Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Asher]

The legalization was the redefinition as the opponents of gay marriage saw it.

Is this going to be your retort everytime people say something you dislike? Should I prepare myself for more 3rd grade wit?

You're being incredibly dense and disingenuous. You're pretending like Prop 8 wasn't a redefinition to the status quo at the time in California (when gay marriage was legal). You're pretending like the process of amending state constitutions isn't a lot of work. If you don't like the retort, then don't take pages out of Ben's playbook.

How could anyone say the efforts to outlaw gay marriage is taking "no real work"? You're just as delusional as Ben, here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is there anything that you're NOT ignorant in?? Because it seems that in addition to many other topics, you're also ignorant about history.

Wilson did not give a **** about sovereignty and autonomy for non-European peoples. He was a racist through and through, who introduced forced segregation in the federal workforce.

His so-called ideal of national independence for ethnic groups who lived under an imperial government applied only insofar to European (white) populations. This led to the Balkanization of southeastern Europe, for example, after World War I with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

But Wilson never cared to pressure Great Britain, France, Portugal, and other European powers to grant independence to peoples in Africa, India, and east Asia. As far as I'm concerned, Wilson's racist disregard for peoples around the world undid any claim for any sincerity in so-called "democracy" and "self-deterimination."

So you are arguing that Bush is MORE LIBERAL then Wilson? Great. That just reinforces my argument that the US is even less imperialist then I said, in that they believe self determination extends to everybody.

[Berzerker]

DinoDoc is taking a massive page out of Ben's books by being disingenuous. Is this contagious on Apolyton, or in Christianity as a whole?

This is why I dont take yer accusations of deceit seriously

[DinoDoc]

How could anyone say the efforts to outlaw gay marriage is taking "no real work"?

That's not what you said though. I'd probably agree with you here. It's cute though how you think I care about your opinion though.

[Ben Kenobi]

You do realize that the USofA is actually going through excessive amounts of work just to redefine marriage to specifically exclude gays?

They said no once, they went ahead and did it anyways. So they said no again, and this time it will stick. The only ones redefining anything are the gay folks who don't believe in marriage anyways.

What you are calling a 'redefinition' is the same as 'restoration', as in the restoration of the monarchy, and the restoration of the traditional definition of marriage.

[Asher]

That's not what you said though. I'd probably agree with you here. It's cute though how you think I care about your opinion though.

The redefinition occured quite awhile ago and required no real work on thier part.

Honesty, it should be your policy.

[Asher]

They said no once, they went ahead and did it anyways. So they said no again, and this time it will stick. The only ones redefining anything are the gay folks who don't believe in marriage anyways.

What you are calling a 'redefinition' is the same as 'restoration', as in the restoration of the monarchy, and the restoration of the traditional definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage at the time of Prop 8 was between two individuals. It was Prop 8 that redefined that to be "between one man and one woman". It changed the status quo through tremendous effort by bigots and homophobes alike, pretending otherwise is ridiculously stupid.

[Asher]

This is why I dont take yer accusations of deceit seriously

That's nice, dear. DinoDoc is being sleazy here and pretending like the status quo at the time of Prop8 was NOT having legal gay marriages. He's being sleazy here and pretending like it was NOT a lot of work to redefine marriage in California to eliminate the possibility for gays to marry, as was the status quo.

It's deceit, or rampant stupidity. I don't think DinoDoc is stupid. If it's not deceit, then you must think he's stupid?

[Berzerker]

So you are arguing that Bush is MORE LIBERAL then Wilson? Great. That just reinforces my argument that the US is even less imperialist then I said, in that they believe self determination extends to everybody.

We dont believe in self determination, thats just an excuse we use when we dont like some foreign govt that aint letting us or our corporations loot the place for resources.



Oh man, I'm watching the Pebble Beach Pro-Am and its NASTY in Monterrey. I feel sorry for those guys, winds are gusting up to 35-40 coming in off the ocean. I suppose their storm will be sweeping across the country in the next few days and hitting the Midwest with major snow.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like what? You said divorce had to do with this essence.

