Divided over gay marriage

LA Times ^ | March 12, 04 | Roy Rivenburg

[churchillbuff]

From LA Times of March 12: ...

"Divided over gay marriage" by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[freedumb2003]

If you married more than one parrot, would that be polypollyamory?

And if his name was Paul and he played against Karch Kiraly would that make him a "Volleyball Pauli polypollyamory" and if he had lassie as a dog would that make it "Volleyball Pauli polypollyamory collie?"

[Kerberos]

"However, Christianity is not Judaism, and Jesus did not approve of polygamy"

Now wait, see here is the part where I get confused. It is my understanding that the Christian belief is that the bible is the inerrant word of God. But now you tell me that Jesus changed that, so if that is true then the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God because if Jesus had to change it that would mean it wasn’t right in the first place..

So since the Old Testament is Judaism and the New Testament is Christianity does that mean that the 10 commandments no longer apply. And then didn't Jesus say that he came not to replace the law but to fulfill it. But yet you are telling me that he changed it.

Can you see the cause of my confusion?

"Therefore....The Post-Christian West"

Which, as per your explanation on this one topic, would be equivalent to the Pre-Christian East.

[Siamese Princess]

ugly bump - - - she looks like a female trotsky or one of the other bolshevik revolutionaries of 1917; she's with them in spirit, that's for sure - wanting to tear down and destroy civilization and shake her fist at God.

After the Communists took control in 1917 they encouraged "free love" -- promiscuity, easy divorce and legalized homosexuality and abortion. There even was serious talk of abolishing marriage itself. The social costs of family breakdown were so great (the collapse of the birthrate and children growing up to be feral beasts) that beginning about 1927 the Communists began to backtrack -- they outlawed homosexuality, restricted access to abortion, and denounced "free love" as a bourgeous invention. By WWII, the Soviet Union was an outwardly puritanical country and remained so until at least Gorbachev and perestroika.

What strikes me that even the evil Communists quickly realized the importance of a strong family and reversed course. In today's society, the obvious costs of family breakdown are widely met with a shrug, government subsidy in an attempt the rectify the damage and new laws actually codifying moral decay.

[metesky]

Polly Amory?

I went out with her in high school.

And so did the rest of the team.

[metesky]

It will all add up to the death of civilization.

Not if we k, uh... never mind.

[metesky]

Original title: Divided over gay marriage

Original titles are required.

Please change the title to the original.

[ladylib]

Sure, why not?

[raloxk]

Duh?

What do you expect. American Constitution History is full if slipperly slopes. Roe v Wade didnt occur overnight, it began with Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.

[rintense]

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights.

And there you have it. It all boils down to money.

[xzins]

Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed. Or, stated differently...if thing A is changed in favor of thing B, then thing A must have been flawed. Two issues that come immediately to my mind are: 1. What if your thing A has been changed by someone else into thing A₁, so that it isn't really the thing A that you proposed? 2. Is an update, based on a new stage of a staged process, indicative of flaws in thing A, or is it based on advances getting us to thing B?

[Kerberos]

"Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed."

Only when the attribute of inerrant in assigned to thing A. That would be akin to what the framers tried to claim in the DOI, that there were going to create a more "perfect" union.

[xzins]

If the attribute of perfection is ascribed to thing A, then one must be sure to understand clearly the original thing A and not a subsequent misunderstanding of thing A. Thing A₁ is not thing A.

Jesus clearly says that monogamy is the original "thing A."

The fact that stories are recounted of those who practiced a thing A₁ AND who were considered acceptable to God, does not mean that God did any more than allow a relationship with those who did less than his original intent. Moses murdered a man, but God still had a relationship with him. Does that indicate God's approval of murder? Hardly, because God used the very same Moses to relay the command that says, "Thou shalt not murder."

It indicates a willingness on God's part to be both merciful and to work with the material at hand.

[metesky]

The Declaration of Independence never claims that they are trying to form "a more perfect union". Why would they do that when the Founders were intent on disunion from Britain?

You are thinking of the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Kerberos]

You're right, my mistake.

[metesky]

You're right, my mistake.

Man, if I had a nickle for every one of mine...

[narses]

I hope not, but I think so, if you get my meaning.

[narses]

TV has never been big in my life. He sounds funny, in a british kinda way.

[Kerberos]

You frame your arguments well, so let us continue.

“Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed. Or, stated differently...if thing A is changed in favor of thing B, then thing A must have been flawed.”

No, not flawed, but not perfect, the item that immediately comes to mind is the soap commercials of many, many years, “: New and improved.,” allegedly the soap worked, but now it will work better. If you have something that is working correctly then there is no need to change it, to do so would be foolish. One looks to change something when they see there would be a benefit from doing so, thereby justifying the cost involvement. Or to rely on a cliché, “Necessity is the Mother of Invention.”

But I will accept your argument, as it relates to Solomon and his many wives that perhaps God was in a good mood that day and decided to show forgiveness this time. Forgiveness is a product of compassion and compassion is a product of love. So if the premise is that God is perfect, love has to be an attribute of God. But that brings me to my next question that maybe you can help with.

Theology starts from the premise that God is perfect, which makes sense in that who is going to worship a God that makes mistakes. But then God tells us early on in the Bible that he is a jealous God, and we can see from further text that when his jealousy is aroused he can be very quick to anger and go on a extensive killing spree. I mean the guy readily becomes homicidal.

Now jealousy is thought to be a defect in character and possibly even a psychiatric disorder when it becomes real serious. It is usually the result of a low sense of self-esteem or a sense of not being worthy of love. So that in severe cases the afflicted person will try to entrap someone by getting him or her to say they love them and then the afflicted person will continuously look for ways in which they can prove that the other person is lying, thereby reconfirming their original notion that they are not worthy of love. This can often be part of the basis of an abusive relationship that women get into which results in their being beaten and sometimes murdered.

And anger, which God is very prone to, is nothing more than fear trying to pass itself off as something else.

So I am having a problem with reconciling a God that is thought to be perfect who suffers from an emotional disorder.