…because I’m pìššëd øff.
So I’m watching this “TV Guide Best of 2003” show for no particular dámņ good reason, and they’re talking about how shows like “Queer Eye,” “Boy Meets Boy,” “Will and Grace,” etc., have caused America to understand and embrace the gay lifestyle. What a spectacular load of crap, as evidenced by the poll which indicated that 70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages.
Americans laughing at the Fab Five no more translates to an actual acceptance of homosexuality in this country than a hundred years ago when audiences laughing at Minstrel shows translated to a belief that blacks and whites should be able to drink at the same water fountain. “South Park” absolutely nailed it in the episode where all the men in town “embraced” the gay lifestyle but were simultaneously horrified by the notion of actual homosexuality, and that was before the poll came out.
If anyone thinks that the ratings of gay-oriented TV shows provides anything remotely approaching acceptance, just wait until the 2004 Prez race heats up. When that poll hit, the GOP must have been peeing themselves with excitement since Dean’s Vermont supports civil marriages. The Clinton administration being sandbagged in its first six months by the gays in the military issue will be, I suspect, just a warm up for this go-around. The GOP would be crazy not to take advantage of it. I can just see the adverts now: “With George W. Bush in charge, our armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. If Howard Dean were in charge, our soldiers would have been too busy marrying each other to get anything done.”
This may well be the final nail in the Dean’s Un-electable coffin.
PAD
• 
As far as the picking and choosing of Biblical passages goes, my reasoning is this:
The Levitical laws were a product of their times. Jesus came to free humanity from the law, and Paul says that we are no longer defined by the laws of Moses. So right there, we no longer have to keep Kosher, kill our disobedient children, etc. However, Paul does condemn homosexuality as sinful. This carries more weight with me than Leviticus does. If, as some believe, Paul was himself a homosexual (some believe this was the “thorn in the flesh” which God gave to strengthen him), this is especially important.
Inccidently, Paul also clarifies the slavery issue. Although he tells slaves to obey their masters in Ephesians, he also wrote the letter of Philemon. The letter is to a slave owner (Philemon) regarding the fate of an escaped slave (Onisimus, sp?). Onisimus joined Paul and became a Christian. Paul was sending Onisimus back to Philemon, but he stated that Philemon was not to treat Onisimus as a slave, but as a brohter in Christ. If slave owners had actually treated their slaves as brothers, loving and caring for them as Christ loved the church, the institution of slavery would have been quite different, if it existed at all.
Luigi is just as free to hold his beliefs as I am to hold mine. I hope he might change his mind someday, but he seems to have put a considerable amount of thought into his arguement.
Ben Hunt
(blink)
(blink)
You’re defending slavery? “Enlightened” slavery is still slavery. You can’t treat someone you “own” as a brother.
(stares in disbelief)
Gee, I’ve sure known a lot of big brothers who treated their little brothers like someone they owned…
No, I am not defending slavery. I meant that if slave owners had thought of their slaves as people, the institutions of slavery probably would have ceased to exist. I don’t think Paul was in favor of slavery, either. He was saying that Christians had to treat fellow Christians with love, respect, and dignity, whatever their social status.
Lest you think my hypocrisy is showing, I think Jesus and Paul would have us show love and compassion to all people, regardless of sexual orientation. You can show love adn compassion to someone without approving of what they do. I would show love to a gay person as a child of God and a human being, but I would have to say that their lifestyle was sinful.
Sigh. Now I’m not only a homophobe, but pro-slavery. Jeez.
P.S. My grandparents are Presbyterians, and they are far less open minded than I am. Oh, well, off to Purgatory with the other Baptists.
Ben Hunt: Luigi is just as free to hold his beliefs as I am to hold mine. I hope he might change his mind someday, but he seems to have put a considerable amount of thought into his arguement.
Luigi Novi: Thank you, Ben. And have a safe and Happy New Year. But out of curiosity, which belief are you referring to that you hope I change?
\\As far as the picking and choosing of Biblical passages goes, my reasoning is this:
The Levitical laws were a product of their times. Jesus came to free humanity from the law, and Paul says that we are no longer defined by the laws of Moses. So right there, we no longer have to keep Kosher, kill our disobedient children, etc. However, Paul does condemn homosexuality as sinful. This carries more weight with me than Leviticus does. If, as some believe, Paul was himself a homosexual (some believe this was the “thorn in the flesh” which God gave to strengthen him), this is especially important.\\
Let me get this straigh, Leviticus was a product of it’s time, and therefor doesn’t necessarily apply anymore, but Paul’s writing somehow aren’t? and therefor carry weight? Why is that? Really, Not being argumentive but this just strikes me as yet another example of the “pick and choose” method of religion that so many practice.
Okay, Ben, I see where my confusion came from. You wrote:
If slave owners had actually treated their slaves as brothers, loving and caring for them as Christ loved the church, the institution of slavery would have been quite different, if it existed at all.
But I’d maintain that it’s impossible to treat someone as a slave and a brother at the same time. I can’t see it changing slavery (as you allow as one possibility) but completely abolishing it.
It was your allowance of the possibility that it might just change it drastically that astonished me.
Anyway, Happy New Year.
Rob
“Part of the problem your answer doesn’t address is that most people are not the sole payers of thier insurance. For most people the bulk of thier insurance is paid for by thier employers.”
