Gay Marriage Discussion With Facebook Fundy

[jblueep]

Here is an impromptu discussion I had tonight with a fundy on facebook about gay marriage.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Cast of characters:

 

David: Atheist friend of mine. He posted a Chick-fil-a protest picture that started the conversation.

 

Ricky: Fundy friend of David that I've never met or interacted with before. Looking on his facebook wall, he in his early twenties and attends a VERY conservative bible college.

 

Me: Well, you know me

 

-------------------------------------------

 

In spite of many attempts, you will see that I could not get Ricky to say he has a moral (biblical) issue with homosexuality. I was ready to bounce on the "biblical morality" but he never took the bait.

 

Clearly, he is just disgusted with gay people, but didn't want to say it "out loud". Still, it was a lively discussion. I'm not sure I got through to him at all, but perhaps I created a little doubt?

 

Discussion is below...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

David:

 

 

Ricky:

 

I want to marry my duck. Why can't I marry my duck. My duck loves me and I love my duck.........quack!

 

David:

 

That's a very immature standpoint on it.

 

Me:

 

 

Ricky:

 

A piece of paper from the courthouse may legalize, but it does not legitimize.

 

Me:

 

@ricky, what makes gay marriage illegitimate? Or what would make it legitimate for you?

 

Ricky:

 

Once you change the original meaning of a word, then the word can take on any meaning you want....like gay use to mean happy, then homosexual, now it is used to describe someone acting stupid.

 

Marriage is the union between a man & a woman; if we change it, then it is no longer marriage by definition and loses it original intent. So, instead of hi-jacking the word's meaning in an attempt to legitimize "gay marriage" why don't homosexuals come up with their own word, then it would be legit....

 

Me:

 

Words change meaning all the time Ricky. It's the nature of every language since the beginning of time. Take the word "flight" for instance. In the nineteenth century, "flight" pretty much just described birds. Then we invented airplanes, blimps, jets, helicopters, etc. Should we have come up with a new word for "flight" every time the definition changed? Or "entertainment". It once meant playing cards and catching the occasional live play. Now it means radio, TV, movies, ipods, internet, twitter, etc. Should we have come up with a new word for "entertainment" each time? Of course not, we adopted new ideas into older words, thereby changing their definitions, and rightfully so.

 

On your other point, what makes you think that the "original definition" of marriage is between a man and a woman. A marriage is nothing more than people who love and are committed to each other in a union that society recognizes. In that definition, gay marriage has been recognized for thousands of years in multiple cultures that predate our own. In biblical times, marriage often meant one man and many women (sometimes hundreds or even thousands). Should we go with the biblical definition since it is most definitely more "original" than our current definition?

 

Ricky:

 

Flight still means the same thing....to fly.

 

You just made my point: why do homosexuals want to change the meaning of marriage? What is their point.......to legitimize? and then what is next, once the definition of marriage is altered? It opens the door to anything calling itself marriage; who would then have a right to say I cannot marry my duck, my pogo stick, my left hand.

 

If homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle then you do not need anyone's approval, so why force someone to accept it?

 

Me:

 

Ricky, you clearly missed my points. Marriage still means the same thing...loving, committed people in a union that society recognizes. How does adding homosexuals to that definition alter the meaning? Words change definition because the definition in fact changes, not because of a special interest group. "Jets" were added to the definition of "flight" because it was in fact true. What makes you think that the "original" definition of marriage was yours? Because that's the definition you learned growing up in the culture and time in which you were born? Perhaps your definition of marriage is the altered one?

 

Me:

 

Honestly, what is your objection to gay marriage? Is it really a linguistic one? Or is it a moral one?

 

Me:

 

What I see is fear. Once, in this very country it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. People were afraid of it for the same reason you are afraid of gay marriage..."if we change the definition to allow for interracial marriage, then it can mean anything". Are you against interracial marriage? Of course not. But that's because you grew up in your modern generation. If you were born in the 1930s or 1940s, you would have had to have been against it given your logic above.

