view instead of get a laugh, and if so, if facts are purposely omitted because they do not fit in with their point of view.

Also, if a "comedy" show regularly gets as much applause for their political satire as laughs, I think there is a problem. The correct response for humor is laughter. The correct response to someone espousing favorable beliefs is applause.

But I guess my question is: where does comedy become not okay in the matter of exploring an issue? I don't feel like that video has the capacity to hurt anyone.

Hurt? No, not anyone's feelings, but it completely misinterprets and misinforms biblical text. I explained this a little bit in the first part.

Also, as a comedian, I think once you enter the realm of real ideas, ou can absolutely use humor to illustrate your point of view. But I also think there needs to be a little intellectual honesty present, and also, if you enter the realm of ideas those who respond back to those ideas should not be dismissed as "humorless" when we are simply approaching an argument on the rhetor's terms.

Moreover, my specific complaint is that I think satire/ridicule is being usedvery heavily as a political tool for the specific reason it is nearly impossible to respond to because the audience doesn't respect the counterargument because the original argument "was just a joke".

So it always ends as a one sided debate. I hate those, as anyone knows who posts here. I love a good argument. :)

Professor S

06-05-2009, 05:31 PM

And nobody would EVER have to ask a child if they were going to marry a boy or a girl. That doesn't make sense. Most kids aren't even aware of their sexual orientation at a young age (though there are some who are).

Well, thats not necessarily true. We don't know. His expanded concern is having gender confusion as a part of sex education in pulic schools and their effects. I don't agree with him, but I can see what he's saying from his perspective of sexuality being fluid and not fixed. Thts the real lynch pin in both persepectives, IMO.

Oh man...this guy is sexist too...but then his sex argument doesn't make sense. All he's saying is men and women are different. But what does that matter?

I listen to him pretty regularly, and he is not a sexist by any means, he simply recognizes the inherent differences and his tagline is "equality does not mean the same"

Well, in respect to his opinion, he believes that the male, female dichotomy is the best environemnt for raising a child, and the male/male and female/female aren't bad, but they're not the ideal, and society should encourage the ideal. I understand his opinion and even agree that in an ideal world male/female is likely the ideal to raise a child, but this is not an ideal world and if abusive assholes can get married and have kids, so should a healthy gay couple who will likely raise the child much better.

Prager's arguments didn't make any sense and didn't address the issue of equality. However he established in the end that men should be allowed to exclude women and vise versa. So I don't feel he argued anything intelligible.

In defense of the reasoning of his argument argument, he doesn't believe that a name is a barometer of equality, pragmatic rights are. Myself, I think the marriage issue us too often used as a wall or separation instead of a positive establishment for all people.

If you want to make anything stronger, you don't do so by excluding people, you invite them in.

KillerGremlin

06-11-2009, 03:09 PM

I thought the debate was surprisingly mature, it was pretty good. I think Prager was stretching his argument a bit though and at the end he and Perez both agreed that gay couples should be afforded equal rights.

I think it's an interesting argument, mothers can provide things fathers cannot, and vice versa. I don't think it is sexist, but definitely dated. Nowadays both parents are capable of working or staying at home, and roles are no longer assigned to a single gender. Some longitudinal studies that show that homosexual couples can raise normal children would help argue against the ideal "male/female" parent that we have decided is the social norm.

Also, the "ideal" 1 male/1 female aka mommy/daddy is a somewhat modern standard for raising families. No? I thought anthropologists and biologists pegged us and our distant ancestors as being polygamous.

As far as gender confusion or sexual confusion....4th and 5th graders should just be taught basic sexual mechanics. This is a penis, this is a vagina, masturbation is normal, etc. You don't need to really delve into the social dimension of sexuality. But certainly by middle school I think children should get the full rundown with sex education. By then you're not going to "change" a kid's sexual orientation. Trust me. In 2nd grade I wanted to TF my sweet teacher's rack. Same with my 3rd and 4th grade teachers...then in 5th grade I got this fat loser guy teacher. I think most kids are aware (to an extent) of their sexuality. The sooner you teach kids about sex education, the sooner they can become comfortable with their sexuality. If kids aren't comfortable with sexuality it can lead to risky sexual behavior, low self esteem, and other problems. But this is a whole different discussion. The point is I think sexuality is fairly concrete by the age of 8 or 9 at the latest...but I have always felt it is mostly biological so most people are either born hetero or homo.

