Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[Brooklyn]

I guess I am puzzled by your repeated statements that you don’t understand my posts. You mention Oscar Wilde and “the love that dare not speak its name.” Obviously, if homosexuals are afraid to come out as gay, then they are suffering under an oppressive social system, and deserve sympathy.

Pedophiles are afraid to come out, too. I guess they also live under an oppressive social system and deserve sympathy.

It comes down to whether you believe homosexuality is wrong, as specified in the Bible and by the Catholic Church. You obviously don’t believe that. You don’t believe in the sanctity and sacredness of marriage. That is what your comments say. Because you don’t believe these things, anything goes as far as you’re concerned. You feel the only people who are wrong are those who don’t believe that anything goes. You and those who think like you feel that all of mankind up until your existence and your “enlightenment” were wrong. How dare they feel that homosexuality is a perversion.

 

[scipio337]

I would suggest you have little understanding of the history of Western Civilization. ( I can’t speak for non-Western cultures.)

I don’t know, I’d say it was pretty common for every social class, from about the 10th century onwards. I’m not sure what history of Western Civilization you’re referring to.

 

[Brooklyn]

I would suggest you have little understanding of the history of Western Civilization. ( I can’t speak for non-Western cultures.)

Ok - give me some hard facts to back up your assertion that very few people in Western Civilization got married 150 to 200 years ago.

 

[Dale_M]

And equating the African-American experience with the manner in which one engages in sex is specious.

What a strange statement.

The African American experience in the US has nothing to do with sex. No one has said that, other than you.

However, “common sense knowledge” of 150 years ago held that blacks could not achieve equality with whites. Similarly, “common sense knowledge” today (certainly in this thread) holds that gay men and women can not marry with equality.

If you object to the use of African-Americans, substitute “Chinese” or “Irish” or “Czech” or whatever oppressed group you prefer.

 

[CatholicGerman]

This judge, and most of the left, is now saying that the very institution that helped literally build the entire western world is no longer worth protecting.

Not really. They already said that a long time ago. This was just the icing on the cake. The death of civil marriage comes in stages, you know:

• contraception
• abortion
• easy divorce
• child support for single women
• gay marriage

Civil marriage has been dying for a while now. They just decided to kick it one more time, for good measure.

 

[crazzeto]

Not really. They already said that a long time ago. This was just the icing on the cake. The death of civil marriage comes in stages, you know:

• contraception
• abortion
• easy divorce
• child support for single women
• gay marriage

Civil marriage has been dying for a while now. They just decided to kick it one more time, for good measure.

You forgot a step, which we haven’t quite reached yet:

Polygamy

 

[Dale_M]

Non-sequiter. As a black woman wrote: “I know people who used to be gay, but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

Having sex is a personal choice.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. The point is that majority culture often forms harsh, and unjustified opinions regarding minority populations.

 

[crazzeto]

That has nothing to do with this discussion. The point is that majority culture often forms harsh, and unjustified opinions regarding minority populations.

How does this equate to a constitutional right to gay marraige?

 

[scipio337]

What a strange statement.

The African American experience in the US has nothing to do with sex. No one has said that, other than you.

However, “common sense knowledge” of 150 years ago held that blacks could not achieve equality with whites. Similarly, “common sense knowledge” today (certainly in this thread) holds that gay men and women can not marry with equality.

If you object to the use of African-Americans, substitute “Chinese” or “Irish” or “Czech” or whatever oppressed group you prefer.

But again, you’re comparing racial bias with a legal opinion regarding behavior. Apples and rutabagas.

 

[Brooklyn]

What a strange statement.

The African American experience in the US has nothing to do with sex. No one has said that, other than you.

However, “common sense knowledge” of 150 years ago held that blacks could not achieve equality with whites. Similarly, “common sense knowledge” today (certainly in this thread) holds that gay men and women can not marry with equality.

If you object to the use of African-Americans, substitute “Chinese” or “Irish” or “Czech” or whatever oppressed group you prefer.

No, your statement is the strange one. This generation is the only one who has ever claimed that “common sense” says that men can marry men and women and can marry women. It has never been “common sense” before. What make you and those who think like you more enlightened than anyone who has ever lived before?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

My point is that liberals today think they are the most enlightened people to ever have inhabited the planet, and that thousands of years of human history mean nothing to them. They believe everyone before them, who would have never even conceived of same sex marriage, were unenlightened morons, and that only they, modern day liberals know what is best for the world.

