The proponents of so-called “gay-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “marital,” the other “non-marital,” be collapsed into one another. To paraphrase Aristotle, it was as if they insisted on describing the conclusions of mathematics in terms of “virtue” and “vice,” “justice” and “injustice,” and ethics in terms of “axioms” and “proofs.”
In short, the proponents of “gay marriage” claim a “right” to a contradiction in terms: “same-sex unions” simply cannot be marital. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of “same-sex marriage” is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of marriage, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it.
Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8. In response to the outrageous manner in which members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) have been treated, it would be something like poetic justice if they would now assert their “right” to marry whomever and how many ever people they wanted to marry. While our society judges polygamy an undesirable marital arrangement, unlike homosexual “unions,” at least polygamy is a form of marriage.
46 comments
it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it.
So basically you cant name a single valid reason? fucking mormons,they can go marry as many people as they want for all I care, hell they can even have some good old fashioned mormon teenage sex slaves for 'wives', just leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
"(...) marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history (...)"
Well, I'll give Jack credit for at least admitting that much about marriage. Most everyone else who plays the "gay people want to re-define what marriage is" card seem to suggest that marriage hasn't been re-defined at all since Jesus was in diapers.
As for Jack's post, I'll give it a 3.
He dances around saying it without actually doing so, but I think the reason why same-sex marriages can't be "marital" is because children can't come about as a result of the sex act itself.
If that's the case, then, shouldn't he also be advocating against allowing infertile couples and/or senior citizens getting married?
But, once you've been married long enough, all sex is the same sex...
Consent between two adults is the phrase you're looking for. Another would be all the benefits and advantages decreed by the state and society upon the two when they marry.
You simply will not find those phrases grubbing around the detritus of your belly button.
And Prop 8 is unconstitutional, no matter who and what institution supports it.
He dances around saying it without actually doing so, but I think the reason why same-sex marriages can't be "marital" is because children can't come about as a result of the sex act itself.
and all their blathering about the need to reproduce is just another way to dance around the real reason behind every single opponent of gay marriage: Their fucking fags man! buttsex! gross!
Uh, Mormons, at least the majority LDS church, banned polygamy in 1890. So it's not really relevant, as everything else in your post is not relevant, at least to reality.
Efrain: *raises hand*
Dance, dance, sound smart, cite important people, say nothing at all. Typical.
And just for the record, consenting adults wanting to get into polyamorous relationships? Fine by me. Carry on.
LDS is a bunch of ignorant morons who fell for a scam invented by a guy named Smith, a common criminal.
Why not just listen to Charles Manson? He is about as sane as LDS members are.
The anti-gay so-called "Americans" demand not merely a redefinition of America, they they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “free,” the other “non-free,” be collapsed into one another.
In short, the proponents of "traditional America" claim a "right" to a contradiction in terms : to impose their religion on everyone else, and at the same time, proclaim there is freedom of religion. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of "traditional values" is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of America, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognise the comparison is utter crap, except for fundies, whos thinking abilities are also utter crap.
1. Who ordered all this word salad?
2. Quotation marks DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
3. Quotation marks do not mean what you think they mean.
Start with the conclusion, find 2 or 3 'reasons' that support it, repeat them each a few times, and voila! Une bonne salade des mots!
"Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8."
Nope.
Mormons poured in lots of dollars into an issue that isn't their business. That's why they get flack.
Do you drink coffee? Mormons hate you for that.
"The proponents of so-called “mixed-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “white,” the other “negro,” be collapsed into one another."
Same morons, 1950.
I always thought that, for the civil rights and the basic public life, there were two components, the civil one(you know, alimony, protection from the state, etc............)and the religious personal one. So?, your point?(and in this sense it does collide against polygamy because the state can't guarantee the same protection to the eight wives who are not likely to be treated in the same category as just one)
I worked with a Mormon, once. Wouldn't drink tea or coffee, no mind-altering substances at all. Drank a lot of soup. Left us to work in PR for a cigarette manufacturer. Didn't see anything peculiar about that.
"Fuck me!" we said.
fergus
So...why SHOULDN'T gays be allowed to marry in a legal sense? Legal, I say, not religious. I will fight with many others to defend a church's right to disallow homosexual ceremonies, distasteful though I find it. But the religious definition is independent of the legal one. A church, a priest, God...none of that is required to be married, as evidenced by many, many married atheists. So...tell me. Other than you stomping your feet, shrieking "ICKY, ICKY, ICKY!" why is gay marriage bad/wrong?
well, you see Jackie boy, by redefining marriage, they would no longer be 'marital' and 'non-marital' but both marital. so yes, Jack, it is a redefinition, just like every other time in history.
Okay, weeding out this word salad here's what we get:
Marriage has been redefined over the years, yet homosexual marriage cannot exist as it's been classified as "non-marital" by, well, us, just like many years ago interracial marriage was classified as "non-marital" by much of the population.
Homosexuals seek to redefine the definition of marriage! (Which I mentioned before has been redefined over and there's nothing wrong with that) Of course race has nothing to do with it's definition, seeing as how it was changed so race would have nothing to do with it.
Mormons are victims because people disagree with their interference in affairs that don't concern them. Although many gays in the denomination have been abused and defamed to the point of suicide, the biggest atrocity is the washable graffiti on their churches. It's okay if the holy sanctity of marriage can be used to better engage in lustful sex with as many women as one wants, but two of the same gender who actually love each other greatly perverts it. I believe the sacred bond of marriage is an appropriate tool when it comes to playing the field. When it comes to intimate love if two men or two women share it, nah.
Summarize it even more and you get:
Apparantly the regulations governing how marriage should be defined are determined by it's history of redefinitions, even though that never was the basis when marriage was redefined throughout history.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.