Teuthida

06-13-2009, 02:15 AM

I was just reading about an upgrade to a MMORPG I used to play a few years ago. This caught my eye:

In Version 13, FlyFF adds yet another reason why two heads are better than one, and it’s called the Couple System. Two player characters of opposite sex can choose to become a “couple” by mutual agreement. Once these two characters form that bond, let no one tear it asunder. Player characters that have entered into such a partnership will receive special benefits and bonuses as a result of their commitment. The more the “couples” play together, the stronger the bond becomes. The longer the relationship lasts the greater the rewards received.

DimHalo

06-13-2009, 12:46 PM

I have so many thoughts on this issue. However, I have never been great at arguing and discourse. So bear with me:

1. In thoughts against gay marriage, it seems as though the problem lies in deciding what the "ideal" family is. Ideal families have changed countless ways over the thousands of years civilization has existed. An ideal family used to be a "white" man and a "white" women who were born into wealth. We know that this is not necessarily the case anymore. Aside from religious aspects (which I know started this), who is to say that a marriage between two women (regardless of race and societal standing) could not be successful.

Just an example (strictly from my own experiences): My mom has been married 3 times to men and none of those marriages worked out. My friends, two women, have been together for 18 years. They own a house and a business together and they have adopted two great children. But, if one of them gets sick and has to go to the hospital. The other has to call in "reinforcements" from her partner's family in order to see her. My mom's longest marriage lasted 16 years in which time her husband cheated on her with several different women and threatened to kill her. But they would be able to see each other in the hospital still, even after separating.

This just does not seem logical to me.

2. On the topic of teaching kids about sexuality: This is such a hard subject for me to think about. I am very traditional in many ways. I am Catholic and love the teachings of the church, yet I am in a gay relationship which I do not plan on leaving any time soon. When it comes to children, though, I am constantly trying to maintain children's innocence. Kids are much more sexually aware than they ever used to be. Because of that, they need to be informed. There are limits to what they can absorb and understand. It is a subject that needs to be broached carefully. I think that there is a lot of damage control that needs to be done first. I work at a middle school and some of the students are completely ignorant of what it really means to be homosexual. They use gay slurs and laugh it off as nothing. They think that there is only one way to have a relationship and that involves a boy and a girl who spend time talking/texting and/or having sex. Their ideas of relationships are completely skewed. I do what I can to inform them of other ideas, but I only see them a couple of times a day.

The idea of gender confusion can not be introduced until kids have a better understanding of sexuality in gender. Luckily, there are many positive role models in the media. But there are also still a lot of negative role models.

For example: My students find Lindsey Lohan to be completely screwed up. I asked them one time why they don't like her. The answers were that she messed up her life with drugs and alcohol. (Basically what they've gotten from the media) Ok, so they don't like her because she had a rough time with drugs and alcohol. But then, Lindsey comes out and dates girls. So my students wrap that up as part of her "rough" time. I am not someone to say that it is or isn't. The point is, they just don't get it.

Well, now I've completely fallen off my train of thought. So in summary, I should be able to get married regardless of who I have fallen in love with. If the pastor at the Methodist church (my Catholic church definitely would not) agrees to marry my girlfriend and I, why shouldn't the government recognize it. When I have a child, I want my partner to have the exact same legal rights to help me raise him/her. If my partner gets sick, I want to be able to spend endless hours in her hospital room to support her. I don't want to worry about how my partner is going to get medical and dental benefits because I can not cover her under my plan (it states I can put dependents and spouses on it). The government has said that she is not my spouse so we are stuck with her not having any medical insurance. As of right now, the best I can do is to die so that she gets my life insurance and my retirement money.