unofan
Well-known member
The norm of all of human history until relatively recently was also that women were property (first of their fathers, then their husbands). Does that mean we should stop treating women as equals?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
The norm of all of human history until relatively recently was also that women were property (first of their fathers, then their husbands). Does that mean we should stop treating women as equals?
P
Priceless
Guest
Bob, the norm of all of human history was no interracial marriages. Should that still be in place?
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
You're the one who wants to use "the norm of all of human history" as a standard. I tried to tell you not to go down this road...
You're the one who wants to use "the norm of all of human history" as a standard. I tried to tell you not to go down this road...
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Just to reiterate I really do sympathize with people for whom this issue is moving too fast for them. What I will fight against however is the notion that this is part of some sort of plot to force people/religions/etc to endorse gay marriage, or that it will lead to the eventual downfall of society. Those are the statements of hucksters looking to cash in on people's fears, not of college educated hockey fans!
Just to reiterate I really do sympathize with people for whom this issue is moving too fast for them. What I will fight against however is the notion that this is part of some sort of plot to force people/religions/etc to endorse gay marriage, or that it will lead to the eventual downfall of society. Those are the statements of hucksters looking to cash in on people's fears, not of college educated hockey fans!
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
The US is Christian influenced and that holds probably more than it ever has. Jesus was about compassion, respect towards others, equal treatment, giving to the poor. He was not about stopping homosexuality. Just google 'Jesus and gays' and you'll get what you need there. Frankly the ruling is probably more toward what the son of God taught than not.
The orientation that you're referring to is evangelical or old testament thinking. Christianity became what it is today because of the above teaching of compassion. IMO the conservative evangelicals have been trying to railroad the religion forever. Frankly if you think about govt services and Christian teaching...we're probably more of a compassionate Christian nation than most 'conservatives' would like.
The US is Christian influenced and that holds probably more than it ever has. Jesus was about compassion, respect towards others, equal treatment, giving to the poor. He was not about stopping homosexuality. Just google 'Jesus and gays' and you'll get what you need there. Frankly the ruling is probably more toward what the son of God taught than not.
The orientation that you're referring to is evangelical or old testament thinking. Christianity became what it is today because of the above teaching of compassion. IMO the conservative evangelicals have been trying to railroad the religion forever. Frankly if you think about govt services and Christian teaching...we're probably more of a compassionate Christian nation than most 'conservatives' would like.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
There is a fine line here. If you want to report that this happened, that's the decision, nothing else can be done about that particular thing (aside from possibly a Constitutional amendment), clear up anything that may still be of question, and move on. To be inundated with the fact to the point where it's basically being shoved in our faces, whether it's from a vindictive standpoint, sulking standpoint, or something else, is where the problem arises. Has it gotten to that point? With some of the obviously partisan banter from both sides, perhaps. This is the reason for the uncomfortable situation I had previously described, and also why I support certain "don't ask, don't tell" policies, and I'm talking about ones that actually make sense. If you want to mention your same-sex partner in conversation similar to how anyone might mention their bf/gf, I don't see an issue with that. Want to put on some pink threads? Go for it. If you want to bring out the media-over-exaggerated poofter things that are obvious distractions to draw attention, constantly shout to the world your orientation, or even make a deal out of gather information on this orientation (obvious exception would be if it were absolutely necessary to the completion of a task, such as if you were looking to hook up with someone), that's where the issue comes into play. Freedom's a two-way street, and there really isn't much of any reason for vindication.
There is a fine line here. If you want to report that this happened, that's the decision, nothing else can be done about that particular thing (aside from possibly a Constitutional amendment), clear up anything that may still be of question, and move on. To be inundated with the fact to the point where it's basically being shoved in our faces, whether it's from a vindictive standpoint, sulking standpoint, or something else, is where the problem arises. Has it gotten to that point? With some of the obviously partisan banter from both sides, perhaps. This is the reason for the uncomfortable situation I had previously described, and also why I support certain "don't ask, don't tell" policies, and I'm talking about ones that actually make sense. If you want to mention your same-sex partner in conversation similar to how anyone might mention their bf/gf, I don't see an issue with that. Want to put on some pink threads? Go for it. If you want to bring out the media-over-exaggerated poofter things that are obvious distractions to draw attention, constantly shout to the world your orientation, or even make a deal out of gather information on this orientation (obvious exception would be if it were absolutely necessary to the completion of a task, such as if you were looking to hook up with someone), that's where the issue comes into play. Freedom's a two-way street, and there really isn't much of any reason for vindication.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
As I always like to say, the Romans took Christianity and screwed it up. A lot of the really asinine rules and extra-curricular teachings come from pre-Christian Roman ways of life. Is it any wonder why there have been so many schisms in history? First the Great Schism (creation of the Orthodox church), the Great Western Schism (creation of the Protestant sects), and although you'd think there would be a Great American Schism, perhaps what it would do is to create a spiritual way of thinking.