Yes, because the essence of marriage is this bond, breaking the bond destroys marriage in it's essence.

Adultery is a rejection of the marriage commitment, divorce announces the end of the commitment. Neither is related to the essence of marriage.

You only bond with one person at a time. If you commit adultery then you are tearing that bond apart. This is why adultery destroys the essence of marriage.

Are we using what Jesus said?

Jesus said only adultery but he also says that the two become one. You wouldn't hurt yourself, and you wouldn't abandon yourself, so those two also make sense. Paul talks about both of these. Are you saying that you believe abuse and abandonment do not constitute proper rationales for divorce?

Millions of people are married today without a "valid" divorce (infidelity) from a previous marriage. Jesus said they are engaged in adultery. Adultery is not marriage, true? Why do you want our laws to respect adultery as marriage but not polygamy or gay marriage? The former rejects commitment, not the latter...

The issue isn't commitment, but again, the bond between a man and a woman in marriage. As you said many are married today without a valid divorce, but not all of those who are married are in fact invalid. Some are some aren't. The same isn't true with polygamy or gay marriage. Polygamy is always adultery in that you are already married and taking up with someone else. Gay marriage is simply sodomy where the proper bond is not there in the first place. You cannot call something marriage, which has never been marriage.

Gays cant have an emotional bond or commit to each other? Why is that? Is that true for polygamists too?

Emotional bonds! = Marriage. They equal friendship. You cannot have a marriage based only on an emotional bond. One of the reasons you can acquire an annulment is if the marriage is unconsummated. Sex is an essential part of marriage. You can't get away from that.

You're right, but God didn't marry them. Eve was taken from Adam (his rib) and thats when Adam says she is one with his flesh etc. God didn't say anything about their relationship until he found out she was pregnant and got mad.

God told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it! Did you miss that part?

I cant see that, he was asked about divorce law within a culture where men could dump their wives. It isn't clear to me this prohibits polygamy.

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.

The two become one flesh. As Agathon was saying you cannot bind yourself to another without breaking the first bond. This is why polygamy doesn't work, even though it was permitted because of the hearts of men.

Given how the patriarchs did not prohibit polygamy and some in fact practiced it in various forms I'd need more from Jesus than just a criticism of concurrent divorce practices in a "monogamous" society.

Which is why Jesus gives the ideal for marriage as an indissoluable bond between a man and a woman. He knows it's not enough to simply say, "don't do this", so instead he says, "do this, and nothing else but this!"

If two people can be one via commitment, why cant 3 people? How do two people become one "literally"?

Because you can't form the bond with someone else without breaking the original bond.

Yes they are, thats what commitment is all about. Do you believe in forced marriages? You know, like some teenage girl is "promised" to someone and if she doesn't fulfill her duty she gets acid in the face?

No, I don't. Marriage must be something that both the husband and the wife agree to do with each other. Consent is essential.

If she is "joined" to someone by her family/culture/tradition do you consider that a valid marriage even though she doesn't want to be married?

I consider that rape, and the woman is no more bound to her rapist then she would be to her 'husband'.

So if the rest of the world doesn't become Christian, we all "chose" Mosaic Law? So all those dietary laws etc etc etc etc apply to all non-Christians? Polygamy and sodomy are and have been widespread... So much for natural law

Polygamy yes, but the recognition of sodomy as marriage, no. That is entirely the innovation of the west. The only reason why polygamy can't be done, is again, because it breaks the original marriage bond. If you want to be with another woman, then you'd have to give up your original marriage contract, and file for divorce.

It's not that you "chose" mosaic law, but that there is a natural law, a law that is written on our hearts.

[Cort Haus]

there is a natural law, a law that is written on our hearts.

There is no law written on our hearts. Fact.

[Berzerker]

The definition of marriage at the time of Prop 8 was between two individuals. It was Prop 8 that redefined that to be "between one man and one woman". It changed the status quo through tremendous effort by bigots and homophobes alike, pretending otherwise is ridiculously stupid.