 

Ricky:

 

Fear has nothing whatsoever to with it; saying someone is fearful or calling them homophobic is just a smoke screen thrown into the conversion when you have no substance in your argument.

 

Again, the question is not weather I agree with homosexuality; it is why do homosexual want to force everyone to accept their life style choice? I have never "came out" and announced to anyone "I am heterosexual." and if you do not like it, then you are heterophobic and full of fear. See how silly that sounds, well it sounds just as silly when homosexuals say it too and besides it has no merit.

 

Ricky:

 

The meaning of marriage did not change with interracial marriage; it was and is still between a man & a woman by definition. The question is why do you want to change it? come up with your definition of that union.

 

And if we do change it then what is next? I want to change it to a loving, caring relationship between me and my three sheep. where does it stop?

 

This time try to stay on task and answer the questions instead of attacking the person asking the questions.

 

Me:

 

No smoke screen intended, and I did not call you homophobic. I've proposed several simple questions that you refuse to answer. That logically led me to believe that your objections are not linguistic in nature as you first proposed. That is why I asked what your actual objection is? Based on your last response, your objection seems to be that you don't agree with someone trying to force you to change your definition.

 

Therefore it seems pretty clear to me that you disagree with homosexuality. If you agreed, then it is likely that you would not have any issue with "change" of definition you describe.

 

Again, I'll propose the same basic questions to see if you have any substance in your argument:

 

1. Definitions of words change by natural course as I have clearly demonstrated, do they not?

 

2. What makes you think that your definition of marriage is the "original" one?

 

3. What about the change in the marriage definition to include interracial marriage and how are our predecessors' objections that change any different than your objection to this "change"?

 

Me:

 

It appears that we posted responses at the same time

 

Me:

 

By "meaning" of marriage do you mean the legal definition or the moral definition? If you mean legal, then it certainly did change. If you mean moral, then what is your moral basis?

 

Ricky:

 

Q: Definitions of words change by natural course as I have clearly demonstrated, do they not?

 

A: I never disagreed that we change he meaning of words

 

Me:

 

I'm looking above to see if there are any of your questions I did not answer, and I can only see one question, so I will try to answer it here. If there is another question that I did not answer, please restate it and I will be happy to do so. I certainly do not expect you to answer my questions if I am not answering yours

 

You asked "why do homosexuals want to force everyone to accept their life style choice?" I'm not a homosexual, but I'll do the best I can from my perspective. I would say it is for the same reasons that many minority groups in the past have wanted to "force" change. From abolitionists (slavery) to suffragists (women's rights" to civil right crusaders (including interracial marriage as mentioned above). If you are in the majority, then you don't generally need to make any noise to get notice or gain/maintain your rights. That's why you never had to "come out" as heterosexual. There was no need because you are in vast majority and your rights are not being infringed.

 

Does that answer that question sufficiently?

 

Ricky:

 

First, I did not say you called anyone homophobic, but it is throw out like it has some merit.

 

Q. Definitions of words change by natural course as I have clearly demonstrated, do they not?

 

A. Well, clearly your demostrations did not demostrate any such thing. "Flight" & "Interracial Marriage" as you call it, have and always have had the same definition. But, I get your point that words take on new meaning: Bad and Sic now mean cool or awesome. I get it....simple! But, my question is "WHY" do homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage?

 

Q. What makes you think that your definition of marriage is the "original" one?

 

A. I know of no other definition beside a union between a man & a woman?

 

Me:

 

When you said "saying someone is fearful or calling them homophobic is just a smoke screen thrown into the conversion when you have no substance in your argument" I assumed you thought I was calling you homophobic. My mistake.

 

Ricky:

 

Q. What about the change in the marriage definition to include interracial marriage and how are our predecessors' objections that change any different than your objection to this "change"?