A good point, and one I hadn’t considered. However, covering those who are financially dependant on one — my sister’s employer arbitrarily decides they won’t pay for my insurance because I’m not married to her (and I won’t go that far for insurance), in spite of the fact that I am demonstrably a dependant here.
Of course, if the Canadian model of health insurance ever finds its way here, it will be a moot point, but the short version of this is: Somebody who knows what they’re talking about should come up with the specifics. I’m just the idea man.
Rob wrote:
This news story and Green’s legal action don’t prove Santorum (can you *say* Santorum in polite company?) “right.” They just show that someone’s trying to expand (and pervert) the intention of the original ruling. Just because Green and his lawyers can’t see the difference, doesn’t mean that a sensible judge won’t deny his appeal.
Ummm…Santorum said that people would try to expand and pervert the ruling if it passed. And by golly, that’s just what is happening. Yes, Santorum was right.
Jeff: “…the recounts all show Gore lost. That’s including all the recounts by the major papers and TV networks.”
Sorry to digress, but this assertion is not correct. The recounts did not all show that Gore lost. Quite the opposite, the result of the recount conducted by a media consortium was that Bush would have won if there had been a limited recount but that if there had been a full statewide recount Gore would have won.
However, it is easy to understand why so many people (such as Jeff) are under the misimpression that Bush would have won any recount, because that is the way the media spun the story in the headlines.
When the story of the recounts came out, many papers headlined the account as Bush won — emphasizing that Bush would have won under certain standards and downplaying that Gore would have won under others.
USA Today, for example, headlined their story “Newspaper’s Recount Showed Bush Prevailed”. The text of the story revealed that Bush would only have prevailed under certain limited circumstances (such as limiting the recount to the counties Gore had requested a recount of) and that Gore would have prevailed under other circumstances (such as a recount of all the Florida counties). But many people look mainly at the headlines and lead paragraphs and skim or skip the rest of the story. In this case, doing so meant missing a key fact — that Gore would have prevailed under the conditions the Republicans had (during the post-election wrangling) declared to be the most reasonable standards for a recount.
I would recommend to anyone who is still in doubt about this matter to look up the original newspaper stories and read them for yourselves. (I have.) I don’t think they are still available free on-line, but ones such as USA Today are readily available on microfilm at many libraries.
At the time the story of the recount was being reported, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting — a group concerned about media bias against liberals) complained strongly about the way the story was being spun, and sent out several “action alerts”, several of which are still available to read on-line:
http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-recount.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-florida-update.html
Here is the text of an AP correction printed in response to one of FAIR’s criticisms:
Friday, September 6, 2002, 11:18 AM ET
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) – In an Aug. 25 story on former Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ upcoming book, The Associated Press reported that some inspections by news organizations of uncounted Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential race showed George W. Bush winning more votes than Al Gore.
The story should also have noted that some scenarios showed Gore coming out ahead. For example, a vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations found Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but that Gore would have finished ahead by the barest of margins had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.
And, for those unable or unwilling to read the FAIR articles, here is a link to an article at Spinsanity that covers the same ground:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010417.html
On April 4, The Miami Herald with parent company Knight-Ridder and USA Today published the results of a review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties. Among their findings were that hundreds of ballots were arbitrarily discarded, discernible votes were not counted by machines, and overvotes with a clear intent were ignored. Ironically, the study also found that under the counting standards advocated by Gore and the Florida Supreme Court, George W. Bush would have won, but under the standards Republicans pushed for, Gore would have been the winner…
Before people misread what I am saying, let me try to be clear.
I am not disputing that there are some ways of counting (or re-counting) the votes by which Gore does indeed emerge as the loser.
But it is simply not true to say that the recounts all showed Gore losing. The exhaustive media recount done following the election showed that, under certain reasonable standards (such as a full state-wide recount) Gore won.
The idea formed this way: I just recently graduated from a two-year technical school, and for the entire time I attended, I lived with my sister. I’ve had a great deal of difficulty finding work for the last two years, and she has by and large supported me as I undertook my schooling. Unfortunately, since we are brother and sister rather than husband and wife or parent and child, she could not cover me under her insurance, in spite of the fact that I was quite distinctly her dependant, which means that on her salary, which wasn’t really enough to support two people (we did have some help), would have been stretched even tht much further in the event that I had needed some form of medical attention.
Once the senators stop laughing, they will probably will send you a politely worded letter stating that:
Firstly, insurance benefits such as you mention are regulated by employers and insurance companies, not governmental regulations. If you want insurance bad enough, it is available to you, just at a fair price for an unemployed sponge and if you were smart enough than you could probably check into your university’s medical programs and find out that you probably have an infirmary that you can utilize for medical needs and that the university probably offers insurance for students, just like most universities in the United States.
Secondly, that the tax benefits that you are asking for are available if your sister can prove that you are the sponge that you claim to be. She can claim you as a dependent and receive many tax breaks. But marriage benefits are entirely different than dependent benefits and you are talking about two separate issues.
They will politely write this while thinking this sponge should just find a job that has benefits while going to college, like so many others, instead of sitting on his lazy butt.
Thanks, Ken, for your confrontational thoughts.
