Pseudo-POL: "Gays and lesbians"

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up!

So you're claiming that marriage did not exist before Christianity except for the Jews? You don't think the Greeks, the Egyptians, the various Pagans beforehand had marriage?

You know. I usually give you the benefit of doubt over guys like PSU, etc. But come on now.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by path12

Well, that's what I originally thought.....but that strikes me as an 'equal right' rather than a 'special right', though I could be wrong. I also thought that maybe it would involve being able to get information about a partner in the hospital or something like that......but that seems an 'equal right' also.

I'm just damn confused.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up!

Not only the jews, though.

In Asia alone, China has had wedding ceremonies and betrothals documented by scholars from up to 400 BC.

So it traces its root farther back than its religious implications, and would trace its roots back to political and social reasons. The strengthening and protecting of one family's assets and land through pre-birth betrothals.

So, it's definitely not based on religion, but more on customs and rituals. The religious aspect merely came after.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?

Couldn't it be argued much easier that Straight People are the ones getting "Special Rights" in most of your examples?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

His point is that marriage existed outside the Judeo-Christian envelope long ago.

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

[Kodos]

Why should straight people get the "special right" to get married, while your standard gay person does not get that right?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Couldn't it be argued much easier that Straight People are the ones getting "Special Rights" in most of your examples?

So now instead of 'equal' your talking about 'compensating?" That would be 'special."

[path12]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?

Man, I don't know what else they could want other than that. Maybe some sort of way to form a partnership in the legal sense. Hmmm.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

Who gives a shit?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

The good old fashioned argument switch.

First it was "it's only a law because it was for the Christians cause it started in the Bible"..

We proved that wrong.

Now it's "it was always between man and woman"

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

And this is perhaps why gays and lesbians also want to take part in the ceremony and tradition of marriage. Why can't they celebrate their union, if their feelings are true? Because the bible, or tradition say that it's wrong? If they aren't hurting anyone, then why can't they go through the same traditions that everyone else of non-homosexual orientation do?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by path12

Man, I don't know what else they could want other than that. Maybe some sort of way to form a partnership in the legal sense. Hmmm.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

[path12]

Originally Posted by wade moore

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

It's a little known footnote of history that Benjamin Franklin was briefly wed to a water buffalo known simply as "Mabel". This was around the time of Poor Richard's Almanac, which was originally called Poor Mabel's Almanac until the story broke and he was forced into both divorce and a title change.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights

Tradition is a piss poor excuse for continued stupidity.


P.S Also, homosexual relations were fairly common in ancient Rome - hell, the Emperor Nero may have married a man. That's not my plank, but lets not pretend being gay is anything new.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

But most states don't allow civil unions for gay people. And we'll have to disagree on your definition of acceptance.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by wade moore

The good old fashioned argument switch.

First it was "it's only a law because it was for the Christians cause it started in the Bible"..

We proved that wrong.

Now it's "it was always between man and woman"

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

There have been same-sex marriages/unions in pre-modern China, as well. Specifically in the Fujian region, where younger males are taken as sworn brothers of older males and those who espouse feelings for each other may share the same bed in such a union.

[Crapshoot]

Yup, like I pointed out earlier. Ancient China, Ancient Rome, and a bunch of other places - homosexuality is nothing new.

[Neon_Chaos]

Since I'm not American, do homosexual civil unions in the United States receive the same tax deductions, exemptions, and priveledges as heterosexual married couples do?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights

Tradition is a piss poor excuse for continued stupidity.


P.S Also, homosexual relations were fairly common in ancient Rome - hell, the Emperor Nero may have married a man. That's not my plank, but lets not pretend being gay is anything new.

Wrong on all counts. Because Paul talks about the priority of Christ and the temporary nature of this life in comparison to the next, it is often taken by those like yourself as justification of slavery, etc., when its not.

Your points are always made by those that never mention it was fundemental, bible-believing Abolishionists from New England that lead to emancipation.

[Toddzilla]

If you notice, nothing Bubba ever says is backed up by anything credible or relevant. It's always "I heard of this somewhere"" or "I read that somewhere". Waiting for Bubba to either back one of his insane statements with facts or say something not culled from The Bible, Conservative Talk Radio, or his ass, you're wasting your time.

Please, Bubba, unplug your internets and go back under your rock.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Since I'm not American, do homosexual civil unions in the United States receive the same tax deductions, exemptions, and priveledges as heterosexual married couples do?