 

A. "interracial marriage" as you call it is still between a man & woman by definition.

 

Me:

 

When you say "I know of no other definition beside a union between a man & a woman?", that is exactly my point. Your definition comes from your culture...your country, your generation, perhaps your faith. Your father's or grandfather or great grandfather's definition was likely different. Maybe not your ancestors, but I hope you see the point. Again, many people in the early part of this century believed (and put into law) that marriage was "between a man and a woman of the same race". That definition was changed but subsequent generations as they became more enlightened and faced pressure from minority groups to change their mind. The "change" in the marriage definition to include homosexuals (and the pressure from that community to do so) is no different. Surely you see to correlations?

 

Me:

 

BTW, thanks for the lively debate

 

Ricky:

 

So, if I follow your logic then the rights of pediphiles are being infriged upon. Yes? Then, who are we to say they're behavior is not normal. Ask NAMBLA, they will say it is normal and it is by nature they are the way there are.

 

Like I said where does it stop!

 

Me:

 

Pedophiles are doing something illegal. Beastiality is illegal. These are both acts of non-consent. Comparing these to homosexuality (which is not illegal) is facetious and you know it.

 

Ricky:

 

Sodomy is still illegal

 

Me:

 

Sodomy is still illegal in a few states that haven't bothered to take it out of their penal code yet. It is never enforced and you know it. That is another facetious argument.

 

Ricky:

 

No, it is not "facetious". There you go again, when your argument does not hold water you resort to attacking.

 

Sodomy is illegal and that puts homosexuals, if they praticipate in the act, in the same class of sexual deviation, for now.

 

Ricky:

 

Besides that part of the anatomy is not for that purpose; it is a shoot for extraction of waste.

 

Me:

 

How am I attacking you when I am simply pointing out that you are making preposterous comparisons, i.e. homosexuality/pedophilia/beastiality? That is the definition of "facetious"..."Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant"

 

In regard to sodomy, there are many laws that are still technically "on the books", but they are not enforced because they no longer apply. If you want to enforce the sodomy laws, then you will have to enforce a ton of ridiculous measures.

 

I have thoroughly answered every question you have asked me. You have not answered the following question, and I am interested in your answer:

 

By "meaning" of marriage do you mean the legal definition or the moral definition?

 

Me:

 

By your statement "Besides that part of the anatomy is not for that purpose; it is a shoot for extraction of waste" then I suppose that you have an equal objection to oral sex since that part of the anatomy is for breathing and consuming food?

 

Ricky:

 

By "meaning" of marriage do you mean the legal definition or the moral definition?

 

Legally - it is between a man & a woman, for now. And I have pointed that out several times already. But yes, it has been hi-jacked in some states. But I guess it does not matter what the legal definition is if there is a moral one.

 

Me:

 

So, legally the definition has in fact changed (just in our country) from "a man with multiple wives of the same race" to "a man and a woman of the same race" to "a man and a woman of any race". Clearly, the legal definition is subject to change as society changes, correct? However, you object to it changing beyond your current definition of "a man and a woman" because you are comfortable with that definition and that is what you are used to. A lot of people in the past have felt the same way, as I pointed out above, but culture does change whether you like it or not.

 

Since you state that a couple of states have "hi-jacked" the definition, then are you saying that you rely on the legal definition only as long as the legal definition doesn't diverge from your definition? If so, then your objection is by definition not based on a legal basis, for you are willing to disregard a legal basis if it does not suit you. If it is not a legal basis, then what is it? Physiological (based on your "part of the body" comment above)? Cultural (based on what you grew up with)? Moral? Spiritual?

 

Ricky:

 

By "meaning" of marriage do you mean the legal definition or the moral definition?

 

Morally - Like I said, anotomical parts have purpose and when they are misused, it can cause physical & psycological damage. Just like eating greasy food; your body does not accept that as normal, so you suffer from fat fries and grease burgers.....physically and psycologically.

 

Me:

 

On the moral basis you just stated, how does someone else "misusing" their body parts affect you?

 

Ricky:

 

STDs...........I get taxed to pay for other people's choices. I am paying for contraceptives, abortions, aids study, etc.

