Gay Marriage - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By mikema63
#14781479
It's not pointless, the whole purpose of the forum is to discuss our personal views. You may add the caveat that you don't want to universalize your views, but those views are ultimately the topic of discussion.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781483
mikema63 wrote:It's not pointless, the whole purpose of the forum is to discuss our personal views. You may add the caveat that you don't want to universalize your views, but those views are ultimately the topic of discussion.


Fair enough. ;) I have said many times I don't understand homosexuality, so I am reluctant to express my views since having a view on something you don't understand is an oxymoron. :lol: It is something, if brought to a vote, I would feel most comfortable in abstaining. :hmm:
By Pants-of-dog
#14781485
There is no reason to bring it to a vote, much like we do not have votes about whether or not black people should be allowed to marry.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14781490
One Degree wrote:Fair enough. ;) I have said many times I don't understand homosexuality, so I am reluctant to express my views since having a view on something you don't understand is an oxymoron. :lol: It is something, if brought to a vote, I would feel most comfortable in abstaining. :hmm:


What the hell is there to understand? you are attracted to women and not men, gays are the opposite.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14781491
We should have a vote on whether people can pick their nose.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#14781502
One Bullet

Some paedophiles are homosexuals, some paedophiles are heterosexual, and some are bisexual. All are criminal. If we prohibit gays from marrying because they might be paedophiles then we must do away with marriage, full stop. This will not stop criminal behaviour though.

Arguing small states be allowed to strip away the rights of some won't work either, and I think you know it.

If you substitute gay rights for one you do support, ie gun rights or the right to free speech, then the Belgium argument loses credibility
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781515
Stormsmith wrote:One Bullet

Some paedophiles are homosexuals, some paedophiles are heterosexual, and some are bisexual. All are criminal. If we prohibit gays from marrying because they might be paedophiles then we must do away with marriage, full stop. This will not stop criminal behaviour though.

Arguing small states be allowed to strip away the rights of some won't work either, and I think you know it.

If you substitute gay rights for one you do support, ie gun rights or the right to free speech, then the Belgium argument loses credibility

No, it really doesn't. These are all just things people have opinions on. 'Rule of the people', and 'freedom to leave', are the only two rights I believe to be essential in people having control of their own lives. The rest are choices. Demanding these choices be limited to one type of reasoning eliminates their choice of using other methods to determine their life. Viewing the world as one in which all choices must be made based upon the logic of individual rights is a biased and experimental type of reasoning. Viewing a world where communities have rights is just as valid and has a much longer history of being productive for humanity.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14781521
The trans bathroom debate kicked off because a state level legislature decided to overrule a county legislature after it allowed trans kids to choose where to piss. It then cried foul when the federal gov't decided to overrule the state so the whole state's rights argument is disingenuous. I'd also question how much autonomy one degree's city states would have. Given the level of flak, social pressure and economic pressure directed at states that restrict gays or trans rights I can't imagine a world where New York, San Francisco and some hillside are all city states having much diversity of opinion. Just recently, a bunch of Caribbean countries decriminalised homosexuality after the British gov't told them to.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781524
AFAIK wrote:The trans bathroom debate kicked off because a state level legislature decided to overrule a county legislature after it allowed trans kids to choose where to piss. It then cried foul when the federal gov't decided to overrule the state so the whole state's rights argument is disingenuous. I'd also question how much autonomy one degree's city states would have. Given the level of flak, social pressure and economic pressure directed at states that restrict gays or trans rights I can't imagine a world where New York, San Francisco and some hillside are all city states having much diversity of opinion. Just recently, a bunch of Caribbean countries decriminalised homosexuality after the British gov't told them to.


This ^ is exactly right. This is why I mention 'autonomous city states' and 'standardized city states'. The real argument is whether or not we actually have any rights not granted by our autonomous level of government. I don't believe we do. Human rights is an ideal concept with no practicality other than a propaganda tool. We get our rights from our government. I simply want these governments to be smaller and uniform to allow for a healthy multicultural diversity. Basically when I say it is a 'states rights' decision, I am planning on this evolving into these states being countries. I found the idea of one country making common rules for 320,000,000 people way too restrictive.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14781527
I really don't understand why people get so incensed about same sex marriage. Why does it matter if a gay couple can get married? Who does it hurt? What conceivable benefit is there to banning it? :?:

The single law that most "undermines" marriage, is the ease of divorce. When 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce - a statistic that was already well-established long before same sex marriage was legal - you don't get to claim "the gays" are ruining the institution.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There is no reason to bring it to a vote, much like we do not have votes about whether or not black people should be allowed to marry.

