shirenomad (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shirenomad) wrote2004-03-19 10:06 pm
shirenomad) wrote2004-03-19 10:06 pm
He gets all his best ideas from me, you know.
You may remember a few weeks back when I gave my personal stance on gay marriage. You may also recall that I used the term tertium quid, which I credited to Tailsteak for originally coining.
Well, look what Tailsteak's latest TQ subject is.
(I demand royalties! :P)
Well, look what Tailsteak's latest TQ subject is.
(I demand royalties! :P)
no subject
A good point...
- Judaism, the oldest(?) major faith in existance today, also isn't fond of homosexuality as a rule, and for the same reasons as Christianity. So if age is all that matters, you're still pretty much trumped.
- Not that this will mean much for athiests, but any person of faith will believe that God existed long before marriage, so you're DEFINITELY trumped.
- Control of anything can be passed from one group to another, willingly or otherwise. People of European ancestry are now, for the most part, in firm control of all the Americas. No one argues that they should pull out. China slowly expanded to its present size over thousands of years, overrunning other tribes; no one claims they should be pushed back to the coast. Etc.
- Regardless, you're assuming older is better. There are a lot of things that pre-date Christianity that I wouldn't want re-implemented with pre-Christian ideals. (For instance, the idea that people outside your own nation or in-group should be treated as equals started with Christ's call to reach both Jews and Gentiles. This was downright revolutionary then; outsiders were considered less than human at the time.)
But you'll note that I didn't make any of those points in my own argument anyway. I never said I agreed with that particular piece of Tailsteak's stance -- I just thought I'd point out the stance itself since its conclusion resembled my own.
Re: A good point...
But marriage existed before Judaism. Abram was married to Sarah, for example.
- Not that this will mean much for athiests, but any person of faith will believe that God existed long before marriage, so you're DEFINITELY trumped.
I don't see how this matters, all I'm really saying is that no current religion can hold the real "rights" to marriage, if such a thing exists.
- Control of anything can be passed from one group to another, willingly or otherwise. People of European ancestry are now, for the most part, in firm control of all the Americas. No one argues that they should pull out. China slowly expanded to its present size over thousands of years, overrunning other tribes; no one claims they should be pushed back to the coast. Etc.
Er...okay, in a thousand years or so, when Christianity is a dead religion (think Hyperion here), I guess the Brotherhood of the Tree or whatever the great religion in that time will allow homosexuals to be married, and it will be okay, because marriage is now "owned" by them.
- Regardless, you're assuming older is better. There are a lot of things that pre-date Christianity that I wouldn't want re-implemented with pre-Christian ideals. (For instance, the idea that people outside your own nation or in-group should be treated as equals started with Christ's call to reach both Jews and Gentiles. This was downright revolutionary then; outsiders were considered less than human at the time.)
I'm not saying that older religions are better. I'm just saying that Christianity does not hold the claim to marriage, no religion in existance today does. I'm willing to bet that some form of marriage predated any real religion.
--
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Christians or Jews or what have you don't own the rights to marriage, and shouldn't be saying who can and can not get married.
--
And besides, I was commenting on the piece you linked to :p Talisteak, is it?
Not getting involved in the argument, but...
Errr...