DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Odysseus on April 22, 2012, 04:42:37 AM
-
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-nothing-fear-bishops-090507675.html
Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
The Church of England has "nothing to fear" from the prospect of gay marriage, according to a group of senior bishops and clergymen.
The influential Anglicans added that the prospect of same-sex marriage should be a "cause for rejoicing".
In a letter to The Times, prominent figures including five former bishops said: "Recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
"We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England."
The letter is said to have been organised by Dr Jeffrey John, the openly gay Dean of St Albans.
It is also signed by the suffragan Bishop of Buckingham and the deans of Portsmouth, Norwich and Guildford.
The letter described marriage as a "robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries" and said it has "moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightened times".
They also welcome comments made by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in which they called on the Church to affirm same-sex couples.
"We believe that the church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
"It will be for the churches to then decide how they respond pastorally to such a change in the law."
Plans to legalise gay civil marriage by 2015 have been put out for consultation by the Government
When we hear so much that is backwards looking and negative from religious institutions, it's heartening to hear something a bit more inclusive and progressive.
-
I agree.
One thing my wife and I are worried about here in North Carolina is Amendment One, an item on the ballot for the May 8th elections which would officially recognize marriage here in NC as one man + one woman. We think that is a terrible backwards move for our state, and one primarily driven by religious interests. We are deeply religious ourselves, but laws shouldn't be passed whose only reason for existence is religion.
-
"We believe that the church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
"It will be for the churches to then decide how they respond pastorally to such a change in the law."
This almost makes too much sense to believe the church saying. :P
-
I never got why two people from the same sex can't get married. How does it affect me personally?!
-
I never got why two people from the same sex can't get married. How does it affect me personally?!
Because being gay is a choice, and if we allow gay people to get married and live normal lives and raise their adopted kids, then everyone will turn out gay and spend their extra civil union-enabled benefit money on glitter and glow sticks and society will decay into chaos and we'll all go to hell.
-
Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear
In other news, it was recently reported that water was discovered to be mostly "wet"
-
I never got why two people from the same sex can't get married. How does it affect me personally?!
Because being gay is a choice, and if we allow gay people to get married and live normal lives and raise their adopted kids, then everyone will turn out gay and spend their extra civil union-enabled benefit money on glitter and glow sticks and society will decay into chaos and we'll all go to hell.
Finally, someone with the right idea. Allowing queers to coerce their way into the institution of marriage, where they will no doubt corrupt it's fundamental values, is in fact one of the dangerous things we (as god fearing individuals) can do. The left wing radicals would have us wage war on values we hold dear; religion and marriage.
One thing my wife and I are worried about here in North Carolina is Amendment One, an item on the ballot for the May 8th elections which would officially recognize marriage here in NC as one man + one woman. We think that is a terrible backwards move for our state, and one primarily driven by religious interests. We are deeply religious ourselves, but laws shouldn't be passed whose only reason for existence is religion.
I too am against the amendment! Although I expect it to pass :sad: :sad: :sad:
-
Nobody should be shocked or disgusted by same sex marriage. Every married person knows it's always the same sex!
-
:lol
Some bishops would like to move forward with same sex marriage.. Sadly, it's not going to happen, because bishops can only move diagonally.
-
BUT HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILDREN
-
I agree.
One thing my wife and I are worried about here in North Carolina is Amendment One, an item on the ballot for the May 8th elections which would officially recognize marriage here in NC as one man + one woman. We think that is a terrible backwards move for our state, and one primarily driven by religious interests. We are deeply religious ourselves, but laws shouldn't be passed whose only reason for existence is religion.
All of this. I'm glad I'll be back home (two days after I graduate) to vote against this piece of trash. It also takes away state privileges for civil unions/domestic partnerships, so it hurts unmarried couples as well. Hopefully our state didn't suddenly become some backwards hick state while I was gone. I've never seen NC as part of the stereotypical image of the south and I hope it doesn't devolve into such come May 8th. :/
-
The forces massing for this amendment are strong. I'm afraid it will pass.
-
:lol
Some bishops would like to move forward with same sex marriage.. Sadly, it's not going to happen, because bishops can only move diagonally.
POTW :hefdaddy
-
:lol
Some bishops would like to move forward with same sex marriage.. Sadly, it's not going to happen, because bishops can only move diagonally.
POTW :hefdaddy
haha, thanks! someone finally acknowledged my joke.
-
The forces massing for this amendment are strong. I'm afraid it will pass.
:-\ :censored
-
The forces massing for this amendment are strong. I'm afraid it will pass.
:-\ :censored
I just voted against it today!
-
:tup
-
Suffice it to say that I am in favor of Amendment One here in North Cackalaky. I'm much too busy to defend this from all you fellow, very liberal DTF-ers at the very moment, but expect to hear a more fleshed out response in the days to come.
Let the 2 minutes of hate commence.
-
I don't think anyone's surprised enough by your stance to muster up much hate. Cows moo, cats are assholes, and Omega is staunchly against the idea of gay marriage.
-
I'm more conservative than liberal, tbh. I just think that the party of small government should actually, you know, get the fuck out of people's lives. Or at least the party that's SUPPOSED to be about small government. :P
That and the fact that gay marriage isn't hurting anyone is why I'm in favor of allowing it. Its not going to harm your marriage or any other heterosexual marriage out there unless your spouse is deathly allergic to equality and freedom. And amendment one in NC not only deals away with any possibility of same-sex marriage (which is already illegal), but also with civil unions. So even two heterosexual people who love each other but don't want to be married get screwed! And so do their kids! Reading some of the comments on articles regarding these on the N&O website make me so mad at people, especially those who think homosexuality is a choice (which it isn't).
-
I agree.
Though I find "getting married" is a piece of paper in front of goverment, it still has its speciality in social world. So everyone must have this right.
-
People listen to the Catholic church? People actually care about what the Catholic church thinks? :shrug:
-
I hear Catholics put some stake in what they say. Just rumors though. :biggrin:
-
I'm more conservative than liberal, tbh. I just think that the party of small government should actually, you know, get the fuck out of people's lives. Or at least the party that's SUPPOSED to be about small government. :P
That and the fact that gay marriage isn't hurting anyone is why I'm in favor of allowing it. Its not going to harm your marriage or any other heterosexual marriage out there unless your spouse is deathly allergic to equality and freedom. And amendment one in NC not only deals away with any possibility of same-sex marriage (which is already illegal), but also with civil unions. So even two heterosexual people who love each other but don't want to be married get screwed! And so do their kids! Reading some of the comments on articles regarding these on the N&O website make me so mad at people, especially those who think homosexuality is a choice (which it isn't).
-
But if you legalize gay marriage, you need to legalize bestiality and incest.... :biggrin:
-
:lol
but seriously, I don't think most people voting for the amendment fully understand exactly what it's about. If it was only for civil unions, most of the right-wing evangelicals wouldn't think twice about it.
-
:lol
but seriously, I don't think most people voting for the amendment fully understand exactly what it's about. If it was only for civil unions, most of the right-wing evangelicals wouldn't think twice about it.
The thing that bothers me, is that a Jewish/Muslim (Islamic?)/Pagan/Druidic/Las Vegas wedding are not the same thing as a Christian wedding. I'm most certainly a follower of Christ, as is my wife-to-be, and we are getting married in what we believe to be true. I have nothing wrong with people who are different, but what gays are looking for are equal rights. I do not agree with them, but I have no right to tell them "no". What holes I put my penis into is my business, not yours. And vice versa.
-
laws shouldn't be passed whose only reason for existence is religion.
Sub the word "exclusion" in for "religion" and it works just as well.
-
We are deeply religious ourselves, but laws shouldn't be passed whose only reason for existence is religion.
Totally agree, except for separation of church and state. Need that.
-
I never understood how people could be so against gay marriage. If you are Christian, aren't marriages only sanctified if done through a Christian service, by a priest/reverend/pastor what have you? I know atleast in the Catholic religion, the only marriage that is seen as "sacred" and "valid" is one done by the church. So why the fuck then would they care if a gay couple gets married by the state? It wouldn't be deemed valid even if it was a straight couple anyway.
-
This is a Christian Nation.
-
Not, it's not.
https://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Given the time of the treaty, and the ratifiers and supporters of the treaty, to say that we are a Christian Nation is absurd.
-
This is a Christian Nation.
What does that even mean?
-
Should've used the green. I should hope that even though I am a Christian, most could understand that I was poking fun at the notion.
-
Suffice it to say that I am in favor of Amendment One here in North Cackalaky. I'm much too busy to defend this from all you fellow, very liberal DTF-ers at the very moment, but expect to hear a more fleshed out response in the days to come.
Let the 2 minutes of hate commence.
Hate, eh? After mentioning the word hate, are you about to argue for discrimination against a bunch of people based on their sexual proclivities (that happen to be none of my, your, or anyone else's business) based on a book from the Bronze Age?
Why are some of the religious people so concerned about what other people get up to in their bedrooms anyway?
-
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-nothing-fear-bishops-090507675.html
Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
The Church of England has "nothing to fear" from the prospect of gay marriage, according to a group of senior bishops and clergymen.
The influential Anglicans added that the prospect of same-sex marriage should be a "cause for rejoicing".
In a letter to The Times, prominent figures including five former bishops said: "Recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
"We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England."
The letter is said to have been organised by Dr Jeffrey John, the openly gay Dean of St Albans.
It is also signed by the suffragan Bishop of Buckingham and the deans of Portsmouth, Norwich and Guildford.
The letter described marriage as a "robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries" and said it has "moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightened times".
They also welcome comments made by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in which they called on the Church to affirm same-sex couples.
"We believe that the church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
"It will be for the churches to then decide how they respond pastorally to such a change in the law."
Plans to legalise gay civil marriage by 2015 have been put out for consultation by the Government
I'm not from England or a member of the Church of England, but it surprises me that a Christian institution's leaders would rejoice and affirm same-sex unions as this internet article expresses. These public statements don't sound like responsible biblical Christian leadership.
-
Responsible according to the popular interpretation of the Bible, sure. But that interpretation is going to change to fit what we as a society begin to see as what's "right," like it has been for awhile now.
-
Oh yeah, society and organizations can change because of what is popular, and that can influence how they interpret something. If a reasonable person reads the Bible they will see a worldview that considers homosexuality a sin, but that is not always popular. That is why it's surprising to see Christian leaders publicly affirm and suggest rejoicing over a different worldview, even if it is more popular these days.
-
Responsible according to the popular interpretation of the Bible, sure. But that interpretation is going to change to fit what we as a society begin to see as what's "right," like it has been for awhile now.
If this headed towards the slavery/homosexuality analogy, let's be sure and do our homework first.
-
These public statements don't sound like responsible biblical Christian leadership.
It depends how one defines 'responsible' in terms of Christian leadership. Is it based on the old wrathful warrior god the old testament or gentle Jesus meek and mild?
Oh yeah, society and organizations can change because of what is popular, and that can influence how they interpret something. If a reasonable person reads the Bible they will see a worldview that considers homosexuality a sin, but that is not always popular. That is why it's surprising to see Christian leaders publicly affirm and suggest rejoicing over a different worldview, even if it is more popular these days.
It'll be surprising to some, sure. What was reasonable 2500 years ago is not necessarily reasonable in the 21st century. We don't kill people for gathering firewood on the sabbath these days either. I guess it's a case of deciding whether the church is to be relevant to modern society. A church that sticks rigidly to archaic dogma is less likely to survive as a going concern than a progressive one that adapts in order to remain relevant to society. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it, it just means that there is a variety of opinion. It doesn't mean the central message has to be lost either. People will migrate towards the church that best suits their outlook I guess....
-
Oh yeah, society and organizations can change because of what is popular, and that can influence how they interpret something. If a reasonable person reads the Bible they will see a worldview that considers homosexuality a sin, but that is not always popular. That is why it's surprising to see Christian leaders publicly affirm and suggest rejoicing over a different worldview, even if it is more popular these days.
But the question isn't whether the church thinks that homosexuality is a sin, or whether the church thinks its members or priests should be able to be homosexual. The question is whether the right of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Saying "okay, yeah, gay people should be able to marry" doesn't necessarily go against anything in the Bible.
