Is unfortunate. But only for you. As far as this issue is concerned, you are yesterday's news.
I never will support Gay Marriage because I've heard every possible argument for it, and find them all not worth undoing the biblical notions that built the West, which was a moral, cultural, and scientific aberration in human history. Make the case for homosexual marriage, one that hasn't been made by anyone else, and I am as close to sure, without 100% certain, that you will not articulate a more powerful case then any that has come before you.
Western Civilization began in Ancient Greece. Christianity nearly destroyed it, beginning with the destruction of the great Library of Alexandria, plunging Europe into the Dark Ages. Western civilization didn't even begin to recover until the Elizabethan Age, marking the beginning of the decline of the power of the church in Rome and the beginning of the scientific age. I think perhaps you've hitched your mule to the wrong wagon, my friend.
The Radicals Are Those Pushing For Marriage Equality:
What radicals? Polls now show that the majority of Americans support marriage equality. Even our President supports it.
It is not that I know the eternal truth. The fact of the matter is that those who argue for Same-sex marriage always argue in the affirmative, saying they are morally just in their position and never doubt their cause. NEVER!
It is because as Americans we have come to realize that freedom should be for everyone, not just those who meet what you consider to be a Biblical criteria. Once you have that epiphany, it becomes a cause that is not open to doubt.
I, on the other hand, hold my position purely as an article of faith. I have faith that it is right, and that faith is backed up by history, anthropology, archaeology, and traditions that have survived millennia.
Slavery also survived for millennia. This can also be backed up by history, anthropology, archaeology, and traditions. The very book in which you claim to place your faith also supports slavery much more stridently than it opposes gay sex.
The radicals here, who are impervious to reason, are the ones pushing to redefine marriage, as being between the same sex. It is purely emotional the passion that drives the movement for same-sex marriage. Because most people fighting for it are straight, not Gay. They do not know the history of homosexuality, or sexuality in the ancient world, and they could care less. They are animated by values of "Love," "Tolerance," "Equality," "Compassion," and "Gender-Equality." That's all that matters to them, and qualifies uprooting an entire system that has been around for the last 1500 years.
I think most people who post here are just as knowledgeable about history as you are. About 150 years ago, this country dismantled slavery, an institution at least as old as marriage. I predict that making marriage more inclusive will have a negligible effect on our society by comparison.
Never before has any great religious or political tradition offered any ceremony pairing two or more individuals of the same-sex as a social equivalent to male-female marriage. Greeks, Egyptians, Mesopotamians of every stripe, Persians, Hindu's, franco-anglo-germanic tribes, etc, they all pleasured themselves with boys and young men. Absolutely. It was the ideal in those days for a man to have a male lover, and entertain one's self with boys. And many religious traditions okayed homosexual relations, so long as it conformed to traditional gender roles, of men coupling with women. You see this in traditional buddhist culture, as you do in Ancient Japan and Ancient Celts, and Mayans. But none of them ever redefined the institution of marriage to put male-male coupling on the same pedestal as traditional marriage. Male-Female marriage is the only way to construct an elevated society, that has a will to live on, and the means, by way of marriage, of doing so.
Appealing to tradition is not a respectable debate tactic. Gay marriage is quickly becoming the norm in first world nations with no ill effects. Unless you can point to specific ill effects that gay marriage will cause, simply saying "this is the way it's always been done" doesn't carry any water.
The OT was Reactionary:
Homosexuality is a sin, but every commandment and prohibition in the text has a reason for it being put there. The act itself is abhorrent to God because it is antithetical to the foundational building blocks upon which society is based: The Family.
First of all, why should American law be based on a book written thousands of years ago by tribal primitives? Secondly, can you tell me specifically how gay marriage will harm "the family"?
The ancient Jews recognized something that most people have yet to understand: Gender is Fluid, and Sexuality is not Fixed. It was apparent and common throughout the ancient near-east, and there were many movements throughout ancient Israeli history to allow priestly & homosexual prostitution.