And they are destroying everything that is good and right.

Thanks for the slander, Brooklyn. There are no exceptions for you, eh? It’s unfortunate, but uncharitable attitudes like yours are one reason I tend to reject conservative positions even when I think they might be good ones.

 

[exoflare]

The African American experience in the US has nothing to do with sex.

:doh2: He never said that it DID. Geez It’s like you don’t even read the posts you respond to before replying… Either that or you’re aware these are all strawmen when you write them.

 

[Corki]

Until the past 150 or 200 years, marriage was a rarity. It was mainly among the wealthy, to ensure inheritance. Most couples lived in “common law” marriage, or simply shacked up.

You are partially right. Common-law marriages were more common but the timeline was more like 600 years ago. Marriage was far from a rarity, however, even among the peasant classes.

In the US, common-law marriages were only common in mission territory or on the fronteir. Even then, they were considered temporary states until the circuit preacher next came around. There were social standards that common law couples were held to and it was nothing like “shacking up”.

 

[Brooklyn]

Thanks for the slander, Brooklyn. There are no exceptions for you, eh? It’s unfortunate, but uncharitable attitudes like yours are one reason I tend to reject conservative positions even when I think they might be good ones.

Huh? The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church says homosexuality is wrong. Those are not my opinions or “uncharitable attitudes”. What are you saying?

Be careful of what you are saying. Accusing someone of slander is not permitted here. You are getting way too personal and if it continues, I will have to report it.

 

[Suudy]

Thanks for the slander, Brooklyn. There are no exceptions for you, eh? It’s unfortunate, but uncharitable attitudes like yours are one reason I tend to reject conservative positions even when I think they might be good ones.

Like I mentioned to you in another post, people usually leave off the qualifiers when they mean “some” or “many”. I think that is the sense that Brooklyn meant. It wasn’t “all liberals,” but instead “some liberals” or “many liberals”.

 

[Corki]

You forgot a step, which we haven’t quite reached yet:

Polygamy

I think we are already there. At least TV shows like “Big Love” seem to want to convince us that polygamy is much more “main stream” than anyone would have dreamed.

We (American society, not you and me ) have reached an intermediate step - serial monogomy - which is often punctuated by periods of non-monogomous behavior.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Like I mentioned to you in another post, people usually leave off the qualifiers when they mean “some” or “many”. I think that is the sense that Brooklyn meant. It wasn’t “all liberals,” but instead “some liberals” or “many liberals”.

You are right that some posts are like that, but Brooklyn’s is quite unequivocal.

 

[Dale_M]

Ok - give me some hard facts to back up your assertion that very few people in Western Civilization got married 150 to 200 years ago.

Well, gosh. I am not sure how to do that. Since a “non-marriage” wasn’t recorded, it would be hard to find records of it.

What I said previously is commonly accepted, however. Here is one website:

The simple sad fact is there was no systematic recording of marriages in England and Wales before 1538, which makes a genealogy search problematic. Prior to this, in fact, there was actually often no clerical involvement in the weddings of ordinary people - they were either married in a “handfast” ceremony at home, or outside the church door. Where the clergy was involved, it was usually to wed people of substance. What this means, of course, is that the majority of weddings were never recorded for posterity, as the view of witnesses were perfectly adequate to last a lifetime in small communities. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of the population was unable to read or write, and there seemed to be no need in what was essentially still an oral culture. That was fine for them, but no help when assembling a family tree.

exploregenealogy.co.uk/FindingEarlyMarriageRecords.html

 

[Corki]

It’s unfortunate, but uncharitable attitudes like yours are one reason I tend to reject conservative positions even when I think they might be good ones.

Just be careful you aren’t also tending to reject Catholic positions even when you think they might be good ones.

 

[scipio337]

Huh? The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church says homosexuality is wrong. Those are not my opinions or “uncharitable attitudes”. What are you saying?

Be careful of what you are saying. Accusing someone of slander is not permitted here. You are getting way too personal and if it continues, I will have to report it.

I think he meant more of the broad-brush generalizing “Liberals today…”, which I can understand. I’ve met many liberals who were thoughtful, inquisitive, and even wanted to know why I hold the positions I do.

Then again, I’m a religious Midwesterner, so to a certain segment of the left, I’ve already got two strikes against me.