 

Me:

 

Sure, but those problems are certainly not restricted to and mainly attributable to the homosexual population. By sheer numbers, heterosexuals contribute much more to STDS, etc. than homosexuals?

 

Ricky:

 

You need to go check your statistics.

 

Ricky:

 

But I am still being forced to pay for it regardless of the ratio.

 

Me:

 

Really? You are saying that 10% to 20% of the population is adding a greater STD burden that the other 80% to 90%?

 

Me:

 

I don't like paying for other people's self inflicted problems either. Does that mean we should change the definition of "eating" to exclude greasy burgers and fries so that I don't have to pay for obesity diseases?

 

Ricky:

 

Okay, yes "sheer numbers" but ratio wise, homos are the biggest contributor to Aids and other diseases related to that behavior.

 

Me:

 

...and red neck southerners like me are perhaps the greatest contributors to obesity diseases "ratio wise". What's your point?

 

Ricky:

 

"Does that mean we should change the definition of "eating" to exclude greasy burgers and fries so that I don't have to pay for obesity diseases?"

 

Right, you & I should not have to pay for any self infected indulgent reprocusions.

 

Me:

 

Hey, we agree on something!

 

Ricky:

 

Yeah, I just think why is it that they or whoever can force their lifestyle or beliefs on me but I am not allowed to force mine on them........what's with that??

 

Ricky:

 

They need to go live their life and stop forcing me to accept what my conscience dictates otherwise to me.

 

Me:

 

Well, fat people aren't trying to force their bad eating habits on me, and I certainly won't try to enforce my good eating habits on them. Homosexuals would say that their sexual disposition is not a "lifestyle" or "belief". It's how they were born, and they had no say so in that. Again, this is not about them "forcing" their ways on us. It's about them fighting for basic, equal human rights.

 

Me:

 

How exactly would legally allowing gay marriage directly affect your life negatively? It may offend your conscience, but they are not trying to make you gay. They are just wanting the same rights as you.

 

Ricky:

 

No, it goes way beyond basic human rights and you know that!

 

Me:

 

They are starting with the basic rights of course because they have to start somewhere, but in the end, I'm sure that they rightfully want the same full rights that you and I have. I can't find fault in that!

 

Me:

 

I'll tell you one thing. I was never "anti gay", but my support for their causes started when I actually made a few gay friends. I saw that they are the same as me...just humanity trying to make it in this world with the hand they were dealt, doing the best they can, capable of the same love, generosity and compassion that I am. It's a lot less black and white when you put a face to an issue.

 

Ricky:

 

what "basic human rights" have they lost out on? I do not honestly know.

 

Ricky:

 

I have gay friends, too.....so, it is not a matter of just getting to know one.

 

Me:

 

One example: hospital visitation. They can spend decades together in a loving committed relationship, but are often denied visitation rights and participation in end of life decisions for their partner. That's just cold blooded downright wrong.

 

Me:

 

"I have gay friends, too.....so, it is not a matter of just getting to know one." I was making a comment on my life, not an assumption on yours. It was that simple for me though...that and taking a far more rational approach to life than I had previously.

 

Me:

 

Do you think we have cluttered David's wall enough? lol

 

Ricky:

 

I have not said they cannot be who they think they are or what they think they are; I do not want them or anyone else "forcing" me to accept their way or belief, just like they do not want me to force my beliefs on them.

 

We can express our beliefs and argument them, but to force me by law to accept their behavior is "just cold blooded downright wrong." to quote you.

 

Me:

 

But can't you see that denying them the same rights as you is in fact forcing your way on them? Exactly what you do not want them to do to you. You don't have to "force" your way. You're the majority. They do have to fight to get equal rights because they are the minority.

 

Ricky:

 

Yep, good night and good discourse. Next, let's tackle abortion.

 

Me:

 

Ha! Or religion!

 

Me:

 

I enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your willingness to talk it through. Truly.