I admit the insurance issue was misinformed (though matters of law are relavent with regards to insurance; they are simply not the only factor), but the idea has survived an exposure to a notoriously bipartisan forum with positive responses from both the left and right. That’s an appealing idea in this time of bipartisan bickering on every level from layman to expert.
Secondly, if you’re suggesting my inability to find work has something to do with a lack of effort, perhaps you should ask before asserting the notion as the truth. I’ve been working; freelance when it comes my way, part-time when it’s available, which for the last three years, it has not been, for the most part. I don’t think senators are going to assume that in a period of high unemployment and few available jobs that a single unemployed person (and a student at that, mind you — if I were a professional student, “sponge” might be an appropriate slur, but I’ll thank you to perhaps let the thought occur to you that a student might actually be learning something, and that a student at a technical school might be learning how better to attain a specific kind of job, which I have been) automatically qualifies as a “sponge.”
You are correct about the tax issues; they are a non-issue for me, though I was under the mistaken impression it was relevant. I didn’t know it as I wrote the letter, but I did explain that I was a layman and did not necessarily have a working knowledge of how these things work. As for the insurance issue, “fair” is a debatable term, and considering how much health insurance costs for an individual paying all of it out of pocket, it’s mighty optimistic of you to think that a largely unemployed student can afford it.
Perhaps you’re right about the senators, too: Perhaps they’re as big of áššëš as you, and will snidely pen a letter to one of their constituents who has presented an idea to them in earnest. I certainly hope not, though. Maybe you could set an example for them and try to make your intelligent, relevant points in a discussion without being an ášš, and perhaps they might follow suit.
will snidely pen a letter to one of their constituents
Exactly why I said that they will send you a politely worded letter.
Way to go, Luigi! Never let being wrong stop you! First let’s have some linguistic purity. Obviously, NO ONE has a RIGHT to marry since marriage is by definition a UNION between two or more people. So it’s a “right” you can’t exercise unless someone agrees to do it with you. That makes it more of a privilege.
Next, I didn’t “define” what a “Right to Marry” means. I merely pointed out that they have the same “rights” everyone else does regarding marriage. That statement is and remains true. Next, there are restrictions on who can marry who which have nothing to do with either race or gender. Such as age, number, species, and relationship. My guess is that you have no problems with restricting those particular “rights”, even though three of them were legal at one point in history.
Luigi is wrong about the bible, since it accepted slavery, but without being enthusiastic about it, and while setting limits on it. (Nat Gertler is mistaken to use the King James translation. Sorry, Nat. Try the Jewish publication society version.) Luigi is wrong by far about it simply being in favor of killing disobedient children. It does, if anything, say that punishment should be given to children who’ve committed wrongdoing, but does not say that they should simply be put to death, and certainly not regardless of what the offense was that they committed. What’s this about wearing two different fabrics? The linen and wool combination is forbidden in Deuteronomy 22:11, and in Leviticus 19:19, but in neither place does it specify any punishment. Further, Leviticus 19:18 says just one verse before, quote, “Love your fellow as yourself”. This is much different in spirit from what Luigi claims about the bible.
As for the death penalty, in 2nd Temple times, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish lawmaking body, put severe restrictions on the death penalty, making it practially impossible in practice. And Luigi seems to have gotten information from inaccurate sources hostile to the bible.
Luigi, if you’re going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that’s been going on even today, what with the rise in antisemitism in the middle east and in Europe, to lead an argument against what you feel is unjust in the wrong way can be very dangerous.
And I want to point out that, while there is a lot of unjust anti-Americanism going on in the past few years, even appearing sadly enough, in the pages of some American made comics, it should be noted that the United States is one of the worst offenders in political correctness, with only so many media, government, and community sources going out of their way to suppress what they personally perceive as “hate speech”, and I once knew a very PC advocating teacher from western Pennsylvania who was like that, and even went so far as to lie to me about supposedly knowing Moslems or what the culture/religion is like, in order to counter what he felt was a supposedly unjust critique of such things. Right, and then did he ever stand up in defense of the Sudanese blacks, like I want to? Nope. He even, I discovered, lied to me regarding his having read J. Michael Strazcynski’s run on Spider-Man, or any run on Spider-Man, just to fortify a very PC argument regarding the separation of Peter and MJ. Buffoon that he was. Sheesh.
EClark1849: You know, I should just point out the obvious mistake with saying that “Gays don’t have the same rights to marry in the United States” . It is untrue. Obviously they do. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. The difference is that they don’t particularly want to.
Yes, linguistically, you’re correct. Gay people have just as much of a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. But as noted, that rationale defines marriage as “1 Man + 1 Woman” and doesn’t factor other issues in, like, say, love, or commitment, or legal benefits.
By that logic, denying the privilege of inter-racial marriage wouldn’t be denying any person the privilege of marriage. People could still marry one another, as long as they belong to the same ethnicity. Can we really say we’re comfortable with denying the “privilege” to marry based on identity? Of course, you could counter by saying, “Well, marriage is defined by gender, but not by race,” but as I said before, marriage shouldn’t be about a formula. And call me a romantic, but I think if you lose love from the equation (not sex, but LOVE), you’ve lost the most human reason for marriage. So, while there’s something to be said for linguistic purity, I find the human element lost. It’s technically a correct sentiment, but it doesn’t seem very compassionate.