Seriously? This may be true for a handful of people, but not for the vast majority. Personally, I can't think of a single time in my life that I was not attracted to the opposite gender. The idea of sex with the same gender is not something I could even consider.
But a strong society based on ethical monotheism cannot function if the family or religion can be sexualized, otherwise it will come undone.
Well, it's a good thing then that we do not live in a society based on any kind of theism.
Male sexual nature is polymorphous, the history of humanity has shown that we men have had sex with other men, boys, women, girls, animals, and objects of every variety. The history of the male creature and its sexual nature shows that there is very little left in the world that hasn't excited a male to orgasm. We are just a fluid in our nature as women, contrary to popular belief that female sexuality is more fluid then male. Sexuality needed to be fully restrained. Men needed to focus all of their sexual energy only towards their woman companion. Not towards other women, not towards their son or daughter, not towards a neighbor or a neighbors son, not towards animals, etc.
This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. I'm speechless.
Just as stoning(as a punishment) is used throughout the text to add extra weight to the severity of a certain offense, the all out war to undo the homosexual behaviors of heterosexual men in ancient Israel needed to carry as stiff a punishment as possible, to show severity of the offense. Not many were stoned, and of those who were, most were heterosexual men engaging in homosexual behavior, most often in a religious setting.
Hmmm. Strangely enough, this is the argument often used to say that the Bible does not condemn monogamous gay relationships--that it only condemns heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts as part of pagan rituals.
Homosexual love robbed women of the ancient world of love and a meaningful relationship, which was as true in ancient greece as it was in most parts of the world. They were very often only valued for child-rearing, and nothing more. Homosexual relations has been linked to the low status of women throughout Chinese history. The bible needed to change all of this, and elevate the worth and role of women. And it could only do so by requiring the sex that ran the world, men, to settle down with the weaker & submissive one, women. Only when you get to know the other, can you relate to their needs, and how they see the world, and you can't do that if you only hung out with others of your own sex, and pleasured yourself with only others of the same sex.
The subjugation of women would have occurred in the absence of homosexuality. One has nothing to do with the other.
Some Final Thoughts:
Are unmarried straight people second class citizens?
Explain specifically how marriage equality would cause this to happen.
What if tomorrow we said that only women janitors can service women's restrooms, and locker-room upkeep, are men second class citizens because they cannot partake of something that is exclusively for the opposite sex?
Again, explain how marriage equality would affect janitorial positions. This is laughable. Also explain specifically how marriage equality would make men second class citizens.
Marriage is an institution meant to support & sustain family creation.
So marriage equality will lead to the creation of even more families. What is wrong with that?
Considering the fluidity of gender,
Fluidity of gender, I would say, would be a rare occurrence. Have you at any time in your life been confused about your gender or your sexual orientation? Me neither!
it is of very little to ask gays to forgo this institution, an institution that 90% of them don't even care for.
Considering all the gay weddings that are taking place, we know that this certainly is not true!!
The great offense here is that they, and all you liberals, would use this hallowed institution, that built the west, to advance social equality, and the acceptance of Gays.
Yes. We absolutely would.
I don't mind if you elevate being against Gay Marriage to the level of Apartheid or racism, but you not only loose credibility as a serious thinker, you also diminish the meaning of words and the significance of Apartheid
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is the anti-gay marriage side that has lost credibility.
. Their existence does not poison our marriages one bit. I've already said that.
Then what is your complaint? Why not live and let live?
Most of us in our late 20's, on up, were raised in a time when the heterosexual constructs of Christianity were still strong. That is less true today for teens that are coming up, and will be utterly irrelevant three generations from now, that have grown up in a gender-free world.
Do you seriously believe in this slippery slope argument? Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority. The whole idea of a "gender-free world" is the product of hysteria.
Lastly, I would appreciate it if you brought more clarity with your arguments. It is not helpful that you make connections between things that are not intellectual or moral equivalents. Be it the Apartheid example, or women's suffrage.
Something is either fair or unfair. If you are a victim of injustice, a discussion of degree has no meaning whatsoever.