-
This internet article is written as a statement without questions, but for Christian leaders to publicly "affirm" and "rejoice" for behavior not consistent with a Biblical worldview does raise questions. I contend that a reasonable person, not in Christian leadership, could read the Bible and see that their statements are irresponsible for an organization that uses the Bible as a guide, whether from the Old or New Testaments. That is what is surprising; however, I am not from England or a member of the Church of England, but I feel safe in saying some of it's leaders do not hold a Biblical worldview.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
-
Responsible according to the popular interpretation of the Bible, sure. But that interpretation is going to change to fit what we as a society begin to see as what's "right," like it has been for awhile now.
The Church isn't a democracy.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
One could say that the Bible obligates that Christian leaders must claim the world is less than 10,000 years old, as well.
-
But it is less than 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs are a myth.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
One could say that the Bible obligates that Christian leaders must claim the world is less than 10,000 years old, as well.
Not so, as the Bible does not explicitly state that the world is less than 10,000 years old. We are discussing explicit statements, not implied theories.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
One could say that the Bible obligates that Christian leaders must claim the world is less than 10,000 years old, as well.
Not so, as the Bible does not explicitly state that the world is less than 10,000 years old. We are discussing explicit statements, not implied theories.
It provides explicit genealogies, from which many Biblical scholars (and later apologists) have estimated the age of the Earth.
-
I would argue that one needn't even read the Bible to recognize sodomy as contrary to the Natural Law.
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.” No doubt there’s a “loser gene” just waiting to be discovered, the confirmation of which will prove that some people are just “born that way.” And we must not, in any event, be “cartoonophobic.” It’s up to us to “define” what marriage is anyway, right? (Or at least, if you’re a modern “conservative,” it’s up to “the people,” though not the courts.) Inter-dimensional marriage opponents will surely come to be seen to future generations like George Wallace – standing in the doorway of the local comic book store, impeding people from marrying the two-dimensional “person of their choice.”
Of course, I’m not trying to insinuate that “same-sex marriage” is as ludicrous as this – because in fact, it’s far more ludicrous. Consider: Who’s the bigger fool? The man who thinks two imaginary oranges added to two real ones make four oranges, or the man who thinks two real oranges and two further real ones make five oranges? I’d say the latter. The former may be delusional, but at least he can add. Similarly, someone who wants to marry Mary Jane at least wants to do something that is logically possible; after all, Mary Jane might have existed, even though in fact she does not. But someone who wants to “marry” someone of the same sex wants to do something that is logically impossible, just as making two and two five is logically impossible.
Us "moderns", even many of us self-described conservatives, fail to see this because we are often committed to a kind of nominalism or conceptualism on which words can ever only express what we decide or what the majority decides what they ought to as a matter of convention. All definitions become “nominal definitions” rather than “real definitions.” Of course, such people never follow out the implications of this nominalism thoroughly or consistently. Or at least they haven’t yet, because the implications would be too preposterous. But occasionally they follow them out just a little bit further than previous generations have… with the result that, say, “same-sex marriage” suddenly comes to seems sane and even inevitable, rather than a joke. If “marrying” cartoon characters, or dogs, or a can of motor oil still seems beyond absurd, wait ten years. This isn’t a slippery slope argument, by the way. The point isn’t that “same-sex marriage” will lead to absurd results; the point is that it is itself absurd.
-
I would argue that one needn't even read the Bible to recognize sodomy as contrary to the Natural Law.
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.” No doubt there’s a “loser gene” just waiting to be discovered, the confirmation of which will prove that some people are just “born that way.” And we must not, in any event, be “cartoonophobic.” It’s up to us to “define” what marriage is anyway, right? (Or at least, if you’re a modern “conservative,” it’s up to “the people,” though not the courts.) Inter-dimensional marriage opponents will surely come to be seen to future generations like George Wallace – standing in the doorway of the local comic book store, impeding people from marrying the two-dimensional “person of their choice.”
Of course, I’m not trying to insinuate that “same-sex marriage” is as ludicrous as this – because in fact, it’s far more ludicrous. Consider: Who’s the bigger fool? The man who thinks two imaginary oranges added to two real ones make four oranges apples, or the man who thinks two real oranges and two further real ones make five apples? I’d say the latter – the former may be delusional, but at least he can add. Similarly, someone who wants to marry Mary Jane at least wants to do something that is logically possible; after all, Mary Jane might have existed, even though in fact she does not. But someone who wants to “marry” someone of the same sex wants to do something that is logically impossible, just as making two and two five is logically impossible.
Us "moderns", even many of us self-described conservatives, fail to see this, because we are often committed to a kind of nominalism or conceptualism on which words can ever only express what we decide or what the majority decides what they ought to as a matter of convention. All definitions become “nominal definitions” rather than “real definitions.” Of course, such people never follow out the implications of this nominalism thoroughly or consistently. Or at least they haven’t yet, because the implications would be too preposterous. But occasionally they follow them out just a little bit further than previous generations have… with the result that, say, “same-sex marriage” suddenly comes to seems sane and even inevitable, rather than a joke. If “marrying” cartoon characters, or dogs, or a can of motor oil still seems beyond the pale, wait ten years. This isn’t a slippery slope argument, by the way. The point isn’t that “same-sex marriage” will lead to absurd results; the point is that it is itself absurd.
So you believe that gay marriage is, in itself, absurd? Alright, I can sympathize with that a little bit... Personally, it would be absurd for me to marry a man, and so I won't do it. If you find it to be absurd, that's fine... don't do it. However, why the fuck should I care about what other people want to do? Regardless of how I feel, who gives me the right to ridicule other peoples decisions? More importantly, who gave you (and the state of North Carolina) that right?
Other people trying to tell others how to live their lives... maybe it's just me, but that sounds absurd.
-
...
Not sure why I'm going to respond in a serious manner, but...
Japanese society is not American society; the 1000 people who signed it were probably joking, and either way, 1000 people in Japan is nothing - and there is simply no comparison between a comic book and a human being. Even if someone married a comic book, it wouldn't change anything. Now, if someone married another human being, gay nor straight, it's going to have actual consequences. Those two people can now claim a certain social status, which comes with certain social benefits, which are not religious in nature. Such as visiting a sick one in a hospital, being on the same health insurance coverage, perhaps being able to adopt a kid, and just fulfilling the dream to marry, which we teach to every single kid. It is not about religious.
Also, it's quite a ludicrous claim to say that there's a gene for something like this. It's a comic book, meaning it's too soon in terms of evolution for it to even possibly have a genetic effect (if it could have a genetic effect). There are best could be genetic influence for some sort of social disorder forming. But again, this is Japanese society.
-
Also, I'm all for people marrying comic books. Whatever floats your boat, it's not my issue.
-
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.”
Nope. Cartoons aren't people, because they're drawings. Consenting people should be able to marry consenting people. This man is ridiculous and lonely and a little unstable but you can't compare it to homosexual marriage.
But someone who wants to “marry” someone of the same sex wants to do something that is logically impossible, just as making two and two five is logically impossible.
It's not impossible. It's been done before. Many times.
-
Since when is sodomy "contrary to the Natural Law"? (in capitals, too! What the fuck does that mean?)
If you'd ever gotten a blowjob, you'd be singing a different tune.
-
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.”
Nope. Cartoons aren't people, because they're drawings. Consenting people should be able to marry consenting people. This man is ridiculous and lonely and a little unstable but you can't compare it to homosexual marriage.
See, at this point a purported supporter of "interdimensional marriage" can simply appeal to the democratic trump card as supporters of same-sex marriage do today and state: But it doesn't matter to us if they're not real; we find that "two-dimensional partners" are the only ones we are comfortable with. We didn't choose to be born this way. Why are you discriminating against us? "Cartoonism" is completely natural. Why are you being so "cartoonophobic"? Why are you trying to impose your views on us? You are just backward and hopelessly traditional. Why can't I marry the interdimensional partner that I choose?
-
Since when is sodomy "contrary to the Natural Law"? (in capitals, too! What the fuck does that mean?)
I rest my case.
-
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.”
Nope. Cartoons aren't people, because they're drawings. Consenting people should be able to marry consenting people. This man is ridiculous and lonely and a little unstable but you can't compare it to homosexual marriage.
See, at this point a purported supporter of "interdimensional marriage" can simply appeal to the democratic trump card as supporters of same-sex marriage do today and state: But it doesn't matter to us if they're not real; we find that "two-dimensional partners" are the only ones we are comfortable with. We didn't choose to be born this way. Why are you discriminating against us? "Cartoonism" is completely natural. Why are you being so "cartoonophobic"? Why are you trying to impose your views on us? You are just backward and hopelessly traditional. Why can't I marry the interdimensional partner that I choose?
If an "interdimensional being", or a cartoon, can provide ID, take a blood test, and sign the marriage license, I dont think there should be an issue.
Oh wait.......
LOL.
Reading your twisted attempts at reasoning on this subject has been entertaining.
-
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.”
Nope. Cartoons aren't people, because they're drawings. Consenting people should be able to marry consenting people. This man is ridiculous and lonely and a little unstable but you can't compare it to homosexual marriage.
See, at this point a purported supporter of "interdimensional marriage" can simply appeal to the democratic trump card as supporters of same-sex marriage do today and state: But it doesn't matter to us if they're not real; we find that "two-dimensional partners" are the only ones we are comfortable with. We didn't choose to be born this way. Why are you discriminating against us? "Cartoonism" is completely natural. Why are you being so "cartoonophobic"? Why are you trying to impose your views on us? You are just backward and hopelessly traditional. Why can't I marry the interdimensional partner that I choose?
Nope. You're avoiding the point and employing an extremely fallacious argument. No supporter of gay rights is arguing that people should also be able to be able to marry cartoons. That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
-
As I've asked this before to no avail: legally speaking, what would a marriage to an inanimate object (or corpse or whatever), even entail?
THAT's why the idea of someone marrying a comic or whatever is ridiculous. I don't give a shit what someone wants to do with their life (and their busty anime dolls), but I'll scoff at the idea of legalizing it until you can actually say what that means.
-
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.”
Nope. Cartoons aren't people, because they're drawings. Consenting people should be able to marry consenting people. This man is ridiculous and lonely and a little unstable but you can't compare it to homosexual marriage.
See, at this point a purported supporter of "interdimensional marriage" can simply appeal to the democratic trump card as supporters of same-sex marriage do today and state: But it doesn't matter to us if they're not real; we find that "two-dimensional partners" are the only ones we are comfortable with. We didn't choose to be born this way. Why are you discriminating against us? "Cartoonism" is completely natural. Why are you being so "cartoonophobic"? Why are you trying to impose your views on us? You are just backward and hopelessly traditional. Why can't I marry the interdimensional partner that I choose?
Because that's how society works, we accept what we agree with and disallow what we don't. Your particular beliefs are, thankfully, on their way to becoming the minority. It doesn't matter how much you attempt to wish away reality and logic with your constant strawmen and slippery slope arguments, the world's moving on without you and you won't be missed.
-
As I've asked this before to no avail: legally speaking, what would a marriage to an inanimate object (or corpse or whatever), even entail?
inb4 "EXACTLY MY POINT WHAT WOULD A MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO MEN EVEN ENTAIL LOL"
-
Because that's how society works, we accept what we agree with and disallow what we don't. Your particular beliefs are, thankfully, on its way to becoming the minority.
Precisely, Ehra.
Given democracy -- a system of governance under which all views and opinions must be accommodated equal consideration -- and its inherently predictable moral decay into relativism (as can be readily perceived), how long will it be before your views become the minority?
One can imagine a future in which "interdimensional marriage" (or any other such absurd thing) is accepted commonsensically as "right" by the majority. And if you happen to disagree and are in the minority, suddenly you become the backwards hillbilly to be gawked at by pompous and self-professedly "tolerant" teens who despise intolerant "anticartoonists" and become the butt of Hollywood jokes.