As for the Bible, I still think that it’s contradictory. The Old Testament and the New Testament obviously say sometimes contradictory things. Both, however, are a product of a particular period and a particular culture, and while I’m a Christian, I’m not arrogant enough to think that I’ve got all the answers and that the Bible can stand as the sum total of God. Yes, homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments. Does that matter to me? No. I just have to believe that God doesn’t like it when we use His name as a weapon. He is, as Jesus taught us, a God of Love, of compassion, a Father to His children. Is there anything that one’s child could do that would make that parent stop loving that child? I hope not. Even the mothers of serial killers love and weep for their children, and they may not approve of the conduct, but they forgive, or at least, they should. And murder is a far cry from love.
Like I said, call me a romantic, but it all comes down to whether we are willing to recognize love between persons of the opposite sex, and use that recognition as a basis for legal privileges. I’m willing to do that, if only because I think my Father, my God of Love, would want me to. It’s as simple as that.
I mean no offense to anyone else on this forum, and hope that I haven’t come across as aggressive. Spirited debate can be a good thing, but let’s not forget that rarely does such debate result in a person saying, “Hey…you’re right and I’m wrong. D’oh! My bad!”
🙂
Luigi, if you’re going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that’s been going on even today, what with the rise in antisemitism in the middle east and in Europe, to lead an argument against what you feel is unjust in the wrong way can be very dangerous.
You need to get off your religious high horse as well.
At times, I think it’s people that make comments like yours that are perpetuating the problems in the world.
Somebody says “Well, the Old Testament says this.”
And you fire back about how they’re spitting on all Jews?
To hëll with that.
One more thing, Avi, while I’m on the rant.
Your whole “you better watch what you say” makes you sound like the drivel coming out of the Bush Administration post-9/11, where everybody is labeled a traitor and it’s suddenly wrong to speak out against the gov’t.
Ken – Well, if their blatant contempt for me is as thinly-veiled as yours, it will be an interesting attempt at politeness.
You know, Craig, I don’t have any bodyguards to protect me, something that Bush, whom I don’t vote for, does, and so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support? Nor do I influence any newspapers or magazines, unlike Bush, who can.
It should be noted that even you are writing on a forum that doesn’t belong to you, and so, I hope you are aware that you’re not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David, the owner of this blog, which leads me to wonder if you’re really at all a fan of PAD’s. If not, then I suggest you make a grand exit, and make sure that the door doesn’t hit you in the ášš on the way out.
And pardon me, but as it so happens, I am not religious, and do not wear a kippa, and for someone who says that I sound like the Bush administration, it’s interesting to note that you sound very much like a Repugnican yourself. In fact, you may have more in common with Bush’s middle eastern policies than you suspect. As a matter of fact, the US president, who calls for establishing an Arab state west of the Jordan river, that would likely threaten Israel, shouldn’t be called a “special friend” of Israel. Which you for one certainly aren’t.
If anything though, you’ve just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher, which, if you ask me, was a mistake.
I insist again, that people should be truthful, and not inciteful, bearing in mind the consequences to human beings about what they say.
“… I don’t have any bodyguards to protect me… so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support? …”
“… I hope you are aware that you’re not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David…”
“…you sound very much like a Repugnican yourself…”
“… you’ve just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher…”
The preceding excerpts were originally Posted by Avi Green on 01/01/2004.
I don’t understand why this was posted today rather than exactly 4 months from now.
Posted then, it might be funny. Posted today, there’s too much danger of unwary readers thinking the post was intended seriously.
so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support?
Well, now this has certainly overstepped the bounds of polite conversation.
So, while I have a few choice things to say about you (not your religion, I’d have for you to not be able to separate the two), I won’t.
If anything though, you’ve just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher, which, if you ask me, was a mistake.
Well, what are you going to do? Call for airstrikes to kill me and other innocent people?
The Israeli military is no more innocent in the struggle than the terrorists.
Oh, yes, I support terrorism. But I’m a Republican.
If anything, the former would say I’m a traitorous Democrat, while the latter is pure ignorance on your part.
I follow my own path, not the whims of a pair of useless political parties that worry more about their own agendas than the good of America and the world.
I will have no say in which Democratic candidate is on the final ballot next fall; nor would I for the Republicans, if Bush wasn’t the incumbant, for I’m registered independant.
It’s time you separate fact from fiction, and realize that just because somebody speaks out against your religion, or your country, or your gov’t, or whatever, they’re not somebody that’s racist, or antiseminist, or whatever other garbage you manage to come up with.
ooops
Did I write “exactly 4 months from now”? Obviously I meant “exactly 3 months from now.”
uh, er… Oh, I know! That was my attempt at humor, pretending I didn’t know how to count. Yeah, that’s the ticket…
**
I mean no offense to anyone else on this forum, and hope that I haven’t come across as aggressive. Spirited debate can be a good thing, but let’s not forget that rarely does such debate result in a person saying, “Hey…you’re right and I’m wrong. D’oh! My bad!”**
Don’t worry, Michael. I could say something obvious like the sun is hot and rather than agreeing with me, someone here will debate me.
I have to kinda disagree with your take on marriage though. Most people disagree with homosexual marriage (aside from the obvious religious context) based on gender. Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for bëášŧìálìŧÿ, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.