I know this isn't really in the context of what you were saying, but I think there is definitely a benefit to passing same sex marriage laws through Congress/Parliament, over going through the courts. The former route gives an extra safeguard of "legitimacy" which prevents it being overturned somewhat arbitrarily in the future. Compare the current situation in the UK and Canada - where the Parliamentary route was taken - with the US, and I think it's clear where same sex marriage is more secure.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#14781568
One Degree wrote:No, it really doesn't. These are all just things people have opinions on.

These are things upon which we have opinions but they are also things we create laws for protection


'Rule of the people', and 'freedom to leave', are the only two rights I believe to be essential in people having control of their own lives. The rest are choices. Demanding these choices be limited to one type of reasoning eliminates their choice of using other methods to determine their life.

This is where protection under the law comes in. If you were gay, the rule of the people may support or eliminate your right, or your choice to determine your life. If you are gay and live in a state that supports your right to marry, fair dues; but if you live in a state that cheerfully denies you equality under the law but forces you to pay for heterosexual rights, you're left with being forced to endure or leave. Happily for gays, they have the law on their side and happily for you, you still have the choice to move if you don't like it.


Viewing the world as one in which all choices must be made based upon the logic of individual rights is a biased and experimental type of reasoning. Viewing a world where communities have rights is just as valid and has a much longer history of being productive for humanity.

Your society creates laws based on equality, not individually of rights.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#14781670
One Degree wrote:Allowing local communities to indulge their prejudices. If they want prayer in their school, then they should be allowed to have it. If a different community wants to outlaw prayer, then fine. Demanding that everyone follow the same guidelines based strictly on physical harm is simply an argument to support globalization of human rights and the elimination of our cultural differences. This does tremendous emotional harm to even a greater degree than any physical harm. Destruction of our community as the source of our values is the most dangerous thing I can thing of. What good is being free of physical harm in a world where I have no emotional choices? Are you harmed by prayer in school? Are you harmed by not having prayer in school? It is obvious many of our laws need to be emotionally based.

It's hard for me to respond since I don't have an explicit sense of what ideas are evoked in reaction to this post. But the two sentiments I have is one that this notion of local autonomy has long been obsolete and as much as you might wish for local autonomy I don't see how feasiable it is considering the modern economy. That we're not longer in tribes or city states, but in nation states which even themselves are at present in tension as even the most powerful states have less autonomy than they had years back as transnational corporations have gained significant leverage over even them. And I suppose an issue is even the concept of autonomy is often thought of in a non-concrete sense where we're abstracted away from the world where we're intimately reliant on many things outside of ourselves so that even our autonomy is based on the nature of things outside us. That even the power of one's boss is reliant on the fact that they keep those beneath them subdued, autonomy being at the expense of other's having the leverage to undermine others.

But something I think that irks me with your notion beyond any point of whether it's feasible or not is that I have a vague sense of it being a multiculturalist notion of respecting culture itself rather than people. And to me I'm not sure I really have an inherent respect for culture, I always had a tension with this sense of respecting cultures and its embedded assumptions.
That I think this idea of having to respect cultures is likely detrimental and perhaps reliant on strange conceptions of culture.
I've been enjoying Kenan Malik's views of trying to retain aspects that are seen as progressive in the modernist/liberal project rather than resorting to a sort of nihilism that tries to treat all cultures as if they're on equal footing. There are many cultures I have no respect for and I actually like that they are disrupted and overcome with new standards.
Spoiler: show
Multiculturalism at its limits?
Kenan Malik: It seems to me that part of the problem is confusion over what we mean by multiculturalism. It can mean one of two things. First: diversity as lived experience. Second: multiculturalism as a political process. To talk of diversity as lived experience is to talk of the experience of living in a society that, through mass immigration, has become more open, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan. In that sense, the mass immigration of the past 50 years has been of great benefit, it seems to me. But multiculturalism as a political process has come to mean something very different, namely the process of managing that diversity by putting people into ethnic boxes. It’s a process through which cultural differences are institutionalized, publicly affirmed, recognized and institutionalized; through which political policy is predicated on the ethnic box to which one belongs. That seems to me deeply problematic.