 

Ricky:

 

Okay, give them hospital visitation rights. ;0)

[lunaticheathen]

Yeah, it's religious/gayz r icky! defense. The shoddy STD argument pretty much seals that up. That one is so old, it had to be dug out of the grave to be used by him. >.<

 

Someone should tell him we're in a new millenium, and it's not "Gay Cancer" any more. And the typical privileged "I don't have to remind people of my thing, why do they?" just makes me want to scream. This guy seriously pulled out every underhanded "polite" excuse for his blatant bigotry.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he called feminists "feminazis." Because wanting your gender to be treated like human beings is JUST like invading Poland and killing millions of Jews.

[openpalm45]

Read the whole thing. You are much more patient than I am! I don't even have it in me to get into conversations like that. Its much too frustrating! Even reading it, I get frustrated. Well, Im glad there are patient people out there like you who can have these conversations.

[London]

LOL, I LOVED the religion challenge at the end. Ricky's not gonna like that conversation.

 

I want to say that I thought you handled that really rationally. You arguments were spot on, you have learned the gay perspective.

 

A few things I wanted to add though. As of 2003 in the US sodomy is no longer illegal in any state.

 

You might want to mention to him that the definition of marriage, polygamy is still legal in the world, so it's not one man & one woman everywhere. And legally marriage has never been between animals or inanimate objects and humans ever in history. And remind him that the bible allows multiple wives.

 

Also having sex with children was normal in the bible, since marriages of adults and children took place. I can't find that link right now. Anyone else out there have a source?

 

Ask him what a moral definition of marriage would be. I would love to hear that one, it's new to me.

 

I would also mention this if you get a chance, Gays are not forcing anyone to accept us, we are trying to legally have the same rights and protections as every other American. And we are trying to get the law to protect us from the discrimination we have endured since the beginning of this country. It's not about accepting us by force, it's about stopping the discrimination, verbal & physical abuse, murders, violent attacks and being able to work, and live in a home, that no one can fire or evict you from because you are gay or lesbian.

 

When he says, "Morally - Like I said, anotomical parts have purpose and when they are misused, it can cause physical & psycological damage." this makes me think he was molested or raped in his life. This is not a normal way for a heterosexual male to object to anal sex. Usually the phrase is more like "up the butt is wrong" or some version of that. I may be wrong but it's a red flag for me. I suspect a personal incident of some kind occured.

 

LOL, he has gay friends? He must not be very good friends with them. I wouldn't want him to be my friend since he thinks I am spreading AIDS. Hell at one point in time seniors were the highest risk group because all those old, single, heterosexual people thought they were immune and were sleeping around more than teenagers. I don't think he has gay friends, just people he knows are gay.

 

These were just some notes I took along the way reading the thread. Again, you did a really nice job of being calm, logical and trying to have a conversation. He did the typical hysteria reaction. Frankly if he wants to marry his pogo stick I'll vote yes for that, but we know who the man in that relationship would be.

[jblueep]

Thanks for the notes London. Yeah, I couldn't ever get him to reference the bible or his faith specifically.

 

I was ready to pounce with child marriage and the horrible morality of the bible if he used that as a standard. He clearly does, but I think he was too scared to go there. Maybe he will if we ever debate again.

 

I had the same thoughts when he said he had gay friends. Yeah right! The cashier at starbucks doesn't count buddy.

[Droptail]

I don't know if you're planning to fire any more ammunition, but, regardless, here's this to befuddle the poor fundy (courtesy of the Wayback Machine): When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite. "Homophobic writings didn't appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century." And Christian same-sex unions were recognized as late as the 18th century...

 

You argued cogently, and I appreciate how you laid waste to his "definition" objection to gay marriage. Seems to me he's just a bigot dressing up his opposition in fancy clothes...

[London]

I don't know if you're planning to fire any more ammunition, but, regardless, here's this to befuddle the poor fundy (courtesy of the Wayback Machine): When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite. "Homophobic writings didn't appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century." And Christian same-sex unions were recognized as late as the 18th century...

 

That is a great link!