As I always like to say, the Romans took Christianity and screwed it up. A lot of the really asinine rules and extra-curricular teachings come from pre-Christian Roman ways of life. Is it any wonder why there have been so many schisms in history? First the Great Schism (creation of the Orthodox church), the Great Western Schism (creation of the Protestant sects), and although you'd think there would be a Great American Schism, perhaps what it would do is to create a spiritual way of thinking.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Rover introduced the subject of what was the norm. Guess you missed that.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
So you want to use the standard, but no one else can?
So you want to use the standard, but no one else can?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
He used it in a quotation to describe what he perceived to be the thinking of, as he so affectionately terms, "knuckledraggers". By you yourself using the term afterward, it was a justification of his perception. Had you wanted to clarify that, it wouldn't have applied.
I always tell people to read every word of what I say. It doesn't just apply to my words.
He used it in a quotation to describe what he perceived to be the thinking of, as he so affectionately terms, "knuckledraggers". By you yourself using the term afterward, it was a justification of his perception. Had you wanted to clarify that, it wouldn't have applied.
I always tell people to read every word of what I say. It doesn't just apply to my words.
Its the difference I mentioned earlier between liking something and tolerating it. This distinction gets obliterated often by the aforementioned hucksters. I don't like Boston College winning national championships in hockey but I'll tolerate it.
So, not to pick on yourself, Bob, etc, but I'm not asking any of you to like the fact that gay marriages occur, and that its outside of the historical norm. However, a little bit of tolerance and context isn't too much to ask IMHO. I don't think this issue is that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but you wouldn't know it based on the reactions over the last decade.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
You have a very different understanding of many things that I do. Being compassionate has zero to do with whether something is shown in the bible as being right or wrong or according to what God said or however one wants to put it. One can believe that someone is totally going down the wrong road in an area, but still be entirely compassionate toward them. This is a distinction that seems to be increasing lost in our feel good society. And regarding government, it will never deliver compassion that remotely approaches the compassion that individuals giving of themselves can deliver. Government can play a role in helping foster things, but if it supplants personal individual involvement with one's fellow man, the equation is a loser.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Do you think the "government" is some amorphous blob? Government is made up of people, many of them just as, if not more, religious than you. The vast majority of them do the things they do because of compassion. Very few people go into social work to get rich.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
I really don't see what you're trying to get at here.
Uh, he raised the issue of what supposed "knuckledraggers" think is the norm. I put it in historical context, pointing out that through human history there is a different norm than is now being pushed, which his last post concedes is true. Simply put, that us traditionalists didn't fall for some marketing scheme, as alleged, but reflect most of human history in our perspectives.He used it in a quotation to describe what he perceived to be the thinking of, as he so affectionately terms, "knuckledraggers". By you yourself using the term afterward, it was a justification of his perception. Had you wanted to clarify that, it wouldn't have applied.
I always tell people to read every word of what I say. It doesn't just apply to my words.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at here.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
This goes both ways, though. Am I a tolerant person? Sure. However, there are certain things written, and I am not limiting this to this subject, where it seems that the wishes of others are not being tolerated when the preaching of the non-existence of tolerance is being made. It all goes back to the 9th amendment.
Also, as a point of clarification, there are times when I will post something where it isn't my beliefs, but rather being the devil's advocate to someone's statement. If it's my beliefs, I will make it quite clear that it is my beliefs.
This goes both ways, though. Am I a tolerant person? Sure. However, there are certain things written, and I am not limiting this to this subject, where it seems that the wishes of others are not being tolerated when the preaching of the non-existence of tolerance is being made. It all goes back to the 9th amendment.
Also, as a point of clarification, there are times when I will post something where it isn't my beliefs, but rather being the devil's advocate to someone's statement. If it's my beliefs, I will make it quite clear that it is my beliefs.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
And yes, in many ways the government is an amorphous blob.
That's some mighty sweeping assumptions you make there, with little basis for making them. Certainly there are many individual people who work for government and try to show compassion in conducting their governmental duties and are motivated by things other than getting rich. But government as a whole is hardly this cuddly compassionate thing caricature you try to conjure up.
And yes, in many ways the government is an amorphous blob.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Yes but isn't this where we should separate the fact that you can get married but someone doesn't have to sell you might cake for that wedding if they don't want to. You getting married doesn't effect them in anyway, they tolerate your marriage but shouldn't be required to provide any services in conjunction with that marriage if they don't want to.
- Status