The conflation of diversity as lived experience and multiculturalism as a political process has been highly invidious. On the one hand it has allowed many on the Right, and not just on the Right, to blame immigrants and immigration for the social problems of western nations. On the other hand, it has led many on the Left to abandon their attachment to classical notions of liberty and freedom, such as free speech and secularism. The irony about multiculturalism as a political process is that it undermines much of what is good about diversity as a lived experience.

The question that multiculturalists very rarely ask themselves is why is diversity good? Diversity isn’t good in and of itself; it’s good because it allows us to expand our horizons, to break out of the boxes — be they cultural, ethnic, or religious — in which we find ourselves. To think about other values, other beliefs, other lifestyles, to make judgements upon those values and beliefs and lifestyles. To enter, in other words, into a dialogue, a debate, through which a more universal language of citizenship can arise. It is precisely such dialogue and debate that multiculturalism as a political process undermines and erodes in the name of “respect” and “tolerance”. So the very thing that diversity is good for, the very thing we should cherish it for, is the very thing that multiculturalism as a political process undermines.

All cultures are not equal
How things have changed. ‘Permanently different’ is exactly how we tend to see different, groups, societies and cultures today. Why? Largely because contemporary society has lost faith in social transformation, in the possibility of progress, in the beliefs that animated anti-imperialists like James and Fanon.

To regard people as ‘temporarily backward’ rather than ‘permanently different’ is to accept that while people are potentially equal, cultures definitely are not; it is to accept the idea of social and moral progress; that it would be far better if everybody had the chance to live in the type of society or culture that best promoted human advancement.

But it’s just these ideas — and the very act of making judgements about beliefs, values, lifestyles, and cultures — that are now viewed as politically uncouth. In place of the progressive universalism of James and Fanon, contemporary Western societies have embraced a form of nihilistic multiculturalism. We’ve come to see the world as divided into cultures and groups defined largely by their difference with each other. And every group has come to see itself as composed not of active agents attempting to overcome disadvantages by striving for equality and progress, but of passive victims with irresolvable grievances. For if differences are permanent, how can grievances ever be resolved?

Against Multiculturalism
The idea of the equality of cultures (as opposed to the equality of human beings) denies one of the critical features of human life and human history: our capacity for social, moral and technological progress. What distinguishes humans from other creatures is capacity for innovation and transformation, for making ideas and artefacts that are not simply different but also often better, than those of a previous generation or another culture. It is no coincidence that the modern world has been shaped by the ideas and technologies that have emerged from Renaissance and Enlightenment. The scientific method, democratic politics, the concept of universal values - these are palpably better concepts than those that existed previously. Not because Europeans are a superior people, but because many of the idea and philosophies that came out of the European Renaissance and Enlightenment are superior.

To argue this today is, of course, to invite the charge of 'Eurocentrism', or even racism. This simply demonstrates the irrationality of contemporary notions of 'racism' and 'antiracism'. Those who actually fought Western imperialism over the past two centuries recognised that their struggles were rooted in the Enlightenment tradition. 'I denounce European colonialist scholarship', wrote CLR James, the West Indian writer and political revolutionary. 'But I respect the learning and the profound discoveries of Western civilisation.'

Frantz Fanon, one of the great voices of postwar third world nationalism, similarly argued that the problem was not Enlightenment philosophy but the failure of Europeans to follow through its emancipatory logic. 'All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought', he argued. 'But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.'

Western liberals were often shocked by the extent to which anti-colonial movement adopted what they considered to be tainted ideas. The concepts of universalism and unilinear evolutionism, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed, found 'unexpected support from peoples who desire nothing more than to share in the benefits of industrialisation; peoples who prefer to look upon themselves as temporarily backward than permanently different'. Elsewhere he noted ruefully that the doctrine of cultural relativism 'was challenged by the very people for whose moral benefit the anthropologists had established it in the first place'.