-
One can imagine a future in which "interdimensional marriage" (or any other such absurd thing) is accepted commonsensically as "right" by the majority. And if you happen to disagree and are in the minority, suddenly you become the backwards hillbilly to be gawked at by pompous and self-professedly "tolerant" teens who despise intolerant "anticartoonists" and become the butt of Hollywood jokes.
I can't see a gay marriage supporter being as vitriolic to someone who wants to marry their comic book as some anti-gay marriage folks can be towards gays.
-
If an "interdimensional being", or a cartoon, can provide ID, take a blood test, and sign the marriage license, I dont think there should be an issue.
Which could all be dismissed as simply "cartoonophic" actions by government or the majority, who wishes to disenfranchise "cartoonophiles" by implementing "unfair" or "discriminatory" ordinances and requirements to impede their way to marriage.
-
Considering that you and H are the only two people that seem to come to the conclusion that if you allow two consenting adult males to marry then you must also allow the marriage of an inanimate object that can't even consent to the marriage, good luck with that scenario.
More importantly, why would I care at all if someone wanted to try to marry a comic book? Or, to make a comparison that even makes any kind of sense at all, a real doll? Or a robotic prostitute? Or an AI? Your embarrassing argument breaks down when the other party doesn't care and has no reason to care.
-
If an "interdimensional being", or a cartoon, can provide ID, take a blood test, and sign the marriage license, I dont think there should be an issue.
Which could all be dismissed as simply "cartoonophic" actions by government or the majority, who wishes to disenfranchise "cartoonophiles" by implementing "unfair" or "discriminatory" ordinances and requirements to impede their way to marriage.
So what is your point? "One can imagine a situation where it's normal to marry drawings, and that's ridiculous, so gay marriage must also be ridiculous"?
-
Since when is sodomy "contrary to the Natural Law"? (in capitals, too! What the fuck does that mean?)
I rest my case.
Would you care to indulge me with a response? I like getting and giving oral sex (I'm not wild about anal, but some people are). What natural laws am I violating?
The majority of your posts are just begging the question. You make no attempt to substantiate these ridiculous assumptions you make.
-
That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
Isn't it up to "us" or "you" or "me" to "define" marriage? If so, then there's no reason why marriage can't be "redefined" to allow human-cartoon marriages (or any other absurdities, for that matter). Then again, you apparently "shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom" or shouldn't be able to "tell me who or what to marry," right? The government "shouldn't tell me who or what I can or can't marry," right? And if there is a reason why marriage can't be or shouldn't be "redefined'" then why seek to "redefine" marriage to accommodate homosexuals in the first place?
If "between a man and a woman" is open to challenge, there's no good reason to think that "must be a union between physically alive people" wouldn't be just as open to challenge from "cartoonophiles".
-
Since when is sodomy "contrary to the Natural Law"? (in capitals, too! What the fuck does that mean?)
I rest my case.
Would you care to indulge me with a response? I like getting and giving oral sex (I'm not wild about anal, but some people are). What natural laws am I violating?
The majority of your posts are just begging the question. You make no attempt to substantiate these ridiculous assumptions you make.
Asking me to explain what Natural Law is would be like asking me to explain what Classical Realism or some such other term is. Perhaps I'll indulge you with a full response and an explanation of Natural Law sometime down the road, but it's fairly late for me to make that kind of commitment at the very moment.
-
That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
Isn't it up to "us" or "you" or "me" to "define" marriage? If so, then there's no reason why marriage can't be "redefined" to allow human-cartoon marriages (or any other absurdities, for that matter). Then again, you apparently "shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom" or shouldn't be able to "tell me who or what to marry," right? The government "shouldn't tell me who or what I can or can't marry," right? And if there is a reason why marriage can't be or shouldn't be "redefined'" then why seek to "redefine" marriage to accommodate homosexuals in the first place?
If "between a man and a woman" is open to challenge, there's no good reason to think that "must be a union between physically alive people" wouldn't be just as open to challenge from "cartoonophiles".
We've had this exact same conversation before. Instead of responding to this again, I'm just going to copy a post from an earlier thread (which you, of course, did not respond to).
Omega, maybe I jumped to conclusions about your response. I still think you are completely, unabashedly, unequivocally wrong, but I won't get hung up on a couple of your less well-constructed arguments and write a formal response to your last post.
A But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. B So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? C And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. D And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? E And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
A. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the concept of same-sex marriage confuses our classical concept of marriage, ripping it from tradition and custom and making it arbitrary and meaningless. This would be a valid point if we did have a traditional and nonarbitrary concept of marriage, but we don't. Originally, marriage was a process by which the wife was given to the husband by the wife's father. With modernization, civil rights, and the like, this process became a little less misogynistic and awful, but marriage as a tradition has been in a constant state of flux for thousands of years. The way marriage is now is not traditional or significant in any way. People can make their marriages into whatever they want them to be. Married couples can be loving, exclusive, and pious, or they can be hate-filled, open, and atheistic. A heterosexual couple can make a marriage whatever they want; tradition and the church need not be involved. It is arbitrary. Marriage is not an ancient, holy rite. All it is is two people agreeing to get married and do whatever marriage means to them. Marriage is two consenting people agreeing to be wed.
B. What is a "polygamous couple"? Regardless, there is no reason to offer a group marriage. If we look at marriage as what it is, two people consenting to be wed, then group marriages are ruled out. Social norms and our current governmental infrastructure rely on marriages' being between two people as well.
C. I am not opposed to incest in principle. But if we have arbitrary restrictions in place in heterosexual marriage, why does the introduction of homosexuality remove these arbitrary restrictions? I'm sure whatever arguments there are against incest -- the genetic, for example -- still apply.
D. I don't know, basic logic and the definition of consent?
E. See above. Children are not capable of making decisions with such extreme consequences, and as such they cannot give consent. They have never been able to give consent. This is why underage heterosexual couples cannot marry.
Your argument is similar to one I've heard thousands of times by Rick Santorum et al.: marriage is an institution, and the introduction of homosexuality will cause a chain reaction that will allow people to marry dogs, children, corpses, and toasters. That's not the case whatsoever. Marriage is nothing. It is arbitrary. It is a piece of paper. Gay marriage only removes the arbitrary restriction that you can only consent to marry people with opposite genitals.
tl;dr: The Church doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. All marriage is is two people committing to each other. There isn't any redefining involved; that's what marriage is. Gays, being people who are already able to marry half the world's population, should be able to marry the other half if they so choose.
-
That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
Isn't it up to "us" or "you" or "me" to "define" marriage? If so, then there's no reason why marriage can't be "redefined" to allow human-cartoon marriages (or any other absurdities, for that matter). Then again, you apparently "shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom" or shouldn't be able to "tell me who or what to marry," right? The government "shouldn't tell me who or what I can or can't marry," right? And if there is a reason why marriage can't be or shouldn't be "redefined'" then why seek to "redefine" marriage to accommodate homosexuals in the first place?
If "between a man and a woman" is open to challenge, there's no good reason to think that "must be a union between physically alive people" wouldn't be just as open to challenge from "cartoonophiles".
It's funny seeing you make an argument centered around the definition of marriage when the definition that suits you was made relatively recently. Going by your logic, the Defense of Marriage Act should have never gone through because if you're going to add restrictions then why not throw in more based on, say, the couple's ability to have children?
-
That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
Isn't it up to "us" or "you" or "me" to "define" marriage? If so, then there's no reason why marriage can't be "redefined" to allow human-cartoon marriages (or any other absurdities, for that matter). Then again, you apparently "shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom" or shouldn't be able to "tell me who or what to marry," right? The government "shouldn't tell me who or what I can or can't marry," right? And if there is a reason why marriage can't be or shouldn't be "redefined'" then why seek to "redefine" marriage to accommodate homosexuals in the first place?
If "between a man and a woman" is open to challenge, there's no good reason to think that "must be a union between physically alive people" wouldn't be just as open to challenge from "cartoonophiles".
We've had this exact same conversation before. Instead of responding to this again, I'm just going to copy a post from an earlier thread (which you, of course, did not respond to).
I'd rather you specifically respond to what I just posted on this thread. Please, with a cherry on top. I don't want to get into a worthless and tangential argument about necrophilia or age of consent. And sorry for not responding. I must have meant to but forgot. Believe that or chalk it up as an excuse. I'm discussing the very topic now, anyways.
All marriage is is two people committing to each other. There isn't any redefining involved; that's what marriage is.
You're simply choosing an arbitrary definition of marriage which cannot be supported if you think that what we traditionally view as marriage and what is grounded in Natural Law (man and a woman) is open to "redefinition" to include a man and another man or a woman and another woman (the redefinition here is obvious; the movement in question is called "same-sex marriage," not "marriage". Regardless of whether you believe this is the traditional or correct definition of marriage, given liberalism and the medium of democracy, coupled with the claim that marriage is defined by consensus, such a definition would still be as open to challenge as "between a man and a woman."
-
What grounding in 'Natural Law' does monogamy have?
-
What grounding in 'Natural Law' does monogamy have?
I'll try to answer this tomorrow.
-
I can't wait to see the definition of "natural law" that completely ignores what actually happens in nature.
-
Awful lotta cartoonophobes in this thread.
-
Of course, I’m not trying to insinuate that “same-sex marriage” is as ludicrous as this – because in fact, it’s far more ludicrous. Consider: Who’s the bigger fool? The man who thinks two imaginary oranges added to two real ones make four oranges, or the man who thinks two real oranges and two further real ones make five oranges? I’d say the latter.
(https://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif)
-
Omega:
First of all, where is this "Natural Law" you keep citing? Where can I find a copy?
Now, the post from the earlier thread is far more relevant than you think, but I'll outline the points more clearly:
Let's say there is a Natural Law which wants one man and one woman to be monogamous. Even if there is one, it doesn't matter. We're not discussing what is natural according to some book or ancient worldview. We're talking about what is legal.
Legally, men and women can be married but don't necessarily have to act in the traditional, Christian, monogamous way. A man and woman can get married and have sex on the side. A man and woman can get married and have sex on the side with people of the same gender. A man and woman can get married but refuse to have sex whatsoever and only have sex with other people (some of which, what the hell, can be of the same gender). A man can get married to a woman, but never talk to her, and instead room with and have sex with one other man, monogamously, for the rest of his life. A man and woman can get married and, god forbid, practice anal sex. Christianity is unhappy with all of these married couples, and I'm sure they're failing to go along with your "Natural Law" in some way.
Married people have these rights because the government A) it doesn't have the power to police the personal lives of its citizens in this way and B) the government doesn't have anything to do with the Church anyway, which is the only organization that might care what people are doing in the bedroom. So what, legally, is marriage? It's basically just a piece of paper that gives you (and a partner to whom you consent to be legally tied) a number of legal privileges. Marriage as it exists today doesn't have anything to do with any Natural Law whatsoever.
So we've got a legal institution that ties men to women, but this tie isn't morally or spiritually significant in any way. Great. So why should same-sex marriage be legal? Let's take a step back:
Mark is a capable male adult.
Jerry is a capable male adult.
Craig is a capable male adult.
Cara is a capable female adult.
Synthia is a drawing of a capable female adult.
Cara and Craig can marry. This is because they are capable adults.
Mark and Jerry are both capable adults, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage. This isn't really fair, given that the marriage of Craig and Cara affords them several perks that Mark and Jerry won't get, even if they commit to one another informally. Because they're capable adults, you would assume that Mark and Jerry would be able to marry if you saw them on the street individually, but this isn't the case for some reason. This disparity, according to supporters of the gay rights movement, should be rectified.
Mark and Synthia cannot marry. Mark is a capable adult but Synthia is a drawing and cannot give consent. Only the very confused would argue for Mark and Synthia's marriage. Mark and Jerry's marriage makes sense because they are both adults and should be able to consent to marriage, but Mark and Synthia's doesn't, even though Mark is male and Synthia is (a drawing of a) female.
Basically, you don't have to think gayness is legitimate. I don't care if you think all gay people are violating "Natural Laws". But the government's failing to recognize gay marriage is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing gay marriage is the only way to achieve equality.