Married couples in America actually pay more in taxes than individuals making the same amount living together in one household not married. They call it the 'marriage penalty.'

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

If you notice, nothing Bubba ever says is backed up by anything credible or relevant. It's always "I heard of this somewhere"" or "I read that somewhere". Waiting for Bubba to either back one of his insane statements with facts or say something not culled from The Bible, Conservative Talk Radio, or his ass, you're wasting your time.

Please, Bubba, unplug your internets and go back under your rock.

Free speech, pain isn't it?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Wrong on all counts.

Case in point. Crapshoot is actually 100% right - the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage, and now to argue against equal rights for homosexuals. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue. Just saying "No it doesn't" isn't an arguement, it's a reaction. I'll be happy to - if Crapshoot isn't - to provide evidence of his statement. You couldn't possibly be able to prove otherwise.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

There have been same-sex marriages/unions in pre-modern China, as well. Specifically in the Fujian region, where younger males are taken as sworn brothers of older males and those who espouse feelings for each other may share the same bed in such a union.

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Case in point. Crapshoot is actually 100% right - the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage, and now to argue against equal rights for homosexuals. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue. Just saying "No it doesn't" isn't an arguement, it's a reaction. I'll be happy to - if Crapshoot isn't - to provide evidence of his statement. You couldn't possibly be able to prove otherwise.

Where does it say that? After all, your the one for 'credible sources' right?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Free speech, pain isn't it?

Given your track record, I actually think you're being serious, knowing how you dislike truly free speech. The pain in this case however is you.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

It's actually kind of amusing that with all this practice your attempts at humor/deflection/misdirection (speaking in general, not just for this comment) are still as poor as they are.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

What part of "pre-modern China" did you not understand?

[Schmidty]

As far as the original question: I have no idea.

As far as the rest of thread (I assume): Why can't people just be nice to each other? No, I'm not talking about debates and such, but why can't we just disagree with certain people's lifestyles, but still treat them like people and with respect, especially if what they do is (secularly) harmless, and they pay their taxes and are citizens? Privately ministering or discussing is one thing, but attaching bias and religion to politics and laws, is dangerous, even to Christians.

That's all I have to say.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Travis

It's actually kind of amusing that with all this practice your attempts at humor/deflection/misdirection (speaking in general, not just for this comment) are still as poor as they are.

And you are, of course, quite the expert on that.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

The one-child policy was only enforced in China when Mao Ze Dong and the communists took over in the '50's.

That is an ignorant statement, Bubba, and perhaps explains a lot why you hold the beliefs that you do.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Where does it say that? After all, your the one for 'credible sources' right?

Sometimes, it's just too easy. Google search, "Bible" + "slavery", first link: hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

There are 3-5 examples of people using the Bible to justify slavery. I'll leave ir as a trivial example to research the rest.

[ThunderingHERD]

this is hilarious.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Sometimes, it's just too easy. Google search, "Bible" + "slavery", first link: hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm



There are 3-5 examples of people using the Bible to justify slavery. I'll leave ir as a trivial example to research the rest.

Good job, you've managed to google someone else's opinion on the subject instead of a real source. Thanks, we are short of opinions here as it is.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, it was fun. Between this and playing chess on Yahoo dinner comes pretty quick. Feel free to continue without me.

[sabotai]

Seriously, why do you guys even try anymore? It just leads down the same road each and every time.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Not really looking to start anything here, as my tongue is firmly in its cheek (hence the "Psuedo"), but this is prompted by a quote I read from Senator Obama regarding today's judicial confirmation:


So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?

Or perhaps the other way around?

It's politically standard to address the two as separate (at least among those that respect the two). There are some on both sides that feel quite strongly about the differences in the struggles they face and think that a single umbrella term trivializes who they really are. Obama's just acknowledging that here. I personally agree though, it sounds a little funny if you're not coming from that perspective.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, it was fun. Between this and playing chess on Yahoo dinner comes pretty quick. Feel free to continue without me.

Is making an ass of yourself really fun? Is it like your version of self-flagellation or something?

[Pumpy Tudors]

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

It's politically standard to address the two as separate (at least among those that respect the two). There are some on both sides that feel quite strongly about the differences in the struggles they face and think that a single umbrella term trivializes who they really are. Obama's just acknowledging that here. I personally agree though, it sounds a little funny if you're not coming from that perspective.