[jblueep]

Thanks Hokun. That was an interesting article, and I saved that link for future reference. I doubt Ricky will be back for more, but maybe he will surprise me.

[London]

I'm gonna guess Ricky is busy with his pogo stick.

[London]

I'm posting this link for two reasons,

1) I really like Anderson

2) Jennifer has a very valid point in this article.

 

oh and 3) I really like Anderson.

[mcdaddy]

What a twat waffle. Typical for a fundy tho.

 

Oh well. Many of us were there so I can't be too harsh. The brainwashing makes it hard to apply common decency and rudimentary logic.

 

Good boy, J, good boy.

 

*pats head and gives a noogie*

[♦ ficino ♦]

hey blu, yes, I saw this thread but went to the PM first. Thanks for sharing, and for sticking up for "my kind."

 

I thought your message was going to be about cigars! I really do not value machine rolled over hand rolled...

 

Hope the heat isn't too bad for you guys down there,

 

F

[♦ ficino ♦]

Whoa, I thought I was replying to your PM not to the thread! Anyway, I enjoyed reading your part of it, and am sort of despairing over Ricky's. He repeats the same prejudices throughout. Maybe what you said will filter down later on. And I too can't imagine what kind of friendship he has with any GLBT people.

 

As to legality of sodomy - I don't know how to look up the decision without losing this response box, but the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, I think in the 1990s. It was a Texas case that provided the occasion for the ruling. So it's not just that some states aren't enforcing them.

 

Slippery slope arguments like Ricky's duck argument, or Rick Man on Dog Santorum's arguments, are classical fallacies that exploit similarity. Everything is similar to everything else in some way. If A is similar to B, and B is similar to C, and C to D... it doesn't follow that A is similar in a significant way to D, let alone a fellow member with D of any natural kind.

[London]

@ficino that info can be found here, gotta love Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thanks London, I just copied the same link but now don't need to post it. For everyone, if you don't want to open the link, the decision was in 2003, by which the US Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy laws, and by extension, those of the thirteen other states that had them then. So I don't think those laws are "on the books" in any standard sense of that term.

 

Jblueep, another area of life where gay marriage has definite consequences is in the tax codes. States with no gay/lesbian marriage, or no civil unions, "force" GL couples to pay higher taxes because there are no marriage deductions. This is especially true in estate law. Then, because of DOMA, the IRS does not acknowledge any state's gay marriage or civil union laws, so there is a much larger federal tax than there is for heterosexual couples. For example, one hetero spouse can be the direct beneficiary of the other's IRA, but that is not true for gay couples. the consequence is that most of the IRA will be eaten up by capital gains and estate taxes when the surviving partner is likely to be in old age and needing that money. I face this issue directly, as does Mervin if I predecease him.

 

Does Ricky think this is justified by the definition of a word?

 

As to the argument that gays/lesbians are "forcing" their lifestyle or what have you, either Ricky is objecting to behavior or to redefinition of a word or both.

 

If it's behavior, the objection boils down to "forcing" him to notice gays or lesbians, since no one is forcing him to "marry" a man. Since he says he has gay friends, noticing gays (and what this entails, like imagining what they do in bed) should not be objectionable.

 

If it's the impact of behavior on others, say, on children, then the underlying legal principle would lead us straight out of American freedom of the individual and would require a slippery slope argument to be justified. Let's say your kids shouldn't notice some guy's genitals in the park when he opens his raincoat. It doesn't follow that some other individual freedoms should be taken away because some parents don't want their kids to know about those. Should we close down all bars and liquor stores because children shouldn't notice that there are places that sell liquor? Etc etc

 

If his objection is that the traditional definition of marriage is being changed,

first, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that "between one man and one woman" is part of that definition. As you already pointed out, the "one...one" clause is not part of it, given polygamy. He still has to demonstrate that the "man... woman" part belongs to the definition. There may be a case for this, but I contend that the word marriage does not just mean "legal relationship of X characteristics between at least one man and at least one woman." For example, Suetonius records that the emperor Nero celebrated a marriage ceremony with a man. The word marriage cannot just mean "... man... woman" or else such language as Suetonius would have no meaning. (This is a somewhat sophistical argument of mine but maybe it can be developed.)