(A few spare notes: homosexuality does occur in nature. Monogamy is quite uncommon in nature. The definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman" is very recent indeed - the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in '96 (thanks Wikipedia). A few governments are still rushing to define marriage as being between a man and a woman (see beginning of this thread) -- the "definition of marriage" argument doesn't really work in that respect.)
-
That's because gays are consenting people who should be able to marry other consenting people. Cartoons aren't.
Isn't it up to "us" or "you" or "me" to "define" marriage? If so, then there's no reason why marriage can't be "redefined" to allow human-cartoon marriages (or any other absurdities, for that matter). Then again, you apparently "shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom" or shouldn't be able to "tell me who or what to marry," right? The government "shouldn't tell me who or what I can or can't marry," right? And if there is a reason why marriage can't be or shouldn't be "redefined'" then why seek to "redefine" marriage to accommodate homosexuals in the first place?
If "between a man and a woman" is open to challenge, there's no good reason to think that "must be a union between physically alive people" wouldn't be just as open to challenge from "cartoonophiles".
Because a cartoon figure isn't, ya know, real. It's not possible for you to marry a cartoon character. What are you marrying? Your hypothetical is completely impossible to occur. Whereas gay marriage is simply changing the conception of marriage from: a consenting agreement between a man and a woman, to a consenting agreement between a person and another person. It doesn't make marriage completely relevant, it doesn't make the definition just up for grabs - it makes it one between two consenting adults, persons and citizens.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
One could say that the Bible obligates that Christian leaders must claim the world is less than 10,000 years old, as well.
Not so, as the Bible does not explicitly state that the world is less than 10,000 years old. We are discussing explicit statements, not implied theories.
It provides explicit genealogies, from which many Biblical scholars (and later apologists) have estimated the age of the Earth.
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. It just isn't a relevant discussion.
These threads deteriorate remarkable quickly.
-
It depends on how one views the Bible in the first place. You sound fairly conservative/fundamentalist, so you probably view the Bible as the divinely inspired literal Word of God. In such a worldview, you are correct that the statements in the article do not reflect a "Biblical" worldview. But this is not the only way to interpret the Bible, and is certainly not the nominal interpretation of the Bible held in the Anglican Church.
It may sound that way, but I'd say fundamental or nominal isn't necessarily the issue. I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
One could say that the Bible obligates that Christian leaders must claim the world is less than 10,000 years old, as well.
Not so, as the Bible does not explicitly state that the world is less than 10,000 years old. We are discussing explicit statements, not implied theories.
It provides explicit genealogies, from which many Biblical scholars (and later apologists) have estimated the age of the Earth.
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. It just isn't a relevant discussion.
These threads deteriorate remarkable quickly.
Over 2000 years worth of Biblical scholars would've very much disagreed with you on that. Rather strongly, indeed.
-
Sorry Omega, but I think the whole cartoon argument is complete idiocy. You never answered my question, why should you (or anyone else) feel entitled to tell me what I can or cannot marry (be it a man or a two demensional drawing). Regardless of the absurdities, it isn't your decision. It's very simple, and I don't see how you can make any argument against it.
-
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
-
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married. Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.
-
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married. Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.
He's not even arguing "slippery slope." He's saying that gay marriage is already more ridiculous than marrying a cartoon.
-
But to even bring it up as a possibility for legalization if Gay Marriage is legalized seems like a slippery slope to me. Whatever the argument, I think we can agree its silly. :biggrin:
-
We have already highlighted the differences between gay marriage, Christian marriage, atheistic marriage and so on. Omega has a keyboard and an audience so he is going to fire away. There are gay Christians, believe it or not, Omega.
-
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married. Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.
He's not even arguing "slippery slope." He's saying that gay marriage is already more ridiculous than marrying a cartoon.
Which doesn't even make it not a slippery slope. Slippery Slopes don't matter where you start or where you end, it matters how you get from point A to point B. In this case, using a comparison that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and forcing it to be analgous, and then using said analgoy to draw a ridiculous conclusion, is fallacious as all hell. Doesn't matter if you wanna call it a slippery slope.
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
Give me a break...the Bible does say that if women have long hair, it is a glory to them....but it doesn't say that women with short hair are deserving of death. (something it does say about homosexuality) You're misrepresenting what the Bible says.
-
We it's a good thing Hef didn't say that, isn't it? :tup
-
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth. Context.
-
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth. Context.
Yet they articulated the age of the Earth regardless. Just because it isnt a "primary goal" doesnt mean it wasn't done.
-
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth. Context.
We it's a good thing Hef didn't say that, isn't it? :tup
-
You're simply choosing an arbitrary definition of marriage which cannot be supported if you think that what we traditionally view as marriage and what is grounded in Natural Law (man and a woman)
You have two options for "Natural Law"
(1) The "Natural Law" seen by humans, and interpreted for some meaning. (philosophers and theologians, ie Aristotle)
(2) The "Natural Law" shown by nature without any further interpretation needed (scientists and naturalists..ie Descartes, Bacon, and others of the scientific revolution)
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience. The second, which asks "how," doesn't.
Bees and primates, for eample, engage in homophobic activities. Bees and primates are part of nature and therefore it is natural. End of story. Thats it. Homosexuality, is a rare, but natural occurance of the biosphere. The only reason to detest it is if one follows the first view of "natural law" which always seem to blindly extrapolate laws of nature.
Religion aims for a certain perfection without realizing that there can be perfection in seeming chaos. Exceptions and rarities do not disprove laws; it reinforces them!
-
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience.
I don't know if it's inadvertent... having studied physics, talking with professes, answering how is simply not enough. I pretty much agree with where it ends, but when I ask why, I know that I'm going beyond the realms of current science, which means I don't take it to mean much. Physics can explain the light we see, why it is the color it is, etc, but it still doesn't tell us why we see what we see, or mean that we all see the same thing, etc. I'm also not sure scientists don't ask why, and I might contend asking why is important for scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. "Why" leads to "how," in the scientific process. Why does the electron not fall into the nucleus of an atom? Why does the speed of light remain constant?
Aristotle did hit something right on the nail: virtue is between two vices.
-
I would disagree with those scholars. The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth. Context.
Yet they articulated the age of the Earth regardless. Just because it isnt a "primary goal" doesnt mean it wasn't done.
Just because much of Biblical scholarship states that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, doesn't mean that all Biblical scholarship is invalid. Earth age science is less than 300 years old in regards to the current estimation of the Earth's age.
Not even trying to put words in hef's mouth, and I don't think he'd accuse me of doing so, either. I'm only furthering my point.
All that said, an argument like "Well, all Christian leaders have to claim the Earth is 10,000 years old" isn't a good argument. Science has proven otherwise, we can move on from that.
Concerning homosexuality - I believe that consenting homosexuals ought to be married if they so choose. Fundamentalist Christians who defend the "definition of marriage" seem confused as to what Jesus teaches regarding worldview. The state does not need to affirm a Christian's worldview. People don't believe in Jesus because the law forces them to. It defeats the whole purpose of the Gospel to go about it in this way.
-
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience.
I don't know if it's inadvertent... having studied physics, talking with professes, answering how is simply not enough. I pretty much agree with where it ends, but when I ask why, I know that I'm going beyond the realms of current science, which means I don't take it to mean much. Physics can explain the light we see, why it is the color it is, etc, but it still doesn't tell us why we see what we see, or mean that we all see the same thing, etc. I'm also not sure scientists don't ask why, and I might contend asking why is important for scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. "Why" leads to "how," in the scientific process. Why does the electron not fall into the nucleus of an atom? Why does the speed of light remain constant?
Aristotle did hit something right on the nail: virtue is between two vices.
The why I was referring to relates to purpose, whether metaphysical or religious. Of course scientists ask why; but its a why to search for natural relationship; never to suggest something supernatural. I am not suggesting old philosophies are wrong, absolutely not; but those ideas which are made on testable observations and which do not make suggestions beyond nature stand up to time better.
For me, and perhaps for the likes of Descartes, the more important question I would ask Aristotle is how and why a range of vices exist in the first place. His comment is obvious, but says nothing to me.
-
Married people have these rights because the government A) it doesn't have the power to police the personal lives of its citizens in this way and B) the government doesn't have anything to do with the Church anyway, which is the only organization that might care what people are doing in the bedroom. So what, legally, is marriage? It's basically just a piece of paper that gives you (and a partner to whom you consent to be legally tied) a number of legal privileges. Marriage as it exists today doesn't have anything to do with any Natural Law whatsoever.
Remove marriage from natural law and allow "us" or "the majority" to "define" what is or isn't marriage and all you are left with is a might makes right scenario in which if the majority of people think that marriage should be x, marriage becomes x.
So we've got a legal institution that ties men to women, but this tie isn't morally or spiritually significant in any way. Great. So why should same-sex marriage be legal? Let's take a step back:
Mark is a capable male adult.
Jerry is a capable male adult.
Craig is a capable male adult.
Cara is a capable female adult.
Synthia is a drawing of a capable female adult.
Cara and Craig can marry. This is because they are capable adults.
Mark and Jerry are both capable adults, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage. This isn't really fair, given that the marriage of Craig and Cara affords them several perks that Mark and Jerry won't get, even if they commit to one another informally. Because they're capable adults, you would assume that Mark and Jerry would be able to marry if you saw them on the street individually, but this isn't the case for some reason. This disparity, according to supporters of the gay rights movement, should be rectified.
Mark and Synthia cannot marry. Mark is a capable adult but Synthia is a drawing and cannot give consent. Only the very confused would argue for Mark and Synthia's marriage. Mark and Jerry's marriage makes sense because they are both adults and should be able to consent to marriage, but Mark and Synthia's doesn't, even though Mark is male and Synthia is (a drawing of a) female.
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Basically, you don't have to think gayness is legitimate. I don't care if you think all gay people are violating "Natural Laws". But the government's failing to recognize gay marriage is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing gay marriage is the only way to achieve equality.
Basically, you don't have to think "cartoonism' is legitimate. I don't care if you think all "cartoonophiles" are violating "Natural Laws." But the government's failing to recognize "interdimensional marriage" is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing "interdimensional marriage" is the only way to achieve equality.
A few spare notes: homosexuality does occur in nature.
As does incest, genocide, rape, polygamy, murder, theft, etc. I'll address this further in soundgarden's post on Natural Law.
-
There are gay Christians, believe it or not, Omega.
What does that have to do with anything pertinent here? If you think it is pertinent, I'm inclined to believe that you're missing the point.
-
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible.
ok
-
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible.
ok
Taking that out of the context of explaining what "in principle" means will only lead to me being misunderstood and misrepresented by those who do not know what "in principle" means. I guarantee you that 4 people will take this out of context quote and state something similar to the following:
"wow lol Omega thinks taht infertile people cant/shouldn't marry! wow i knew he was a douche! Twelve!"
Please refrain from doing so, future posters, and read the entirety of the post this was derived from.
-
Omega, you did take the time to shield yourself from the inevitable "lol wut about infertile ppl" posts, and I respect that you thought far enough ahead to do so.
Even with that consolation in place, that sentence is where I realized this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, and for that reason I'm going to remove myself from it. I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner. You think, for some reason, that marriage has nothing to do with any of that, and has everything to do with making babies.
Do excuse me for not responding to your points in full, but I'm done here. Someone else can explain to you why two people might want to get married even if they can't have children, and why replacing the word "homosexual" with "cartoonophile" in other people's sensible arguments doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for your side.
-
Omega, you did take the time to shield yourself from the inevitable "lol wut about infertile ppl" posts, and I respect that you thought far enough ahead to do so.
Even with that consolation in place, that sentence is where I realized this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, and for that reason I'm going to remove myself from it. I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner. You think, for some reason, that marriage has nothing to do with any of that, and has everything to do with making babies.
Do excuse me for not responding to your points in full, but I'm done here. Someone else can explain to you why two people might want to get married even if they can't have children, and why replacing the word "homosexual" with "cartoonophile" in other people's sensible arguments doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for your side.
Because he has an agenda. He's saying what he wants and covering his ears yelling "blah blah blah!" when other people talk.
I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but Omega is far from conversing. It is a monologue at this point.