That's good answer to the original question. I think that there was always a distinction made between gay males and lesbians in the popular media. On this point, I learned to associate (wrongly or not) gay = homesexual male, and lesbian = homosexual female.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Good job, you've managed to google someone else's opinion on the subject instead of a real source. Thanks, we are short of opinions here as it is.

What color is the sky in your world?

Toddzilla stated that "the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage";

I'm not sure if you were intentionally misdirecting the argument to ask for proof that the bible justifies these things or if you simply didn't get what he was saying (that people have used the bible to justify those things), but your response was "Where does it say that?" (underline my addition for emphasis).

Todd then responded with multiple examples proving his point, and your response proved you didn't understand his point to begin with (or were intentionally trying to misdirect to try to avoid being proven wrong yet again).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by path12

But most states don't allow civil unions for gay people. And we'll have to disagree on your definition of acceptance.

Well, against my better judgement I'll wade in here again...

I think one view could be that if the gov't allows/legalizes gay marriage, then it is in effect condoning or otherwise legitimizing it. Liken it to one of the arguments against legalizing recreational drugs. It loses its stigma, and a larger part of the society accepts it (this can of course be used as an argument for it too, that the stigma just shouldn't be there).

The problem is, the more legitimate it becomes the harder it is to argue against it being morally questionable/sinful...it knocks another peg out from under the religion from a societal standpoint. Kids for instance - they grow up in a society where something is now generally accepted. At the same time, this religion over here is saying it is wrong? Well, how can that be? Heck, it's not even adultery - they're married! Must be some sort of antiquated (goofball, even) group. I certainly don't want to be associated with those crackpots. Of course, the church *itself* might also change its views (some have been known to do that), which then leaves the followers that were using the church as the basis of their argument out in the cold.

(bah, maybe none of that makes any sense)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Married couples in America actually pay more in taxes than individuals making the same amount living together in one household not married. They call it the 'marriage penalty.'

Sadly your ignorance grows steadily.

There is no "marriage penalty" and in fact changes to the IRS tax code as much as 6-8 years ago changed deductions to the point that married people filing seperately OR jointly share an equal tax burden with their single unmarried counterparts.

The only true advantage in taxation in this nation is having children.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm never quite sure with Flasch...

well, a 2% thought that it could happen at any time, but a joke it was.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

There have definitely been times where I've felt that Bubba Wheels gets baited in these arguments and gets bashed before deserved, but this isn't one of those times to me. Starting with the claim that these crazy flaming liberals want "special rights" for gay people... like marriage and the legal protections it affords, and then trying to compare the discrimination and hate crimes that gay people face to the "persecution" of Christians in the US, I'd say the Bubba bashing is well deserved here!

As he usually does, Jon Stewart puts the proper light on this one in my mind:
“Does anyone know...does the Christian persecution complex have an expiration date? Because...uh...you've all been in charge pretty much since...uh...what was that guys name...Constantine. He converted in, what was it, 312 A.D. I'm just saying, enjoy your success.”


At the same time, if there are people out there showing their contempt for the religious right and/or the Bush Administration by burning down churches, those people need to be put in jail. That's not ok. Just in case that wasn't clear, I'm pretty sure its possible to believe that all human beings, including gay ones, should be afforded the same legal rights, and at the same feel like burning down a church is a bad idea. Somehow a page into these threads it seems like you have to either enjoy the occasional same sex romp or you support the murder of religious people, and that there's no in between.

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after.

Look no further than the name of the second poster and you shall find the answers you seek.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

/... and your response proved you didn't understand his point to begin with (or were intentionally trying to misdirect to try to avoid being proven wrong yet again).

That is Bubba's standard operating procedure, I'm afraid. Thanks for looking out

[miked]

Why is something with a 50% failure rate so protected in this country? Somebody had an article on CNN today about the poor state of marriage (I think it's actually over 50% divorce rate). So why can't gay people join in, maybe it will make the numbers better?

The same people who don't wany gay couples to be legally empowered are the same ones that say gay parents adopting a child will turn him/her gay and make everything worse. Sick times.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after.

In retrospect, had I known Bubba Wheels wasn't already banned, I might have just chuckled to myself instead of posting that.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

What is the "label" civil union ok, but the "label" marriage not, when they are the same thing?

Personally, I think we should throw the concept of marriage out from a legal standpoint. Of course, the fight over gays getting married is kind of a joke with divorcee rates and ease of it.

Who cares about how other people live their lives.