you already pointed out that he has to prove that words of legal import cannot change their range of meaning. I don't see anything but assertion of this on his part.

there are counterexamples where at least the generally accepted meaning of a word has changed in a gender-specific way. For example, most people would have said that a soldier is a man who is paid to conduct warfare (at least potentially) by some authority. Now it is a man or a woman. And so on with many other occupations. Does anyone use the word "policewoman" anymore? In my youth, "police women" did not carry guns and only worked on traffic or office jobs. Now all "police officers" of any gender do the same work. Etc. etc. Big changes in definitions as society changed! You already pointed out Ricky's zero theory of language.

 

OK, signing out, thanks for the very important discussion!

 

----

 

afterthought: a fundy objection that gay marriage would require churches to use their facilities for such ceremonies, or would require believers in public positions to do things against their conscience, like issue marriage licenses:

a. the church facility argument is not really one of principle, since the law can make an exception for the use of buildings owned by religious groups (and for the functions of employees in those buildings)

b. religious people who have jobs that serve the public need to serve all people equally in those jobs. An orthodox Jew who was a public employee who refused to do things allowed by civil law but not allowed by rabbinical interp of Torah should not be in that job. Same with a fundy, say, town clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples (this happened in upper NY State after gay marriage was made legal - the employee's contention did not stand up). Individual religious scruples cannot be allowed to justify discrimination against fhe civil rights of members of the public on the part of employees whose job it is to serve the public.

[Suzy]

Thanks for the notes London. Yeah, I couldn't ever get him to reference the bible or his faith specifically.

 

I was ready to pounce with child marriage and the horrible morality of the bible if he used that as a standard. He clearly does, but I think he was too scared to go there. Maybe he will if we ever debate again.

 

 

 

I haven't read the whole thing yet, so maybe it's there but when he says marriage is between a man & a woman, maybe you should bring up the Bible and say that actually marriage being between a man and a woman is a reltively modern concept. For most of the history of mankind it was between a man and several women, and then use the Bible as an example.

 

Also females were a property under the traditional definition of marriage.

 

What we mean by marriage evolves, like everything else. And for the better! Traditional doesn't necessarily mean good. Traditional marriage is for example Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines or a 50 year old guy marrying a 9 year old girl (Mohammed).

[Akheia]

Fascinating dissection of the fundy brain, J and Ficini et al.

 

I should mention that the Bible does imply the use of children as brides in the taking of sex slaves/war brides in Numbers 31 when it tells the Jews to kill all the Midianites except those "women children" who hadn't yet had sex. It's hard to see that verse as saying anything except God saying it was totes coo to fuck little girls as long as they were from races he'd ordered genocide upon. So, uh, yeah. That, and J's fundie buddie doesn't seem to realize that God ordered men to take multiple wives all through the Bible--Rachel and Leah strike any bells? God didn't seem to mind marriage being between a man and LOTS of women at one point. It's not God who decides what a "real" marriage is. It's society that remarkably finds that God signs off on their particular view of what they think marriage should entail.

 

Anna's link led me to search and find this on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1341661617&sr=8-3&keywords=john+boswell -- Come for the info, stay for the 1-star reviews from flabbergasted fundies who whine that Boswell's missed the "context" of things.

[Thought2Much]

I didn't read every word of Ricky's responses, but did he ever respond to whether he thought oral sex was a misuse of body parts?

[Akheia]

I was looking for that too and I don't think he ever responded about the oral sex. He pretty much did the entire "5 rules of dodgeball" in dealing with the entire thing: dodge, dip, dive, duck, and dodge!

[freeasabird]

I didn't read every word of Ricky's responses, but did he ever respond to whether he thought oral sex was a misuse of body parts?

 

Not that I saw either.