-
Omega, you did take the time to shield yourself from the inevitable "lol wut about infertile ppl" posts, and I respect that you thought far enough ahead to do so.
Even with that consolation in place, that sentence is where I realized this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, and for that reason I'm going to remove myself from it. I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner. You think, for some reason, that marriage has nothing to do with any of that, and has everything to do with making babies.
Do excuse me for not responding to your points in full, but I'm done here. Someone else can explain to you why two people might want to get married even if they can't have children, and why replacing the word "homosexual" with "cartoonophile" in other people's sensible arguments doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for your side.
Because he has an agenda. He's saying what he wants and covering his ears yelling "blah blah blah!" when other people talk.
:facepalm:
-
I did take the time to edit my post and explain what I meant by that. You keep throwing out words like "necrophilia" and associating it with homosexuals.
I do believe that homosexuality is a sin.
It is no greater a sin that when I say fuck, like right now. Fuck. And every time you get super nutjob Christians saying "THEY SHULDNT GET MARRIED HURR" I want to smack them. Their notion of marriage is completely different than what I expect to get in May. It feels as though you aren't accepting that at all. You're hung up on "being right" (just the tone your posts give) as opposed to actually discussing the topic.
-
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.
Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.
-
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.
Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.
Fun fact: Not everyone agrees on everything.
-
You keep throwing out words like "necrophilia" and associating it with homosexuals.
I've done no such thing on this thread. In fact, I explicitly stated that I wish to refrain from discussing necrophilia.
-
Fun fact: Not everyone agrees on everything.
Irrelevant.
-
I'm confused, are you a Christian? (Sincere question. I am a Christian)
-
I'm confused, are you a Christian? (Sincere question. I am a Christian)
Roman Catholic.
-
Okay, I've sent a PM.
Apologies for clogging up the thread.
-
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.
Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.
When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.
-
When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.
Sorry for tempting you with that post, Scheavo, but that comment wasn't exactly intended to spur another tangential conversation. I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion. Sorry. And sorry, too, if this comes of as dickish; it isn't meant to.
-
When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.
Sorry for tempting you with that post, Scheavo, but that comment wasn't exactly intended to spur another tangential conversation. I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion. Sorry. And sorry, too, if this comes of as dickish; it isn't meant to.
Don't see how its really tangential at all. You're trying to narrowly define marriage, one which isn't true of many other societies. Marriage has been many things. If you want to have such a strict definition of marriage, you're going to have to argue for why marriage should be defined in this way, and not simply state that this is the definition.
The meanings of words change, and constantly so. Words don't have a strict meaning, they have an ever evolving meaning. Fittingly so, even the meaning of evolution has evolved over time, as new insights and new narratives arise.
-
I'm in the process of writing a very brief defense of marriage through Natural Law, Scheavo. I'm sure you're giddy with anticipation.
-
You're simply choosing an arbitrary definition of marriage which cannot be supported if you think that what we traditionally view as marriage and what is grounded in Natural Law (man and a woman)
You have two options for "Natural Law"
(1) The "Natural Law" seen by humans, and interpreted for some meaning. (philosophers and theologians, ie Aristotle)
(2) The "Natural Law" shown by nature without any further interpretation needed (scientists and naturalists..ie Descartes, Bacon, and others of the scientific revolution)
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience. The second, which asks "how," doesn't.
Bees and primates, for eample, engage in homophobic activities. Bees and primates are part of nature and therefore it is natural. End of story. Thats it. Homosexuality, is a rare, but natural occurance of the biosphere. The only reason to detest it is if one follows the first view of "natural law" which always seem to blindly extrapolate laws of nature.
Religion aims for a certain perfection without realizing that there can be perfection in seeming chaos. Exceptions and rarities do not disprove laws; it reinforces them!
I'll try to present Natural Law as best as possible. This is of my own free will, so I'm not terribly inclined to delve into a comment, defend, comment, defend type situation. Due to the inherent complexity of explaining such a philosophical concept, this post will get long. Sorry. And don't believe that will write this without the help of literary companions, etc. I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.
Natural Law theory is very badly understood by those who criticize it. Common objections go something like:
"If it's wrong to go against nature, then isn't it wrong to wear glasses or drive cars since these are artificial?"
or
"If what's good is what is natural, isn't everything good, then, because everything that happens in nature is therefore 'natural'?"
or
"If homosexuality is genetic, doesn't that show that it is natural too?"
etc.
Aristotle takes a thing's form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it. Hence a "good" triangle is one that corresponds as closely to the form of triangularity as possible. Accordingly, a "good" squirrel is one that has the typical marks of the species and one that successfully fulfills the the characteristic activities of a squirrel's life, etc.
When we turn to humans, we find that we too have a nature or essence, and the good for them, like the good for anything else, is defined in terms of this nature or essence. Unlike other animals, though, humans have intellect and will, and this is where moral goodness enters the picture. Human beings can know what is good for them, and choose whether to pursue that good. And this is the natural end of the faculties of intellect and will; for like our other faculties, they too have a final cause, namely, to allow us to understand the truth about things, including what is good for us given our nature and essence and to act in light of it. Just as a "good" triangle is a triangle that most closely approximates the form of triangularity, so too a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are our by virtue of our nature or essence.
The will of its very nature is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards as good. You don't need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this. You know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something desirable or providing some benefit. Human action is of its nature directed toward what is perceived as good in some way, whether it is truly good or not.
Suppose then (if you must, in the name of "for the sake of the argument"), that things really do have final causes, including our various biological capacities. Then, obviously, the final cause or natural purpose of sex is procreation. And procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.
And, now, for the more awkward part of discussing how Natural Law deals with the sexual act...
If we consider the structure of the sexual organs and the sexual act as a process which, through the prospect of pleasure, begins with arousal and ends in orgasm, it is clear its biological function, its final cause, is to get, uhm, semen into the vagina. The organs fit together like lock and key. This all blindingly obvious, though, and you'd be unreasonable to deny it. But from the point of view of biological final causes, all of this exists only so that men and women will engage in a sexual act, so that it will result in the deposition of sperm into the vagina, so that in turn offspring will be generated and so that the father and mother will be strengthened in their desire to stay together which is nature's way of sustaining that union upon which children depend for their material and spiritual well-being.
If there really are Aristotelian natures, essences, final causes, etc, then the lesson of all this for sexual morality should be reasonably obvious. Since the final cause of human sexual capacities is procreation, what is good or human beings in the use of those capacities is to use them only in a way consistent with this final cause or purpose. This is a necessary truth -- for the good for us is defined by our nature and the final causes of its various elements. It cannot possibly be good for us to use them in any other way, whether an individual thinks it is or not any more than it can possibly be good for an alcoholic to indulge his taste for excessive drink. This remains true regardless of the reason for someone's desire to act in a way contrary to nature's purposes (no, this doesn't mean that people must always intend to have children with every sexual act nor does this mean that all organs must serve only one core function).
Natural Law doesn't condemn using a natural capacity or organ other than for its natural function, but only in a manner contrary to its natural function, frustrating its natural end. Natural Law also does not entail that every frustration of nature's purposes is a serious immorality. Where certain natural functions concern only some minor aspect of human life, a frustration of nature's purposes might be at worst a minor lapse in virtue like prudence. But when they concern the maintenance of the species itself, and the material and spiritual well-being of humans (as is the case with sex), acting contrary to them cannot fail to be of serious moral weight.
Cute, Omega, but how does this have to do with homosexuality and "same-sex marriage"?
Does natural law entail that homosexuals cannot marry? They can marry. But of course, what that means, as a matter of conceptual necessity is that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. What they cannot do is marry each other, no more than a heterosexual could marry someone of the same sex, and no more than a person could "marry" a fish or a can of motor oil or his own right foot. For the metaphysics underlying natural law theory entails that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final causes, inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. There is no such thing as "same-sex marriage" any more than there are round squares. There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Sodomy, between two men or a man a woman or two women, no more counts as "sex" than puking up some pizza counts as eating. No ordinance, legislature or opinion could possibly change these facts any more than they could repeal the law of gravity or the Pythagorean theorem. Any "law" that attempted such an impossibility would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment.
-
Other animals don't have intellect or will? That's an awfully flimsy (and wrong) assumption to base an argument off.
-
:corn
-
Suppose then (if you must, in the name of "for the sake of the argument"), that things really do have final causes, including our various biological capacities. Then, obviously, the final cause or natural purpose of sex is procreation
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc. In this capacity, researchers have discovered a legitimate role for homosexual persons. They look at nieces of nephews, and other members of the family. Clan and family can effect DNA, so it provides a way for the genetic code to be preserved, and thus actually still exist in nature. I would expand upon this, and say that gay couples would make great families to adopt children, further helping society "procreate," as you prefer to call it.
Also, sex is NOT marriage. Gay sex is legal in this country, and has been for a while, and thank god that it is. Talk about an invasion of privacy. Marriage comes with benefits, ones I've mentioned previously which you have ignored. In acknowledging gay marriage, we are not talking about sex, we're talking about an emotional connection that can occur between two people. Seems like the first gay couple I hear about getting married is almost always an older couple, who are probably well beyond sex, and who are doing it for a variety of other reasons not even related to sex, or such a "final cause."
Lot of unproven presuppositions to support your argument.
-
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.
-
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?
-
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?
\Nope.
-
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?
Not at all which is why I'm trying to stay out of it. It's kinda hard though. :(
-
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.
Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"
Never mind trying to comprehend how someone's "arguement" can be "shown as false simply by observing reality"...
Oh, and don't respond to this post of mine in the future; if you want to have a reasonable conversation, how about you address the page-long post of mine above?
-
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.
-
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.
Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"
Than why do you keep ignoring my rebuttals? Great apologies if you're currently writing them, but you ignored them before.
-
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.
If the "rapture" were to happen (no substantial biblical evidence to suggest it), a lot of the ones that believe it would happen would still wind up here. Some of us are very wayward and misguided.
-
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.
Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"
Never mind trying to comprehend how someone's "arguement" can be "shown as false simply by observing reality"...
Oh, and don't respond to this post of mine in the future; if you want to have a reasonable conversation, how about you address the page-long post of mine above?
It was a perfectly fine response. The evidence that your entire arguement is false is all around you.
I thought it was consice and clear, but I guess I will have to give you an example.
"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."
Incorrect. Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation. Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons. That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.
We could go on and on, but it is clear to every other poster here that your position holds no water.
You can believe whatever you want, and that is cool, but in the end it will just be your own fanciful opinion.
-
YOmega! (see what I did there? ;))
You kind of just ignored me before. The manner in which you, or anyone else, defines marriage seems beside the point.
Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right????
Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives? Did god give you that right? God created the universe, would you suggest that he didn't create homosexuals? If he really had a problem with gay marriage, why are we even having this conversation?
Oh, and did I mention, it's not your job to make important life decisions for other people (regardless of your own definitions of marriage).
Maybe I just have a simple mind, or maybe it's just that simple
-
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself.
So Natural Law analyzes human nature, both social and personal, to deduce binding rules of moral behavoir.
Interesting. It appears Natural Law can easily allow for homosexual marriage if it is a valid part of social and personal human nature. Here is where my response about reality references. Homosexual sex, love, partnership, and marriage are indeed an obvious part of the human experience, personally and socially. Your insistence that Natural Law deals with the specific purposes for things like sex, simply isn't valid. That is merely your own moral views. One can easily argue that "man-made" law banning gay marriage is against Natural Law.
Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society. Subjective Morals anyone? :lol
I'm just not sure you really understand what Natural Law is. You seem to have twisted Platos Form of Good and Aristotles view on Natural Law into your own Frankenstein to show Gay marriage is not only wrong, but doesnt exist.
:facepalm:
-
Aristotle takes a thing's form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it. Hence a "good" triangle is one that corresponds as closely to the form of triangularity as possible.
But that is simply another assumption based on, well, nothing. It is an untestable assertion and therefore cannot be taken as a truth. Aristotle created his own criteria and then followed his biased assumption in seeking examples to prove it.