The definition of marriage - the status quo - before a Calif court tried to change it by allowing gays to marry was marriage between a man and a woman and that did not require much work to maintain (obviously getting prop 8 on the ballot and backing it required work). The court expanded that definition of marriage to include gays (not polygamists) and Prop 8 restored the status quo from before the court ruling. You'd be better off arguing for the unconstitutionality of prop 8 based on a required legislative super majority to make fundamental changes to the constitution. That imo works...

[Ben Kenobi]

The definition of marriage at the time of Prop 8 was between two individuals. It was Prop 8 that redefined that to be "between one man and one woman". It changed the status quo through tremendous effort by bigots and homophobes alike, pretending otherwise is ridiculously stupid.

It was a restoration of the previous definition, same as when Charles II was restored to the throne of England. It wasn't a revolution per se.

The government prior to the restoration was a republic under Cromwell. There is an important distinction between a restoration of a previous definition and a redefinition.

[Berzerker]

Yes, because the essence of marriage is this bond, breaking the bond destroys marriage in it's essence.

But divorce is a breaking of that bond, so why is it related to this essence - this bond - of marriage while committed gays and polygamists who've bonded are not?

You only bond with one person at a time. If you commit adultery then you are tearing that bond apart. This is why adultery destroys the essence of marriage.

Right, but you want adultery defined as marriage. Dont you see the contradiction? You say gays and polygamists cant marry because their bond does not qualify as marriage based on your interpretation of Jesus, but adultery does qualify as marriage in your book when its clear Jesus called it adultery. You want to define marriage to include it's opposite - adultery - but deny marriage for those who are committed to it.

Jesus said only adultery but he also says that the two become one. You wouldn't hurt yourself, and you wouldn't abandon yourself, so those two also make sense.

But I wouldn't hurt or abandon a stranger either, or family member or friend. This two into one is just symbolic language describing a certain kind of commitment. I actually agree the definition of marriage is between a man and woman (thats the status quo I grew up with) but its no skin off my back if the definition of marriage is expanded to ostensibly include life partners or whatever gays call themselves. My objection to gay marriage lies elsewhere and aint relevant to it's legality or illegality...

Are you saying that you believe abuse and abandonment do not constitute proper rationales for divorce?

No, but they aint infidelity and Jesus said infidelity was the only grounds for divorce. Now, here's why the context matters - would Jesus object to a woman divorcing an abusive husband? Or an abandoned woman? I cant see it happening. But women couldn't divorce men in his time, divorce was a one way street. Thats why I cant accept your argument that Jesus was defining who could marry whom, the context is limited to a certain group of people - jerks who dump their older wives for younger women or whatever reason.

The issue isn't commitment, but again, the bond between a man and a woman in marriage.

Thats a commitment, the bond of marriage doesn't exist without it.

As you said many are married today without a valid divorce, but not all of those who are married are in fact invalid. Some are some aren't.

But you want the law to allow the adulterous relationships to be defined as marriages.

The same isn't true with polygamy or gay marriage.

Thats right, adultery is not commitment and polygamy and gay marriage are...Until someone cheats

Polygamy is always adultery in that you are already married and taking up with someone else.

Yer not taking up with someone else, polygamists have large extended families that all live together in much the same way some of the patriarchs did. I think one actually had to marry a woman he didn't want to marry so he could marry the woman he did want to marry. They were sisters and the father was jerking him around to unload the daughter who was having trouble finding a spouse I think.

Gay marriage is simply sodomy where the proper bond is not there in the first place. You cannot call something marriage, which has never been marriage.

Thats true for adultery but you call it marriage nonetheless And "sodomy" (read the story, even a loose sexual interpretation shows attempted rape was the crime - I suggest reading up on the legends of the Jews and Bedouin if you think homosexuality was the offense) is a word for certain sexual acts, not the emotional bonds people have for each other. Thats like saying marriage between a man and a woman is not marriage because whatever sexual acts they do in bed is not marriage. Is the missionary position marriage? Is a BJ marriage? Is doggie style marriage? That doesn't make sense, marriage is a commitment, not a sexual act.

Emotional bonds! = Marriage. They equal friendship. You cannot have a marriage based only on an emotional bond.