 

The earlier comment about the potential for churches to be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies if gay marriage becomes legal is a non sequitur for me. Augusta National do this day still excludes women. If you are a private organization you get to make your own rules. Now if you want to accept tax dollars for certain purposes then that changes things.

[Akheia]

Pretty much, Freeasabird. I'm totally okay with a private org being bigoted on its own dime. Not thrilled, but it's their right to associate with people and form a group based around whatever they want as long as they're not impinging on my liberty. It's very clear to me that this fundie hasn't done a lot of hard thinking about gay rights and is rather parrotting tired arguments he heard from a pulpit or Fox News segment and thought made sense. He's trotted out every tired, completely-debunked myth about gay rights that there is: comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality (jesus that's offensive just to type, and says a lot about Christians' inability to grasp the concept of consent-driven sexuality), whining that now churches won't have the right to be bigoted (as noted, of course they will), saying that it doesn't exist in nature (um, it exists all over the damn place in nature), and that it's ickie and "painful" (wow, a bunch of female friends of mine will be shocked to hear that--bet he doesn't know that some chicks ONLY get off on anal, and a lot of other ones enjoy it quite a bit). I mean, it's tired. It's sad. It's pathetic. And he bought those lies hook, line, and sinker.

 

 

It's very comforting to think of another group as "the other." And I also wonder, based on his assessment of anal sex as painful and psychologically damaging, if he's maybe talking about something he's experienced in those lights. That sounded a bit personal to him. I know when I was fundie, it would have shifted my paradigm without a clutch to hear the news that women had anal sex too and LOVED it, and that if you do it right, it isn't painful at all. Hell, back then we didn't even know what a prostate WAS, but finding out--and then finding out where it was--would have blown my little circuitboard.

[marmot]

A few thoughts/observations.

 

1. Echoing OpenPalm89...I have no patience for this kind of thing so I am glad there are people like you out there that can do this.

 

2. I have always been curious as to how a fundamentalist would actually defend their argument without referring to the Bible. His reasoning (and spelling for that matter) did not disappoint.

 

3. "I have gay friends too" I thought the same thing; an acquaintance is not a friend.

 

4. Oral sex/anal sex. He is trying to insert natural law here. Bust him on it next time because it is bull shit. The logical conclusion to this is that the purpose of a vagina/penis is for nothing other than urination/procreation. Is he using a condom? That is immoral because it is short circuiting the procreation purpose. Is his wife on the pill? Do him and his wife "time" their intercourse to when she is not ovulating? Unless he is the most hardcore of hardcore you can get him on one of these. You can always ask him if he uses his hand for masturbation, too.

 

5. He never made any plausible claim as to why gays are imposing on them when they are getting married (oh, the height of irony!!!). The STD thing doesn't fly because gays are going to have sex whether or not they're married. He also states that they should not try to force him to accept something his conscience dictates. That is the most subjective reasoning I've ever heard for disallowing someone equal rights. There are all kinds of things that our country does that upset my conscience but that does not make them illegal or give me a right to withhold equal rights to somebody because of it.

 

He is full of bullshit and I think it is unfortunate that he is deluded enough that he will go hang out with his friends tonight and tell them about how he ran circles around some gay advocate.

[jblueep]

@ficino that info can be found here, gotta love Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

I will post this link to him to correct my mistake

[jblueep]

I didn't read every word of Ricky's responses, but did he ever respond to whether he thought oral sex was a misuse of body parts?

 

No, he did not.

[jblueep]

I have always been curious as to how a fundamentalist would actually defend their argument without referring to the Bible. His reasoning (and spelling for that matter) did not disappoint.

 

I did find it very fascinating that he did not refer to the bible even though I intentionally gave him a few openings. My guess is that he may have done that before with someone else in a debate and been shot down quickly?

 

He is full of bullshit and I think it is unfortunate that he is deluded enough that he will go hang out with his friends tonight and tell them about how he ran circles around some gay advocate.

 

Yeah probably. The couple of times he accused me of running from my arguments because they were weak, I was thinking "what conversation are you looking at?" It was like herding cats