The absolute single and only moral (and I use moral lightly) that exists on the planet is the product of the individual will to live. Species long discovered that cooperation in their species helps their own survival chances. "Goodness" and "Badness" is how well a member cooperates with other members or not. Religion built on this already existing natural law and the imagination of humanity did its magic.
It IS that simple.
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
Give me a break...the Bible does say that if women have long hair, it is a glory to them....but it doesn't say that women with short hair are deserving of death. (something it does say about homosexuality) You're misrepresenting what the Bible says.
I didn't say they were deserving of death. You're misrepresenting what I said.
-
I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.
Really? I would have thought so since you seem to have the answers on all things natural.
-
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.
Amen to that! Dunno if you saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbb92PePH4I
:tup
-
I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.
Really? I would have thought so since you seem to have the answers on all things natural.
omega for pope
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
Give me a break...the Bible does say that if women have long hair, it is a glory to them....but it doesn't say that women with short hair are deserving of death. (something it does say about homosexuality) You're misrepresenting what the Bible says.
I didn't say they were deserving of death. You're misrepresenting what I said.
I didn't say that *YOU* said that....but you were equalizing all sin. (or at least, the sin of homosexuality and the "sin" of a woman having short hair....which isn't even listed as a sin *AT ALL*)
I was pointing at that your statement was ludicrous.
-
Wow.
I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
-
We it's a good thing Hef didn't say that, isn't it? :tup
Reposted for relevance. :biggrin:
However, I came here to point out that most philosophers, especially ones like Aristotle, had their own opinions of what constituted "good" and then sort of shoehorned everything in there to make it fit. The most clear example is probably ethical egoism, in which the right thing is to act in your own self-interest. Pretty much anything can be twisted and subverted to explain how an action was in one's self-interest and why its good to do so. So, naturally, most if not all philosophies are flawed in some way. Even so, combining Plato and Aristotle in order to apply an arbitrary definition to a word and "prove" that the word can only mean that is just mind-bogglingly insane, especially when you try and say that it proves that gay marriage can't exist, and that there's some kind of parallel between me marrying another dude and marrying a lamp.
But, as Sigz said, there's probably no point in arguing with someone who thinks a word holds only one metaphysical truth, so whatever. I'll watch from the sidelines. Someone get me some :popcorn:
I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
Well there's something we agree on. :D
-
You guys lose me when you get into Plato and Aristotle, I know more about Socrates.
For example, I know that he loves baseball. And most of all- he loves....he loves San Dimas!
-
You guys lose me when you get into Plato and Aristotle, I know more about Socrates.
For example, I know that he loves baseball. And most of all- he loves....he loves San Dimas!
XANG! :tup
-
Wow.
I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
Wow indeed.
It really bothers you when people dont agree with your far fetched positions, doesnt it?
If you feel you must cool down over the weekend, you do that...we are just fine, thx. You and those that agree with you will have to join the discussion on Monday I guess....oh wait...no one else agrees with you.
Oh well....see you Monday! :lol
-
Wow.
I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
Wow indeed.
It really bothers you when people dont agree with your far fetched positions, doesnt it?
If you feel you must cool down over the weekend, you do that...we are just fine, thx. You and those that agree with you will have to join the discussion on Monday I guess....oh wait...no one else agrees with you.
Oh well....see you Monday! :lol
...Yes, good one, Eric. Whatever the majority believes is true is true, right? I suppose that if you want to, as your post indicates, we can have a dick measuring contest of sorts in which I'll somehow convince hundreds of people across the internet to make accounts here and post on this thread "I agree with Omega". Then, a majority of the people on the thread will agree with me and, according to your logic, I'll "win" the argument and you'll be placed in the far-fetched-position camp. Sound absurd? I'm inclined to agree, yet that's what the post you just made seems to indicate. And frankly, if I may say so, most of the "rebuttals" and comments that cause me to uncontrollably shake my head in frustration and pity seem to consistently be posted by you. I hope you'll take the weekend off to perhaps do something worthwhile in regards to the expansion of the intellect? Perhaps read a book or something?
-
At this point, I can only assume you are either ignoring my points, or don't have a logical response to them.
-
Wow.
I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
Wow indeed.
It really bothers you when people dont agree with your far fetched positions, doesnt it?
If you feel you must cool down over the weekend, you do that...we are just fine, thx. You and those that agree with you will have to join the discussion on Monday I guess....oh wait...no one else agrees with you.
Oh well....see you Monday! :lol
...Yes, good one, Eric. Whatever the majority believes is true is true, right? I suppose that if you want to, as your post indicates, we can have a dick measuring contest of sorts in which I'll somehow convince hundreds of people across the internet to make accounts here and post on this thread "I agree with Omega". Then, a majority of the people on the thread will agree with me and, according to your logic, I'll "win" the argument and you'll be placed in the far-fetched-position camp. Sound absurd? I'm inclined to agree, yet that's what the post you just made seems to indicate. And frankly, if I may say so, most of the "rebuttals" and comments that cause me to uncontrollably shake my head in frustration and pity seem to consistently be posted by you. I hope you'll take the weekend off to perhaps do something worthwhile in regards to the expansion of the intellect? Perhaps read a book or something?
your final few statements invoke your final warning, Omega.
-
as for others, if you don't agree with a poster, discuss why. otherwise, this thread will be closed.
-
At this point, I can only assume you are either ignoring my points, or don't have a logical response to them.
It's okay. People don't like to respond to level-headed arguments, they like fist shaking rage.
-
As I said, Monday. And I won't be even bother acknowledging the presence eric's posts from now on.
-
As I said, Monday. And I won't be even bother acknowledging the presence eric's posts from now on.
So you will ignore them and insult me, but not respond with a rebuttal.
Ok.
Enjoy the weekend! :hat
-
Wow.
I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
Wow indeed.
It really bothers you when people dont agree with your far fetched positions, doesnt it?
If you feel you must cool down over the weekend, you do that...we are just fine, thx. You and those that agree with you will have to join the discussion on Monday I guess....oh wait...no one else agrees with you.
Oh well....see you Monday! :lol
this is your warning, eric. knock off the antagonism
-
At this point, I can only assume you are either ignoring my points, or don't have a logical response to them.
:smiley: :corn
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
:) Hef...
I contend that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas, could read the Bible and see a Biblical view that defines homosexuality as sin. I also contend, that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas could read the Bible and conclude that marriage, from the Bible's view, is a coupling of men and women. I think it would be fair minded for that person to conclude that leaders of a community, that have a Biblical worldview, are irresponsible by publicly "affirming" and "rejoicing" for behavior that their guidebook views as sin. And also irresponsible by encouraging a homosexual coupling for marriage.
How serious they take what they read is the fundamental/nominal distinction you made earlier. I don't think it's necessarily that, but that's fair. In this case though, I think someone whose reasonable could read the Bible for the first time and then read this threads internet article and go :o "WHAT?? Did they read the same book I read? Their leaders of a community that uses that book as a guide and their "rejoicing" at WHAT?" I think it's a reasonable scenario and conclusion. I know it's not popular, but this is religion after all. :angel: That same person may not agree with the Bible and think it's unreasonable in todays world, but I think they could make a fair distinction on what a biblical view is for certain issues. Maybe not shellfish, but homosexuality...I think so.
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
-
I didn't say that *YOU* said that....but you were equalizing all sin. (or at least, the sin of homosexuality and the "sin" of a woman having short hair....which isn't even listed as a sin *AT ALL*)
I was pointing at that your statement was ludicrous.
OK.
Well, I didn't say that, either.
So, your statement is ludicrous.
How about next time we criticize what I actually say, mmkay?
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
:) Hef...
I contend that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas, could read the Bible and see a Biblical view that defines homosexuality as sin. I also contend, that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas could read the Bible and conclude that marriage, from the Bible's view, is a coupling of men and women. I think it would be fair minded for that person to conclude that leaders of a community, that have a Biblical worldview, are irresponsible by publicly "affirming" and "rejoicing" for behavior that their guidebook views as sin. And also irresponsible by encouraging a homosexual coupling for marriage.
How serious they take what they read is the fundamental/nominal distinction you made earlier. I don't think it's necessarily that, but that's fair. In this case though, I think someone whose reasonable could read the Bible for the first time and then read this threads internet article and go :o "WHAT?? Did they read the same book I read? Their leaders of a community that uses that book as a guide and their "rejoicing" at WHAT?" I think it's a reasonable scenario and conclusion. I know it's not popular, but this is religion after all. :angel: That same person may not agree with the Bible and think it's unreasonable in todays world, but I think they could make a fair distinction on what a biblical view is for certain issues. Maybe not shellfish, but homosexuality...I think so.
Contend away.
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
Not without seeing a host of other strange things as sin. So such a person wouldn't take the Bible seriously at all.
-
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
I think most non-religious, reasonable people are quite capable of reading the bible and seeing that the contents reflected the views of a bronze age community that could have no real clue about life in the 21st century. The issue for me is not whether the bible views homosexuality as a sin, but whether that particular view has any place in a world which has developed beyond all recognition.
If we take the biblical view a step further, some people might reasonably ask why the fundies don't put their money where their mouth is and actually demand the death penalty for homosexuality? In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say over here.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Furthermore, it might be asked why our fundie brethren don't go balls-out and get stuck completely in rather than just cherry-picking aspects of scripture that they think they can get away with? For example, who hasn't muttered curses to their parents when they were young and stupid and wanted that new bike that they couldn't afford? Do we really want to follow scripture on this too?
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
I thought not.
It's the 21st century. Whatever you gotta do to have a good time, let's just get on with it as long as it doesn't cause a murder. Let's not pretend that some ancient tribal deity from Shitkicker, Canaan is going to visit fire and pestilence upon homosexual people out of his 'Infinite Love'. It's not really an intelligent viewpoint, is it?
-
Not to mention "Infinite Love" was not exactly word of the day when people were running around in "Shitkicker, Canaan" worshipping Him and heeding His every word. He was, as another poster said I think, a warrior God. People were taught to fear him, not to love him. His job wasn't to answer your prayers to ease your burdens, it was to kick the asses of the guys who worshipped that other god.
Things have changed a lot in 2000 years, haven't they? We (the sane among us) don't kill our disobedient children, we send them to their rooms. Or at least I hope that's the case with most here.
-
Not to mention that the Old Testament is the old law and the New Testament is the new.
-
Not really my point, but yeah I guess. Although actually, as I've been learning in my class about Medieval Jews, the Christian God (as separate from Jesus) during the Early and High Middle Ages was no different. The God = love deal is more characteristically post-Crusades Christianity. Before that it was mainly Jesus picking up the "philanthropic" slack.
-
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
Not without seeing a host of other strange things as sin. So such a person wouldn't take the Bible seriously at all.
This.
-
disregard.
-
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
I am a non-religious, reasonable person. From what I have read, the Bible does indeed view homosexuality as sin.
That being said, like Hef said, the Bible also views a bevy of other strange things as sin. So it is difficult for me to take it seriously sometimes.
-
the Bible also views a bevy of other strange things as sin. So it is difficult for me to take it seriously sometimes.
So do other holy books like the Quran and the Torah. I've read them all and I am usually suprised by what I've read. The point is: these books must answer everything whatever we want from them, no matter what time it is, no matter where we are but I don't think they are in a parallel with the present time.
-
I understand and can see what Omega is saying. God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path. Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i. That's what I think Omega is trying to say, but for some reason most of you can't grasp what he said
Homosexuality is a son not because of sex, but because of the way life was lived. People lived by the Bible, unlike today where one day people are just going through the motions. Plus, when did life change? Aren't the pilgrims rebels against the church? also, is America a modern day Babylon, Sodom and Gomora?
-
God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path.
Alright, fine.
Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i.
Umm, what? A dog can't be a cat, and neither can a human. That still says nothing about whether an animal has free will. Saying no animals have intellect or will is flat out wrong.
-
I understand and can see what Omega is saying. God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path. Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i. That's what I think Omega is trying to say, but for some reason most of you can't grasp what he said
Homosexuality is a son not because of sex, but because of the way life was lived. People lived by the Bible, unlike today where one day people are just going through the motions. Plus, when did life change? Aren't the pilgrims rebels against the church? also, is America a modern day Babylon, Sodom and Gomora?