I bring that up not to bash gays and lesbians but because I want to remind you that the reason why government has a vested interest in controlling marriage is reproduction. Today we think of marriage as a union of love, but up until as little as 90 years ago, marriage was more a matter of reproduction than love. If you think I’m joking you can look it up. Most states, and most countries, still have laws on the books that allow marriages between children as young as the age of 12 – 14 years old. Remember “The Color Purple”?
I can just see the adverts now: “With George W. Bush in charge, our armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. If Howard Dean were in charge, our soldiers would have been too busy marrying each other to get anything done.”
Hey, Joe Lieberman could be the spokesperson!!!
Any you Avi sound like an Arab basher. Feeling unhappy because not enough ragheads were killed today? Maybe you should grab a gun and go help out
Yeah, Im American. Maybe youd like to send some planes to bomb my house like you did the Liberty
EClark says…
Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for bëášŧìálìŧÿ, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.
Group 1: Men married to post-menopausal women.
Group 2: Heterosexual couples where one or the other member has been sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation).
Group 3: Heterosexual couples where one or both members have been injured in such a way as to make reproduction impossible.
If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?
TWL
Kyle wrote:
Ummm…Santorum said that people would try to expand and pervert the ruling if it passed. And by golly, that’s just what is happening. Yes, Santorum was right.
It is mentioned that it would be open to attampts in the story, but the story quotes Santorum as saying:
“You would have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, predicted in April.
implying that the sodomy ruling already provided (or set the legal groundwork for) these rights.
Rob
(Nat Gertler is mistaken to use the King James translation. Sorry, Nat. Try the Jewish publication society version.)
The King James is the Bible for far more people than the Jewish publication society version is. Nope, no mistake there.
EClark: Way to go, Luigi! Never let being wrong stop you!
Luigi Novi: And never let merely someone disagreeing with you and pointing out how different people view certain things stop you from saying that they’re “wrong.”
EClark: Next, I didn’t “define” what a “Right to Marry” means.
Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.
EClark: I merely pointed out that they have the same “rights” everyone else does regarding marriage.
Luigi Novi: And I pointed out that they don’t, because they don’t have the right to marry the person they fall in love with, which is what a more inclusive definition would be.
Avi Green: You know, Craig, I don’t have any bodyguards to protect me, something that Bush, whom I don’t vote for, does, and so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support?
Luigi Novi: Can you explain where it is indicated that Craig supports Arab terrorists?
Avi Green: Luigi is wrong about the bible, since it accepted slavery, but without being enthusiastic about it, and while setting limits on it.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about whether the Bible was “enthusiastic” about it or “set limits,” so your argument is utterly without foundation.
My statements about the Bible were and are factually correct. I stated that it encourages slavery, and it does. I stated that many passages prove this, and I pointed the out.
Since I did not say anything about “enthusiasm” or “limits” (as if that means anything to a slave), your statement that I was “wrong” because it is not enthusiastic and sets limits is a meaningless Straw Man argument.
Avi Green: Luigi is wrong by far about it simply being in favor of killing disobedient children. It does, if anything, say that punishment should be given to children who’ve committed wrongdoing, but does not say that they should simply be put to death
Luigi Novi: As I already told you, Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 indeed state that. Are you illiterate, or something?
Avi Green: As for the death penalty, in 2nd Temple times, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish lawmaking body, put severe restrictions on the death penalty, making it practially impossible in practice. And Luigi seems to have gotten information from inaccurate sources hostile to the bible.
Luigi Novi: Bible Gateway, actually, a website at http://bible.gospelcom.net/, which provides all requested verses from 17 different versions of the Bible, which corroborate my statements. You can even listen to audio versions of the passages with some nice background music, which hardly makes that site seem “hostile” to the Bible.
Avi Green: Luigi, if you’re going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that’s been going on even today…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about anti-Semitism, nor did I ever mention anti-Semitism. Again, what does any of what we’re talking about have to do with anti-Semitism? We’re not talking about Jews or anti-semitism, or Peter David, or Jack Kirby, or comic books, and saying that I do not regard the Bible as a moral guide because it contains too many inconsistencies, violence and misogyny doesn’t pertain to any of that. You are just making a Straw Man argument.
Stick to the relevant subject.
Craig J. Ries to Avi Green: Somebody says “Well, the Old Testament says this.” And you fire back about how they’re spitting on all Jews?
Luigi Novi: Not even. I never mentioned the Old Testament. I said “The Bible.”
Avi Green: It should be noted that even you are writing on a forum that doesn’t belong to you, and so, I hope you are aware that you’re not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David, the owner of this blog, which leads me to wonder if you’re really at all a fan of PAD’s.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? How is an argumentative statement (or even an insult) directed at you an insult toward Peter David? Why are you trying to portray an attack against you as an attack against someone else? Where do you get off accusing Craig of supporting Arab terrorists, and then pretending that somehow a remark toward you is also an insult meant for Peter? Can you explain this?
Novi, if you want an explanation, it’s this: even if PAD agrees with your views, that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.
And you might also want to bear in mind that whatever his thought on homosexuals or religion are, he happens to be very pro-Israel, and Mr. Ries for one has blown it by stating his “opinions” on a site where the viewpoint is quite the opposite. And sadly, so do you. And if you’re going to be so degrading in your own way, Repub, than I suggest you hit the trail as well. Democrats of my standing don’t align themselves with people of your standing.
that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.
