I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.



I disagree, but that is a different thread.

Yes, general. :)

Other than that, I agree with you because the magnitude and social impact are both objective and subjective measures. They can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively.





It isn't a different thread because you said it in this thread. :)

You can't effectively compare the relocation of whites to the suburbs, because their neighborhood surpassed the racial tipping point, to saying that homosexuals should "get over it or go away" if they feel that they aren't afforded the same rights that heterosexual citizens are. Sure, homosexuals can technically choose to relocate if they want certain rights, as some homosexuals have done. But to act like that's the only other alternative is as silly as the Americans who became Canadian citizens when Bush got re-elected (which was still a choice versus telling Americans "you tax payers don't like where America's headed? It's a hopeless cause so move to Canada for all we care. This is how it is. Get over it. Tax payers.").

Sigmadive, you keep forgetting that it is actually: "Majority rule, with minority rights." You want to trample the rights of the minority.

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

I doubt you would say that if you were gay.

There are homosexuals who 1) disagree with gay marriage and 2) think that the plight of the homosexual is not of the same magnitude as that of racial and ethnic minorities and women.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass?

I don't think anyone said this.

People can debate these topics all day. It's just interesting to me because people will say "I'm a Christian" as if all Christians have to agree on stuff. And if people disagree with your interpretations of Scripture and what's acceptable, you assume they are liberals who are just trying to shape the Bible to fit their liberal stances. When, in fact, you don't have to be liberal (or of a particular political affiliation) to feel a particular way about this topic.

Ok. :p

And "intellectuals" and academicians aren't a monolithic group, either. So these types of social and political debates happen in academia everyday. :cool:

You mean your breed of Christianity dictates your views on everything.

She used the Dark side of the Force

Christianity dictates your views on everything? That's noble. :)

Most people who I disagree with on interpretations are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. It spans across social and political spectrums. When you attempt to categorize people, that's when you are often debating the categories rather than the positions. That's dangerous because your opinions of the categories shape how you approach that person and their viewpoints.

My mind operates based on generalizations. ;) What you consider to be an exception is simply a matter of your frame of reference. Mine is different.

It's fun. Discussions and debates aren't the end of the world as long as people on both sides have sound logic and can back up their points. :)

Put [ quote ] (without spaces) in front of the sentence and [ /quote ] (without spaces) behind the sentence.

I only gave the white flight example because in previous posts Leslie Anne made some comment that if people don't like what is happening in their community / area then why should they leave. (I think that is the point she was trying to make :confused:?). I gave her two examples of where people moved because they did not agree with the current social / economic situation they were in. The first example I used was an indication to the founding of the US. I said something to the effect that the Founding Fathers left England because they did not agree with British rule.

Leslie Anne then came back and re-stated the issue of why should people leave where they live. The second example I gave her was how Houston was founded - people from back east wanted to live in a more tropical "paradise". Note: paradise in quotes because Houston was a humid, roach and mosquito infested dock on the banks of the Buffalo bayou...:).

Leslie Anne continued to press the point about why should, or why do people leave then I gave her the white flight example.

Now, the connection Leslie Anne was trying to make between homosexuals getting married and people leaving an area I did not know.

Precious Jeni - that quote wasn't Aristotle it was Socrates.