How the hell did you equate shapeshifting with free will? We can't change into dolphins, does that mean we also don't have free will (in b4 Tom's Rhinoplasty)? As Sigz said, just because animals can't change who they are down to the genetic level doesn't mean they don't have free will or intellect is plain wrong. Its an ancient remnant of philosophical theory, far as I can tell.
You're comparing a trait that some humans inherently possess (homosexuality) to the ability to become a different being entirely, which is, as you rightly put, impossible. Gay humans are still human, just in the same way that tall people are still people. Its just one trait someone has that other people may not have. However, our bodies were built to allow for some genetic anomalies, both physical and mental. Homosexuality is such an anomaly.
Who's to say that those who are homosexual aren't fitting into the mold of how the "best" human should act? If human genetics allow for gay people to exist (or if God allows gay people to exist), then surely acting on their inherent instincts and using knowledge & reason (using Aristotle's own methods) allows a person to truly fulfill their potential as a human regardless of their sexuality. Is that not right? I believe not, especially since Aristotle was VERY biased when he came up with his moral theories (the philosopher and scholar thinks that the best people are those that use knowledge and reason? What a shock! :P).
-
God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path.
Alright, fine.
Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i.
Umm, what? A dog can't be a cat, and neither can a human. That still says nothing about whether an animal has free will. Saying no animals have intellect or will is flat out wrong.
well duh, animals arent dumb. i'm trying to say, Animals know their purpose unlike humans. That's the freewill gene.
-
I was having this discussion (about gay marriage) this weekend with my mother's cousin who is a retired priest. I asked him what he thought about letting homosexuals marry. I think it's critical to point out that my mother's cousin "retired" from the priesthood because he was caught with homosexual pornographic video content on his parish laptop, which forced him to admit that he had been carrying on a relationship with a guy (while still being a priest) for many years. He was summarily defrocked by the church and has lived as an openly gay man ever since.
Anyway, I asked him what he thought about gay marriage and he said he thought that "more people should learn how to simply live and let live"
And I could not possibly agree more.
If Bill and Bob want to get married and live together, why should anyone other than Bill and Bob care?
Live and let live.
So simple.
-
Animals know their purpose
What does that even mean?
If Bill and Bob want to get married and live together, why should anyone other than Bill and Bob care?
That's what I don't understand. I mean, with abortion I can see why people want it illegal - if you believe a fetus is a human being, then it's murder. But gay marriage literally has no effect on anyone else. And even if you think it's immoral, that shouldn't be reason alone to make it illegal. There's plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to start screaming for new laws about them.
-
I understand what Omega is saying about "natural law". I used to think that way too. Isn't the point of any species to exist? To continue to exist? To spread? To procreate? Even though I didn't view homosexuality as a sin, I still thought that surely it was against the "norm" or "natural law". I thought that homosexuality was similar to a person being born infertile. It doesn't make them less of a person, and it is clearly not a sin, but we'd still consider it to be something wrong with them.
Now obviously saying that homosexuality is something that is wrong offends many people. And over the past few years I've realized that that can't be the case. There has to be another way of logic. And I think I've found it. Since humans have become self aware, we have created our own natural law. Almost everyone will agree that procreation is not the meaning of life. We all have our own goals and purposes. Having offspring might fulfill that for some people but not for everyone. Now we regard sexuality as a trait similar to hair or skin color. People are born differently, no trait is better than another, and no trait is inherently wrong.
-
Since humans have become self aware, we have created our own natural law. Almost everyone will agree that procreation is not the meaning of life. We all have our own goals and purposes. Having offspring might fulfill that for some people but not for everyone. Now we regard sexuality as a trait similar to hair or skin color. People are born differently, no trait is better than another, and no trait is inherently wrong.
This, but I'll add that it shouldn't matter to anyone else how you go about living your life as long as you don't harm others, even if its not one's idea of following "natural law."
-
If Bill and Bob want to get married and live together, why should anyone other than Bill and Bob care?
Y'know at first I read that as Bill (i.e. Axeman) and Blob, and I was quite surprised to say the least. :lol
-
I understand and can see what Omega is saying. God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path. Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i. That's what I think Omega is trying to say, but for some reason most of you can't grasp what he said
Homosexuality is a son not because of sex, but because of the way life was lived. People lived by the Bible, unlike today where one day people are just going through the motions. Plus, when did life change? Aren't the pilgrims rebels against the church? also, is America a modern day Babylon, Sodom and Gomora?
This is assuminga lot. IT assumes taht humans aren't animals, making us different from animals, when there is in fact no empirical evidence to make us anything other than a certain animal, with certain traits, and nothing more.
It also assumes that animals are stupid, that they don't think, they don't have emotions or personalities. That, again, is unfounded and an assumption of animal behavior.
In sum, I would say any degree to which animals "know their purpose," humans also "know their purpose." And ya, procreation is the general thing which motivates this. Did you decide to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to? Nope, and no one else does either. That's "knowing your purpose." A man who is attracted to a man is "knowing his purpose." A woman who is attracted to a woman is "knowing his purpose." A man who is attracted to a woman is "knowing his purpose."
-
If Bill and Bob want to get married and live together, why should anyone other than Bill and Bob care?
Y'know at first I read that as Bill (i.e. Axeman) and Blob, and I was quite surprised to say the least. :lol
Surprised that you weren't invited? Because the invitations are in the mail, I swear!
-
Well as far as I'm concerned, it's a match made in Heaven (lol). :heart
-
BUT HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILDREN
(https://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3792/imageixh.jpg)
-
God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path.
Alright, fine.
Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i.
Umm, what? A dog can't be a cat, and neither can a human. That still says nothing about whether an animal has free will. Saying no animals have intellect or will is flat out wrong.
well duh, animals arent dumb. i'm trying to say, Animals know their purpose unlike humans. That's the freewill gene.
Other animals clearly have what we would call freewill.
-
God have us Freewill that's why we can choose our path.
Alright, fine.
Animals can't, a dog can't be a cat because his body isn't built that way. But Animals know their purpose i.
Umm, what? A dog can't be a cat, and neither can a human. That still says nothing about whether an animal has free will. Saying no animals have intellect or will is flat out wrong.
well duh, animals arent dumb. i'm trying to say, Animals know their purpose unlike humans. That's the freewill gene.
Other animals clearly have what we would call freewill.
Humans don't have a purpose other than to act.
-
Yeah, I don't see why anyone cares so much that two humans of the same gender might get married. Kinda really silly tbqh.
-
Other animals don't have intellect or will? That's an awfully flimsy (and wrong) assumption to base an argument off.
What is meant by "intellect" is the ability to reason and make laws by means of concepts, abstractions and definitions; to be able to discern the truth value of propositions, ideas, etc. What is meant by "will" is the ability to derive, through means of reasoning, moral truths from concepts, abstractions, definitions, etc via the intellect. As you would hopefully agree, animals aren't capable of these actions.
_______________________________________________________
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc.
Procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.
________________________________________________________________
Before I respond to your comments, eric, let it be known that I'm merely responding to them in courtesy and as a matter of not leaving them unattended to. I'll respond to them but after doing so, know that I will not be interested in hearing your responses to mine nor am I in any way inviting the possibility of continuing any sort of conversation or dialogue with you. I'd rather avoid the risk of being banned by further conversing with you.
"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."
Incorrect. Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation. Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons. That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.
While we may, for practical linguistic reasons, refer to actions other than sex as "sex" (such as anal, oral, etc, which are not procreative), it is clear that the term "sex," as properly understood, is an act between a male and a female that results in the deposition of sperm into the vagina. Sodomy, for example, may be, for convenient linguistic reasons, be informally spoken of as "sex" while such an action would not, in a properly metaphysical, biological and indeed correct sense, actually be sex. The reason why society refers to sodomy and such other actions as sex is simple: would your friend, Bob, who would like to share with you an unsolicited story of how his girlfriend performed fellatio on him yesterday be more likely to state "Dude, me and my girlfriend had sex last night" or "Last night I finally convinced my girlfriend to perform fellatio on me"? While we may, for practical linguistic reasons refer to such acts as sodomy and fellatio as "sex," doing so is, indeed, technically incorrect. (Likewise, as an example, we incorrectly refer to people born in the United States as "Americans" for practical and traditional matters yet the term "American" technically applies to all peoples born in both North and South America.)
It appears Natural Law can easily allow for homosexual marriage if it is a valid part of social and personal human nature.
Incorrect. I spent a good amount of time explaining why.
Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society. Subjective Morals anyone? :lol
Like everything else, humans have a formal cause (our form, essence, or nature). And this formal cause entails certain final causes for their various capacities. For example, our nature or essence is to be rational animals and reason and intellect has its final cause as the attainment of truth. Hence the attainment of truth is good for us as the gathering of acorns (or whatever) is good for the squirrel. These are just objective facts; for the sense of "good" in question here is a completely objective one, connoting, not some subjective preference we happen to have for a thing, but rather the conformity of a thing to a nature or essence as a kind of paradigm (just as a "good" triangle is one that has the most perfectly straight sides, etc). The final causes of our bodily organs and functions, too, are grounded on objective metaphysical grounds (for example, the final cause of our eyeballs is to enable us to see; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce). This is all just frosting on the cake for Natural Law and avoiding the main issue with asserting subjective morals, though; if you accept that morals are completely subjective, then the conversation literally stops (which it has...) as there would be nothing truly morally wrong with the government not allowing gays to "marry".
____________________________________________________________
Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right????
Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives?
Homosexuals are free, as I've said, to enjoy hosting sodomy parties in the privacy of their own home as much as they like. Yet it is when, as I have said, attempts to pass any "law" that attempted to "legalize" such an impossibility (same-sex "marriage") would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment. By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Did god give you that right? God created the universe, would you suggest that he didn't create homosexuals? If he really had a problem with gay marriage, why are we even having this conversation?
The question of whether homosexuality has a genetic basis or if it was "created" by God is irrelevant. The existence of some genetic trait doesn't, by itself, prove anything about whether it is "natural" in the relevant sense. For example, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn't show that clubfoot is "natural". Quite obviously it is unnatural, certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform with the essence or nature of a thing. And no one who has clubfoot would take offense at someone noting this obvious fact nor would they find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for clubfoot shows that it is something one should "embrace" or "celebrate". Nor would it be plausible to suggest that God "made him that way," any more than God "makes" people be born blind, deaf, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things , for whatever reason, but it doesn't follow that they are "natural". So by the same token, the possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn't itself show that homosexual desire is natural. Even if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that there is such a genetic basis for homosexual desire, with respect to the question of "naturalness" of homosexuality, this would prove nothing.
-
Other animals don't have intellect or will? That's an awfully flimsy (and wrong) assumption to base an argument off.
What is meant by "intellect" is the ability to reason and make laws by means of concepts, abstractions and definitions; to be able to discern the truth value of propositions, ideas, etc. What is meant by "will" is the ability to derive, through means of reasoning, moral truths from concepts, abstractions, definitions, etc via the intellect. As you would hopefully agree, animals aren't capable of these actions.
Your definition of "Intellect" is acceptable, but your definition of "Will" is not correct.
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc.
Procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.
Marriage does not exist soley for the reason of procreation and raising children. Your definition is etremely narrow, as the valid reasons for marriage vary greatly.
No matter how much you want to make procreation the one and only reason for marriage, it simply is not correct.
Before I respond to your comments, eric, let it be known that I'm merely responding to them in courtesy and as a matter of not leaving them unattended to. I'll respond to them but after doing so, know that I will not be interested in hearing your responses to mine nor am I in any way inviting the possibility of continuing any sort of conversation or dialogue with you. I'd rather avoid the risk of being banned by further conversing with you.
"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."
Incorrect. Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation. Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons. That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.
Respond in any way, or for any reason you wish. I don't understand why my responses bother you so much as to cause you to react in a way that will get you banned. Just support your position in a logical and clear manner....but more importantly, with some type of supporting info (which you dont, as I have yet to see any independent support that Natural Law even applies here), and you should be fine.