Indeed. You are the one insulting other posters, and PAD has said nothing to either of us.
Democrats of my standing don’t align themselves with people of your standing.
You have accused me of being a liar, anti-semanist, and supporting terrorism. And, the biggest insult of all, a Republican.
If I were truly a Democrat, I wouldn’t want to be associated with you either.
Your standing? You’re just crawling through the filth that is of your own devising.
I have stated that I dislike the way Israel is handling the situation with the Palestinians, and so I am anti-Israel.
Heck, I haven’t even stated what I would do with the situation, which I’m sure would have people up in arms of a couple religions.
I have stated that I dislike the way the war in Iraq has been handled. So, by the same logic, I must be anti-American.
Now I know how the Republicans can come up with the obviously bull@#$^ logic by which some Americans are calling other Americans traitors.
Are you sure you’re in the right political party, Avi?
Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for bëášŧìálìŧÿ, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.
Group 1: Men married to post-menopausal women.
Group 2: Heterosexual couples where one or the other member has been sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation).
Group 3: Heterosexual couples where one or both members have been injured in such a way as to make reproduction impossible.
If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?
Tim,
I’m pretty sure you realize that I was speaking historically about marriage. People DID marry for love, too, you know. But the HISTORY of marriage was that it was mainly a way to unite families and even kingdoms, or to produce labor to help work the land. Most of the inheirtance laws which are some of the benefits gays say they want was brought about specifically for this reason.
As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can’t say the same for gay unions. Hëll, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can’t think of one for gays.
And if you’re going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage, then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age.
**EClark: Next, I didn’t “define” what a “Right to Marry” means.
Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.**
All I did was state the situation as it currently stands in this country, since that is what I thought the topic was about. If you’re talking about extrapolating flights of fantasy or every conceivable instance into the mix… well, I have this life to get back to, so I don’t have a lot of time.
And if you’re going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage,
While I wouldn’t make “love” a requirement of marriage, since many people still marriage for reasons other than love (which is something I couldn’t do nor do I understand), I can’t see these other reasonings coming up with a same-sex couple.
And for that alone, that love is the primary reason for marriage in a same-sex relationship, they should be allowed to be married. 🙂
As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can’t say the same for gay unions. Hëll, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can’t think of one for gays.
Two points, 1) using myths to back up an argument is problemtic at best.
2) There is precident in myths and even in popular culture for “gay” concecption, various tales of the Amazons for instance, (including comics own Wonder Woman) have women producing children with no men around.
EClark:
Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for bëášŧìálìŧÿ, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.
I bring up three counterexamples, then ask:
If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?
EClark responds:
I’m pretty sure you realize that I was speaking historically about marriage.
Actually I didn’t — but I think it’s a non-issue. The only reason to turn to history here is to use it as an example in one way or the other — and in this case you’re clearly using it to argue “gay couples can’t reproduce, so historically they shouldn’t marry.”
My point is that there are several groups which put the lie to that statement. My question above — why are these three groups okay to marry and gays not?
As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can’t say the same for gay unions.
Ah. So those three groups “don’t count” because there are loopholes.
Okay, then. Parthenogenesis occurs in nature — females of some species give birth to other females with no male involvement whatsoever. Since there’s historical precedent there (and precedent that goes back further than humanity itself), shouldn’t that mean that at the very least we should allow lesbian couples to marry, since there’s a chance offspring could occur?
And if you’re going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage
… which I’d point out I never did. You made that leap.
then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age.
I’ve answered this before, over in the 12/31 “An Amendment Now?” thread. I suggest you look there. (But points for not bringing up bëšŧìálìŧÿ, since that’s the other place this argument tends to go.)
TWL
I agree with Tim on these, so I’ll answer them, too.
“As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can’t say the same for gay unions. Hëll, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can’t think of one for gays.”
I hate the miracle-birth argument. The American Family Association has it on its old FAQ about why gay marriage is wrong. It says, in essence, that even though children are in no way relavent to a given marriage, it’s ok as long as it’s theoretically possible, simply due to the proper equipment, that a child could be born, either due to spousal error (if the partners simply chose not to have children) or some incredible miracle (if either of the couple is infertile). Nevermind that it’s absurd to endorse marriage simply on the premise that the couple might have a child they don’t want; what about the other methods that are available to those infertile couples? They are also available to gays (in theory, anyway); adoption, surrogate motherhood, and artificial insemination in the case of lesbians. There’s also the “sculpting a daughter from clay” method Darren mentioned, but it’s not as reliable as some others.
“And if you’re going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage, then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age.”
Frankly, I don’t. I believe polyamory should be an available option in the US. It’s more practical than monogamy, to say the least. Any combination of men and women who decide they want to live and love together can move into a house together; why can’t they get married? Or at least have some form of government recognition and conferrence of rights.
As for age, I wouldn’t deign to tell someone they’re too old to get married, or too young if they’re not a minor (I might advise against it, but I wouldn’t try to stop them).