Multiculturalists have turned their back on universalist conceptions not because such conceptions are racist but because they have given up on the possibility of economic and social change. We live in an age in which there is considerable disillusionment with politics as an agency of change, and in which possibilities of social transformation seem to have receded. What is important about human beings, many have come to believe, is not their political capacity but their cultural attachments. Such pessimism has led to multiculturalists to conflate the idea of humans as culture-bearing creatures with the idea that humans have to bear a particular culture.

Clearly no human can live outside of culture. But to say this is not to say they have to live inside a particular one. To view humans as culture-bearing is to view them as social beings, and hence as transformative beings. It suggests that humans have the capacity for change, for progress, and for the creation of universal moral and political forms through reason and dialogue.

To view humans as having to bear specific cultures is, on the contrary, to deny such a capacity for transformation. It suggests that every human being is so shaped by a particular culture that to change or undermine that culture would be to undermine the very dignity of that individual. It suggests that the biological fact of, say, Bangladeshi ancestry somehow make a human being incapable of living well except as a participant of Bangladeshi culture. The idea of culture once connoted all that freed humans from the blind weight of tradition, has now, in the hands of multiculturalists, become identified with that very burden.

Multiculturalism is the product of political defeat. The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the left, the defeat of most liberation movements in the third world and the demise of social movements in the West, have all transformed political consciousness. The quest for equality has increasingly been abandoned in favour of the claim to a diverse society. Campaigning for equality means challenging accepted practices, being willing to march against the grain, to believe in the possibility of social transformation. Conversely, celebrating differences between peoples allows us to accept society as it is - it says little more than 'We live in a diverse world, enjoy it'. As the American writer Nancy Fraser has put it, 'The remedy required to redress injustice will be cultural recognition, as opposed to political-economic redistribution.' Indeed so deeply attached are multiculturalists to the idea of cultural, as opposed to economic or political justice, that David Bromwich is led to wonder whether intellectuals today would oppose economic slavery if it lacked any racial or cultural dimension.


That the totalitarianism of views and values you don't like being imposed on you is something that is inevitable with power where those who are powerful inevitably dominate others. It's just in regard to gay marriage it seems you're on the shit end of the stick where previously you weren't, norms of those in power have shifted.
From this I'm just trying to bring up the state of how things are regardless of gay marriage being right or wrong. Which I think you don't actually argue directly against but are now on a distant point primarily about local autonomy and dislike of the reality in which local is subjugated by the larger community of the nation state. And I don't know how to argue about whether it's right or wrong because I feel like in just trying to consider what I think the reality of our circumstances is, no matter whether it's right or wrong, the power of the local simply isn't that significant and likely won't be unless we destroy our economies and revert back to tribalism or city states.