Why not? Older people still get married even though all they have left in the tank is an emotional bond. Obviously friends have emotional bonds but people getting married are claiming a different bond. It aint adultery to make new friends, it is to cheat on yer spouse.

One of the reasons you can acquire an annulment is if the marriage is unconsummated. Sex is an essential part of marriage. You can't get away from that.

No it isn't (old people dont need to have sex to get married), and Jesus never said anything about consummation (or did he, hell I dont know). That reminds me, if Adam and Eve were married, when did they consummate their marriage? According to Adam, Eve came from his flesh and they were one but they didn't have sex yet - that was their disobedience to God, they had sex, they consummated their marriage. Its illogical to say God blessed their marriage, he didn't even know about it until Eve was pregnant and he blew a fuse and kicked em out. So who was responsible for Adam and Eve consummating their marriage? The Serpent... And Jesus appears to have been a fan of the Serpent, he even told his disciples to be wise like the serpent.

God told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it! Did you miss that part?

Elohim told the first people to be fruitful and multiply (nothing about marriage), Adam and Eve were a special creation for the Garden. They were not present when God was telling the first people what to do, and God did not let these first peoples into his Garden. When Adam and Eve became fruitful and threatened to fill the Garden they got booted out.

The two become one flesh. As Agathon was saying you cannot bind yourself to another without breaking the first bond. This is why polygamy doesn't work, even though it was permitted because of the hearts of men.

Jesus didn't say polygamy was allowed because men had hard hearts. And why do you need to break one bond to have another? We have bonds with two parents, often multiple siblings, and many friends. I'd say several thousand years of history shows polygamy does work, it was often necessary, especially for a hill tribe constantly being over run by neighboring tribes. Adam and Eve were 2 people, not 3 or 4. Jesus was relating their situation, he was using the teachings of his audience to criticize Mosaic divorce law (I thought Jesus agreed with every jot and tittle of the OT )

Which is why Jesus gives the ideal for marriage as an indissoluable bond between a man and a woman. He knows it's not enough to simply say, "don't do this", so instead he says, "do this, and nothing else but this!"

He was dealing with a man and a woman situation, he was not saying only a man and a woman can have the bond of marriage.

Because you can't form the bond with someone else without breaking the original bond.

Why? With monogamy you cant remarry and keep boinking the ex but polygamists dont share that mentality. It aint adultery to them because they've made a marriage commitment that includes multiple spouses.

No, I don't. Marriage must be something that both the husband and the wife agree to do with each other. Consent is essential. I consider that rape, and the woman is no more bound to her rapist then she would be to her 'husband'.

Agreed, now ancient Hebrews didn't throw acid in the faces of young women but many weddings were arranged and the kids didn't really have a choice. So I'd say (and you'd agree) commitment (by consent) matters more than sex or any other factor.

Polygamy yes, but the recognition of sodomy as marriage, no.

Well of course not, polygamy means multiple marriages and sodomy means a BJ or some other sex act. You keep claiming gay marriage is sodomy but gays dont have to marry to commit sodomy nor do you have to be gay, its a sexual act(s) and does not describe the emotional bonds or commitments between people. Thats where marriage enters the picture... Many men have married the women who gave them a great BJ

The only reason why polygamy can't be done, is again, because it breaks the original marriage bond. If you want to be with another woman, then you'd have to give up your original marriage contract, and file for divorce.

So polygamists are obliged to obey your interpretation of Jesus' teachings but not adulterers? Polygamy is and was widespread in the old world long before the rise of the west. Who gets to decide what your marriage vows are? Some people have open marriages where they get to play around but remain committed in other ways, like raising the kids. Polygamists consensually enter into that arrangement knowing the marriage contract does not exclude other spouses.

It's not that you "chose" mosaic law, but that there is a natural law, a law that is written on our hearts.

And you deny this natural law when you deny people their commitments

[MrFun]

So you are arguing that Bush is MORE LIBERAL then Wilson? Great. That just reinforces my argument that the US is even less imperialist then I said, in that they believe self determination extends to everybody.

My post was not about Bush.