Incest is kind of thorny, but some people don’t harbor the societal taboo against it. I’m not one of them, but I wouldn’t hold it against someone. If you’re not related to either person (in which case you’d likely be related to both of them, natch), it’s like watching incest pornography. It’s really easy to say these people humping like bunnies are blood relatives, but are they? Can you really be sure? Or perhaps they’re just saying it for shock value. Also, since incest legally includes adoptees, who am I to tell a guy it’s just bad luck that mom and dad adopted his soul mate? Of course, a pair of siblings who wanted to get married bad enough could get around the law (one changes his or her name, for example) and as long as they keep their heads down — which any such couples likely have been, since I’ve never seen an incest pride parade — nobody will ever be the wiser. Of course, it kind of precludes family gatherings (except on the extremely off chance the rest of the family’s into it), and grandma’s stuffing is a pretty big sacrifice.
Incest is kind of thorny, but some people don’t harbor the societal taboo against it.
Incest is more than just a “social taboo”. There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple.
Polygamy is another issue entirely, and not one I particularly want to touch upon.
While such relationships are possible, they are not often healthy for all those involved.
I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who’s wives all know about each other, not the type leading a “double life”) being arrested that *isn’t* married to a minor?
Incest is more than just a “social taboo”. There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple.
Suddenly, I see a rallying cry. “Only homosexual incest!”
I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who’s wives all know about each other, not the type leading a “double life”) being arrested that *isn’t* married to a minor?
Which has more to do with the specific cultures in which polygamy is currently endorsed than with the theoretical nature of polygamy (and it may be abetted by the fact that polygamists are operating outside of the legal concept of marriage anyway.) That focus may be increased by how (at least by my casual observation) most of those being arrested are being charged with welfare fraud, so you’re dealing with someone who is going beyond the bounds of just polygamy. It’s not apt to reflect the various folks living in complex arrangements that they may view as marriage but do not use to seek legal reinforcement or remuneration.
Avi Green: Novi, if you want an explanation, it’s this: even if PAD agrees with your views, that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.
Luigi Novi: And yet you yourself have done it repeatedly, insulting others here and on the board above merely because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I, on the other hand, haven’t insulted you, and if I did, Peter is more than able to admonish me himself. He doesn’t need a self-appointed hall monitor to do so for him.
Avi Green: And you might also want to bear in mind that whatever his thought on homosexuals or religion are, he happens to be very pro-Israel, and Mr. Ries for one has blown it by stating his “opinions” on a site where the viewpoint is quite the opposite.
Luigi Novi: First of all, I didn’t say anything about Israel, nor did Craig. The first person to bring it up was the Blue Spider, and out of the three of us, you. I have never referred to or even used the word up until now, and Craig never did until you accused him of being an “Israel-basher” for absolutely no reason, yet another example of how incoherent and disorganized your reasoning and discussion abilities are.
Second, even if someone does disagree with Israel’s policies or criticizes them for something (much as they would their own country), that does not make them an “Israel-basher,” or an “anti-Semite.” There is a difference between sincerely disagreeing with actions you believe are wrong (whether it is an American criticizing the U.S. government or the Israel government), and attacking them on purely racial grounds. One does not necessarily have to be a racist or anti-Semite for criticizing Israel.
Third, the topic of this thread between you and I began when I stated how I will not condemn homosexuality simply because of Biblical condemnations of it, since I do not regard the Bible as consistent, moral, or honorable. You tried to make believe that this was a comment about the Old Testament, Jews, you, your god, Peter David, Jack Kirby, Siegel and Schuster, and so forth, and the reasoning for this on your part was so threadbare that even people who may agree with you on the subject of homosexuality would not lower themselves by chiming in to make believe that your paralogia on this was at all solid. Now you’re trying to make this about Israel, when I never mentioned Israel, or stated any view on it.
Lastly, the idea that stating an opinion on Israel (or any subject) on Peter’s site that is different from Peter’s opinion is somehow an “insult” to him is preposterous. Peter started this site because he wanted to interact with people who don’t share his opinions on various subjects. The idea that he only wants to people who agree with him on this subject to post here, or that he wants YOU to speak for him in this regard, is a load of bunk. Peter wants people to disagree with him. He does not want use his name simply when it is you who are disagreeing with someone.
Avi Green: And sadly, so do you. And if you’re going to be so degrading in your own way, Repub, than I suggest you hit the trail as well. Democrats of my standing don’t align themselves with people of your standing.
Luigi Novi: Referring to people as “Republicans” and “degrading,” simply because they don’t share your views, and because they point out your shoddy reasoning skills is far more degrading to your position than to mine, especially since I voted for Clinton and Gore in the last three elections.
You keep telling people to stop posting here, and it’s meaningless. This isn’t your site, and simply because you’ve set yourself as Peter’s best friend and personal bouncer at the front door doesn’t mean that people will honor this delusion of yours, or that Peter will either. He decides who posts here.
Not you.
EClark: Next, I didn’t “define” what a “Right to Marry” means.
Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.
EClark: All I did was state the situation as it currently stands in this country, since that is what I thought the topic was about.
Luigi Novi: You opined that homosexuals have the same rights regarding marriage as heterosexuals. I disagree. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they’re attracted to and fall in love with. Homosexuals do not. What one believes marriage is and should be defined as determines whether you think homosexuals are denied marriage rights. People who agree with the law believe marriage is and should only be defined as a heterosexual union, and tend to think that therefore, homosexuals are not denied rights. People who do not agree with the law think it is and should be defined as a union between consenting adults who fall in love/are attracted to one another. All I did was to state this.