I don't know how to say it other than I think you're upset just as I or anyone else is when our views and values are realized through the state. But you kind of have to live with it unless you're prepared to go through the means of organizing the sorts of power required to undermine it. That there is always a struggle and for many, they're too impotent to resist the power of others and they are compelled to comply. This is a an inevitable function of any social organization no matter it's size. And in the case of the US, your community standards lose out. Just like how a member of your local community loses out when they disagree with the standards of the community. This is because there can't be a plurality of individual likes, there has to be a dominant standard because as you noted we're socially implicated and in this case your local standard loses out to the larger community standard. It's just a case of shit out of luck, in the same way women who don't want to be mistreated through state policy are fucked over. But wishing it were different doesn't mean much in terms of reasoning that it's right or wrong or whether it's feasible. And I think this might be something I personally see in this situation, we're discussing something that seems purely in the realm of wishing it were true without relation to it's feasibility base don the world as it exists today and moved away from even debating why anyone cares to oppose or support gay marriage.
It seems all very hard to engage with I think and I find this thread all very confusing and muddled because of these points I believe.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781721
@Wellsy The thread is about gay marriage so I will not attempt to address all the issues of local autonomy. I fall back on this issue because both sides of arguments such as gay marriage have very strong opinions and feel the quality of their life is diminished if the other side is dominant. This can not be settled to both sides satisfaction simply by passing laws and telling the other side to 'live with it'. They will continue to battle unless they have an alternative.
My views are often called unrealistic, yet if you look at what is going on in the world, you will see this is exactly what people are demanding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 69816.html
This ^ is an article about there being only 10 countries in the world that are totally at peace. This is not a world that accepts domination. This is a world that is increasingly demanding their group be left alone.
The irony I see is the demand for human rights is actually what will increasingly result in community rights. A human can not live on their own, but they can demand a community of like minded individuals. Your choice is non stop war or enough autonomous communities to alleviate tensions. The time of the large nation state is over, but it will not die easily. The world no longer accepts countries expanding through annexation, but the terms for peace are often based upon division into two or more new countries. Does this not show where we are headed and should plan for it?
User avatar
By Wellsy
#14781732
One Degree wrote:@Wellsy The thread is about gay marriage so I will not attempt to address all the issues of local autonomy. I fall back on this issue because both sides of arguments such as gay marriage have very strong opinions and feel the quality of their life is diminished if the other side is dominant. This can not be settled to both sides satisfaction simply by passing laws and telling the other side to 'live with it'. They will continue to battle unless they have an alternative.
My views are often called unrealistic, yet if you look at what is going on in the world, you will see this is exactly what people are demanding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 69816.html
This ^ is an article about there being only 10 countries in the world that are totally at peace. This is not a world that accepts domination. This is a world that is increasingly demanding their group be left alone.
The irony I see is the demand for human rights is actually what will increasingly result in community rights. A human can not live on their own, but they can demand a community of like minded individuals. Your choice is non stop war or enough autonomous communities to alleviate tensions. The time of the large nation state is over, but it will not die easily. The world no longer accepts countries expanding through annexation, but the terms for peace are often based upon division into two or more new countries. Does this not show where we are headed and should plan for it?


I would assert that's exactly how things play out, it's an impossibility to satisfy everyone and at any given time there are always tensions/conflicts which are simply subdued through greater powers. That when the law was that gay can't marriage, it wasn't the case that there wasn't people who disagreed with such a law just as when there is a law that legalizes there will remain who dislike it.
To me this isn't inherently problematic and is inevitable so I'm not sure if you consider this as something that needs to be addressed in some form. Unless you wish to specify that this tension would erupt to a more open conflict. In which case I see that as sometimes a necessary stage of transition, in which case the conflict doesn't necessarily die out, it's just the one side wins out and thoroughly subdues the other. Peace isn't the existence of harmony and being conflict free, rather it's that one power dominates others so thoroughly that there isn't anything to raise significant challenge and is made insignificant.
I think of it in terms much like:
An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations; the aggressor will come from a small group of dissatisfied strong countries; and it is the weaker, rather than the stronger power that is most likely to be the aggressor.[4]

In this case, the pro-gay marriage peeps were the weaker and non-mainstream component of many societies and they challenge the normative views and were able to effectively push the government and many people in their favour. Where previously they were the subdued, not the power relations are changing and the conflict has been more open though not necessarily in something as dramatic as civil war or anything.
That its the case that the no-gay marriage portion of the population are now simply on the shit end of the stick. It perhaps could erupt into more open conflict along those lines but I doubt it, because the perceptions of large segment of the population has shifted and preceded the government adopted such policies.
You don't have the option to be left outside of the rules of the government at it's different levels because you don't like them. You have to use those means of power to your ends by amassing the means to influence and them to those ends. Outside of that, one is simply wishing for a different world, but one needs to achieve the means to realize that end. And that's why many who don't like gay marriage are going to have to accept it because they don't necessarily have the power to oppose it.
Just as previously pro-gay marriage peeps didn't have the power to oppose a lack of gay marriage. The struggle was existent before gay marriage came into the mainstream, it's just shifted in favor of one side. That following the quote above, on many issues, two things can't rule simultaneously, there isn't the option of a plurality views and values where everyone can pick and choose the bits and pieces they like and have them enforced.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781735
An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations; the aggressor will come from a small group of dissatisfied strong countries; and it is the weaker, rather than the stronger power that is most likely to be the aggressor.[4]


Unless, you have an overriding agreement that all will join together against an aggressor. If all are equally capable, then none can challenge the whole. Thus the need for a standardization of boundaries that are not debatable, degrees of latitude and longitude. Today's conflicts are based upon some autonomous areas having the power to ignore the whole, and a UN that is not designed for truly equal representation. As far as gay marriage, it is currently doomed in society as a whole and state's rights is it's best current hope. This is based upon the current electoral college map and could easily change due to events of the next four years. We are at a tipping point. Time will tell how long we stay on the point before it swings definitely in one direction or the other. :hmm: I agree it is unlikely to be an issue that results in military confrontation.
By mikema63
#14781737
If all are equally capable, then none can challenge the whole. Thus the need for a standardization of boundaries that are not debatable, degrees of latitude and longitude. Today's conflicts are based upon some autonomous areas having the power to ignore the whole, and a UN that is not designed for truly equal representation.


There's no reason to think that just because each city has equal land are that they will be equal. An area in the middle of Kansas would be dwarfed in power by Manhattan. In fact your method would make cities like New York, LA, San Fran, etc. The most powerful entities with the ability to influence the rest with their higher populations, economic power, and militaries. There's no reason to think large liberal American cities wouldn't just dictate rules to the rest concequences free.

Let's not go to far down this rabbit hole though. We are discussing gay marriage after all.
User avatar
By Ter
#14781745
Ten or fifteen years ago I would have been opposed to gay marriage.
No longer. Whatever makes them happy is OK for me and I do not see why their commitment should not be official.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14781750
mikema63 wrote:There's no reason to think that just because each city has equal land are that they will be equal. An area in the middle of Kansas would be dwarfed in power by Manhattan. In fact your method would make cities like New York, LA, San Fran, etc. The most powerful entities with the ability to influence the rest with their higher populations, economic power, and militaries. There's no reason to think large liberal American cities wouldn't just dictate rules to the rest concequences free.

Let's not go to far down this rabbit hole though. We are discussing gay marriage after all.


Isn't this ^ already true? I am basically suggesting institutionalizing reality. Then each area may pursue their own path without the need of forcing the rest of the country to obey. The electoral map gives a clear picture of our current differences. We live around a city and pretending we have a larger identity is false and results in conflict, where there need not be any. We live in communities no matter how much you wish to pretend otherwise. Some will accept gay marriage and some will not. Some will change their opinions based upon the gays in their community, but national laws will not change opinions.

Edit: There are 4 times as many sovereign nations today as in 1900. I think the trend is very clear and not unrealistic of me. ;)
By mikema63
#14781755
Your not institutionalizing reality because in reality people will always influence each other and seek to impose certain moral views. There are also problems that arise from information, wealth inequalities, problems of government type, and a whole host of others. I can imagine a couple of scenarios where this scheme completely falls apart off the top of my head.

What if one city state decided to hang gays? Or legalize pedophilia? If you say they won't be allowed to do that then you've in principle contradicted your stated purpose of allowing people self direction. If major US cities banded together they could just March over the US and take it over again and no one could stop them.

This whole thing either falls apart or requires a world government with a constitution and army. With just really small states vs. the federal level. In which case it starts looking like a giant US of the world.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#14781756
If you're against gay marriage, don't do it.

Legally, in contemporary society, the idea of a marriage is largely to protect property rights and the right of the partner to make medical and legal decisions should the other not be able to do so.

People that put a halo around marriage as something mystical are in a problematic place unless they're out there protesting every single other church's marriage.

During Bismarck's time, the marriages of Jews and Catholics were not considered a legitimate real marriage. You had to be married in a Lutheran church for it to be recognized.

While this is abhorrently strict to us now, is it not essentially the same argument? That there is only one recognized form of marriage to which a society should adhere? That the legal arguments are to one side, and that which is holy is what matters? And the question then becomes, what is holy?

Jews and Calvinists have different marriage rites and customs. If we're going to define marriage as something holy, separate from a civil union, which marriage is?

And if it's whatever church you belong to, what if you're one of the many churches that allow gay marriage?
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]