“Incest is more than just a “social taboo”. There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple.”
Well, since I’m making the argument that marriage and parenthood needn’t go hand-in-hand, I’m assuming that an incestuous couple has no plans to reproduce with one another, because to do so would make them unforgivably ignorant or careless, and I will argue a case for neither. It’s easy to get pregnant without meaning to, but if you’re not careless, it’s even easier not to — after all, a woman can only get pregnant for three or four days a month. That being the case, incest is reduced to a social taboo, in which case, I stand by what I said.
“Polygamy is another issue entirely, and not one I particularly want to touch upon.
While such relationships are possible, they are not often healthy for all those involved.”
Save for a person who is analytically polygamous but emotionally monogamous and the unintentional resentment sharing a lover can cause in that sense, I fail to see any way in which it wouldn’t be healthy for a small group of people who all love one another pitching in and living together. Then again, there are plenty of unhealthy monogamous relationships out there as well, so I’m not certain that polygamy would be the unhealthy factor.
“I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who’s wives all know about each other, not the type leading a “double life”) being arrested that *isn’t* married to a minor?”
Well, since it’s illegal for a person to be married to more than one person, at present, and bigamy is not a crime of passion anywhere but Vegas, such a person is not taking matters of law into consideration at that point, anyway. I know a married couple both of whom have another significant other, both are friends with the other S.O., and endorse the secondary relationship. They’ve expressed an interest in living in one big happy family with several adults, all romantically involved with one another, all raising everyone’s children together. Of all the people I know, they are most likely to know what they want from life, and I would willingly join that family if I was invited — I’d just rather spend some more time in a monogamous relationship first, though.
There are plenty of non-pedophiles pushing for legalized polygamy, though, and there’s no reason, sociological or otherwise, that such a thing should be considered criminal.
I notice that people seem to always fall into the trap of defending gay marriage by defending the inevitable slippery slope of “polyamory” and “incest.” If you start equating homosexual unions with what most Americans, including most gays, consider “icky,” you can pretty much declare the whole argument over.
“Support gay marriage… and a Flowers in the Attic world where brothers and sisters marry and children are raised in a home with multiple ‘moms’ and ‘dads.'”
Yeah, that’ll sell.
Interracial (or even interfaith for that matter) unions might have seemed shocking but get past the cosmetic difference and the essential family unit remains the same. Gay unions, also, require that the basic family unit change greatly (two moms or two dads) but aside from that big leap, it’s still not that far removed from a normal family unit (still two parents and a kid).
Incest is pretty much flat-out destructive. We expect that mom doesn’t look at Junior in that way, nor does dad look at his daughter in that way. Siblings “dating” is less potentially abusive than the violation of the paternal bond but it still destroys the sanctity of the brother/sister or brother/brother relationship. For instance. I’ve dated women. However, when I see the relationship that siblings have that I will never have (I’m an only child), I can’t help feeling envious. It’s not something that I would exchange for a sexual relationship.
But this is ultimately a dead-end argument and it’s distressing when people fall into it. The last thing I’d want is to see a Democratic candidate defending incest while Pres. Bush represses a giggle. It would make the whole Dukakis “what would you do if your wife were raped and killed” question look like a cakewalk.
Here’s an article for those interested:
What marriage is for…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp
Mr. Ries: Despite whatever you say, aside from openly admitting that you support terrorism and the PLO, and discriminating against Israel, it is clear that you’re just a Repug, and I find it dubious that you’re married.
Mr. Novi: This may not be my site, but it isn’t yours either, and respect for someone else’s property is something that both sides need to respect.
It should also be noted that you continue to lie regarding Exodus, since the killing you speak of there was in retaliation for a murder committed by some crummy bad apples. I suggest you stop trying to distort the facts.
And if PAD himself is reading, then, I hope I’m not embarrassing you or anything, but I hope you understand that you’re not doing yourself a favor by allowing bunglers like these to clutter your weblog, and that to let an argument like this degenerate into needless slop can run the risk of alienating many visitors to the site. As even these individuals, and me too, should be aware.
“… nor does dad look at his daughter in that way.”
On a sidenote, Robert Heinlein theorized that all men look at their daughters that way, from very early in life. The good ones don’t act on it directly, of course, but this is an explanation of why daughters tend to be closer to their fathers than sons.
I’m unsure about the theory, mind you, but it’s a perspective that suggests incestuous thought isn’t as alien as some of us might think; it’s just something we reject for one reason or another.
Mr. Ries: Despite whatever you say, aside from openly admitting that you support terrorism and the PLO, and discriminating against Israel, it is clear that you’re just a Repug, and I find it dubious that you’re married.
You’re a @#$^’ing moron. I’ll be blunt – you’re lucky you’re not in arm’s reach right now, because I’m not sure I could say I could stop myself from physically hurting you.
The only admittance I’m making is that, and that PAD or Glenn needs to do something about you.
I wonder if you’re worth talking to a lawyer about at this point, since I’m starting to feel threatened by your accusations.
Just to play devil’s advocate…
What’s the big deal about bëášŧìálìŧÿ? I mean, I can KILL a cow…