While we may, for practical linguistic reasons, refer to actions other than sex as "sex" (such as anal, oral, etc, which are not procreative), it is clear that the term "sex," as properly understood, is an act between a male and a female that results in the deposition of sperm into the vagina. Sodomy, for example, may be, for convenient linguistic reasons, be informally spoken of as "sex" while such an action would not, in a properly metaphysical, biological and indeed correct sense, actually be sex. The reason why society refers to sodomy and such other actions as sex is simple: would your friend, Bob, who would like to share with you an unsolicited story of how his girlfriend performed fellatio on him yesterday be more likely to state "Dude, me and my girlfriend had sex last night" or "Last night I finally convinced my girlfriend to perform fellatio on me"? While we may, for practical linguistic reasons refer to such acts as sodomy and fellatio as "sex," doing so is, indeed, technically incorrect. (Likewise, as an example, we incorrectly refer to people born in the United States as "Americans" for practical and traditional matters yet the term "American" technically applies to all peoples born in both North and South America.)
So you want to to strictly define the word "sex" as being vaginal intercourse, between a man and woman exclusively for the purpose of procreation. More power to you. The majority of the world will operate on a more resonable level.
It appears Natural Law can easily allow for homosexual marriage if it is a valid part of social and personal human nature.
Incorrect. I spent a good amount of time explaining why.
Actually, you didn't. I saw no reference, anywhere, for any source agreeing with your insistence that homosexual marriage is against Natual Law. Still haven't. You might want to show some type of support for this assertion....besides your opinion.
Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society. Subjective Morals anyone? :lol
Like everything else, humans have a formal cause (our form, essence, or nature). And this formal cause entails certain final causes for their various capacities. For example, our nature or essence is to be rational animals and reason and intellect has its final cause as the attainment of truth. Hence the attainment of truth is good for us as the gathering of acorns (or whatever) is good for the squirrel. These are just objective facts; for the sense of "good" in question here is a completely objective one, connoting, not some subjective preference we happen to have for a thing, but rather the conformity of a thing to a nature or essence as a kind of paradigm (just as a "good" triangle is one that has the most perfectly straight sides, etc). The final causes of our bodily organs and functions, too, are grounded on objective metaphysical grounds (for example, the final cause of our eyeballs is to enable us to see; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce). This is all just frosting on the cake for Natural Law and avoiding the main issue with asserting subjective morals, though; if you accept that morals are completely subjective, then the conversation literally stops (which it has...) as there would be nothing truly morally wrong with the government not allowing gays to "marry".
That is completely your opinion. There is no support for this assertion in any definition of Natural Law that I have seen. but really, you are entitled to your opinion, and that is great, but it should be very clear to you by now that the basis premis you are operating on is most certainly not fact, but merely an opinion of yours.
-
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc.
Procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.
Marriage doesn't have to exist though. Clearly there are plenty of people and animals who get on fine without married parents. Its a cultural thing, but its not necessary to integrate one's children into a culture. It certainly isn't necessary to procreate.
Before I respond to your comments, eric, let it be known that I'm merely responding to them in courtesy and as a matter of not leaving them unattended to. I'll respond to them but after doing so, know that I will not be interested in hearing your responses to mine nor am I in any way inviting the possibility of continuing any sort of conversation or dialogue with you. I'd rather avoid the risk of being banned by further conversing with you.
"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."
Incorrect. Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation. Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons. That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.
While we may, for practical linguistic reasons, refer to actions other than sex as "sex" (such as anal, oral, etc, which are not procreative), it is clear that the term "sex," as properly understood, is an act between a male and a female that results in the deposition of sperm into the vagina. Sodomy, for example, may be, for convenient linguistic reasons, be informally spoken of as "sex" while such an action would not, in a properly metaphysical, biological and indeed correct sense, actually be sex. The reason why society refers to sodomy and such other actions as sex is simple: would your friend, Bob, who would like to share with you an unsolicited story of how his girlfriend performed fellatio on him yesterday be more likely to state "Dude, me and my girlfriend had sex last night" or "Last night I finally convinced my girlfriend to perform fellatio on me"? While we may, for practical linguistic reasons refer to such acts as sodomy and fellatio as "sex," doing so is, indeed, technically incorrect. (Likewise, as an example, we incorrectly refer to people born in the United States as "Americans" for practical and traditional matters yet the term "American" technically applies to all peoples born in both North and South America.)
What? No. Sex is not "properly understood" as an act between explicitly men or women. Just two people. While sodomy is technically a more specific way to refer to gay sex, its still sex. The dancing partner and orifice of choice have been switched around for practical purposes, and it still allows those two people to have an intimate physical connection with each other, just in a different way than what you and I know. No its not for the purposes of procreation, but its still sex, just like sex with a condom isn't for procreation's sake. I swear you're the first person I've met who's been such a stickler for syntax in attacking equal marriage rights. :lol
As for your fellatio argument (never thought I'd say this sentence on DTF), we young people have a slang term for that. Its called a blowjob. People refer to that as oral sex as best, no one calls that "sex." So that's a terrible way to prove your point.
Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society. Subjective Morals anyone? :lol
Like everything else, humans have a formal cause (our form, essence, or nature). And this formal cause entails certain final causes for their various capacities. For example, our nature or essence is to be rational animals and reason and intellect has its final cause as the attainment of truth. Hence the attainment of truth is good for us as the gathering of acorns (or whatever) is good for the squirrel. These are just objective facts; for the sense of "good" in question here is a completely objective one, connoting, not some subjective preference we happen to have for a thing, but rather the conformity of a thing to a nature or essence as a kind of paradigm (just as a "good" triangle is one that has the most perfectly straight sides, etc). The final causes of our bodily organs and functions, too, are grounded on objective metaphysical grounds (for example, the final cause of our eyeballs is to enable us to see; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce). This is all just frosting on the cake for Natural Law and avoiding the main issue with asserting subjective morals, though; if you accept that morals are completely subjective, then the conversation literally stops (which it has...) as there would be nothing truly morally wrong with the government not allowing gays to "marry".
Spoken like a true student of Aristotle, a man who came up with his system of ethics (as I said previously) with a very heavy bias. He's not the be-all, end-all of moral theory. Someone could easily come in here and say that Kant's approach is just as right as you're claiming Aristotle's is. Morals are subjective.
Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right????
Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives?
Homosexuals are free, as I've said, to enjoy hosting sodomy parties in the privacy of their own home as much as they like. Yet it is when, as I have said, attempts to pass any "law" that attempted to "legalize" such an impossibility (same-sex "marriage") would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment. By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Because all gay people do is "host sodomy parties" and not lead anything close to resembling regular lives. Of course. :facepalm:
As I said earlier, this is a slippery slope argument, and one that doesn't work very well. Marriage is a pact made between two CONSENTING individuals. That inane cartoonophile argument you made can't be between two consenting individuals. Neither can bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc. Of course marriage can be understood apart from procreation reasons. Heck, look at all the babies born to unwedded parents. Was marriage necessary for that to happen? Not at all. Marriage isn't there just to facilitate procreation. You're the one who seems to love placing arbitrary, unchangeable definitions onto words to make your point, so to accuse others of doing so is laughable.
Did god give you that right? God created the universe, would you suggest that he didn't create homosexuals? If he really had a problem with gay marriage, why are we even having this conversation?
The question of whether homosexuality has a genetic basis or if it was "created" by God is irrelevant. The existence of some genetic trait doesn't, by itself, prove anything about whether it is "natural" in the relevant sense. For example, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn't show that clubfoot is "natural". Quite obviously it is unnatural, certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform with the essence or nature of a thing. And no one who has clubfoot would take offense at someone noting this obvious fact nor would they find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for clubfoot shows that it is something one should "embrace" or "celebrate". Nor would it be plausible to suggest that God "made him that way," any more than God "makes" people be born blind, deaf, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things , for whatever reason, but it doesn't follow that they are "natural". So by the same token, the possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn't itself show that homosexual desire is natural. Even if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that there is such a genetic basis for homosexual desire, with respect to the question of "naturalness" of homosexuality, this would prove nothing.
If it occurs naturally, i.e. through genetics, then it kinda has to be considered "natural," doesn't it? The possibility to be born with a clubfoot, blindess, retardation, ginger, etc. isn't unnatural. Its a natural part of being born human. Maybe those conditions aren't "celebrated," but they're certainly tolerated, respected, and still allowed into our society the way others are. Why not homosexuals?
-
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc.
Procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.
And allowing gays to legally marry in no way destroys the "institution" whereby straight couples can marry, raise kids, etc. Meanwhile, it ties it with the part you clipped out, with how gays and homosexuals are very much of that cultural aspect you're talking about. If anything, there's reason to believe that your average gay parent would be better than your average straight parent. Gay couples have to choose to adopt, or to get pregnant, making them much more involved and proactive parents. Studies have shown them to be equally capable, and thus it's art of that "forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals" (I'll ignore, for now, the false statement that we are distinctively rational, or that this is even our nature).
So ya, you ignored my argument. Homosexuality fits in with this "natural law" your purporting. If natural law is creating the next generation, homosexual are an important piece of raising and educating that next generation.
-
Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right????
Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives?
Homosexuals are free, as I've said, to enjoy hosting sodomy parties in the privacy of their own home as much as they like. Yet it is when, as I have said, attempts to pass any "law" that attempted to "legalize" such an impossibility (same-sex "marriage") would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment. By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Homosexual marriage is not an 'impossibility'. It is very possible, and has been very successful many times. It amuses me that you (and the rest of your queer tribe) constantly defend this argument by claiming gay marriage would be an 'assault on the very foundations of morality'. Clearly, not everyone shares your moral viewpoint. With this being said, gay marriage is an assault on YOUR moral viewpoint, and your own judgmental ideology.
Of course, you don't mind gay people throwing sodomy parties in the privacy of their homes (as this is all they do, with no semblance of a normal life.), yet when they try to get married in the privacy of their homes... you feel threatened? The institution of marriage does not need your protection, no matter what you convince yourself.
Marriage, as I see it (and many others), is very simple. It is a union between two consensual partners. You cannot state that marriage exists only for the purpose of procreation, as if it is an objective fact. This is your own opinion, and nothing more. Other people also have their own opinions, so leave them to it. Stop trying to justify your antiquated views; its a failed argument (at least amongst this crowd).
-
I see it as more of an assault on the foundations of morality to deny gays the right to marry. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not allowing gays the legal right to marry is discriminatory, and every bit as analogous to now allowing interracial marriages.
-
Marriage, as I see it (and many others), is very simple. It is a union between two consensual partners. You cannot state that marriage exists only for the purpose of procreation, as if it is an objective fact. This is your own opinion, and nothing more. Other people also have their own opinions, so leave them to it. Stop trying to justify your antiquated views; its a failed argument (at least amongst this crowd).
By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way as to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
See, if you say that this is just "my opinion," then you have ripped marriage from its foundation and have opened to challenge your very own redefinition of "marriage" as "a union between to consensual partners."
"This is your merely your own opinion," one could say. "Other people have their own opinions. Leave them to it. Stop trying to justify your own antiquated views. Stop trying to force your own definition of 'marriage' unto us cartoonophiles. Stop being so intolerant! If I want to marry a comic book character whom I feel comfortable with, with whom I'm genetically predisposed to be attracted to, and who I didn't choose to be attracted to, who are you or the government to tell me what to do? Of course, you don't mind cartoonophiles throwing cartoon parties in the privacy of their homes (as this is all they do, with no semblance of a normal life.), yet when they try to get married to their interdimensional partners in the privacy of their homes... you feel threatened? The institution of marriage does not need your protection, no matter what you convince yourself."
-
Marriage, as I see it (and many others), is very simple. It is a union between two consensual partners. You cannot state that marriage exists only for the purpose of procreation, as if it is an objective fact. This is your own opinion, and nothing more. Other people also have their own opinions, so leave them to it. Stop trying to justify your antiquated views; its a failed argument (at least amongst this crowd).
By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way as to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
I've addressed this numerous times, and you ignore it.
By the way, marriage has not always been simply about procreation. Study Spanish society in the 1500's. Marriage was a contractual agreement, like it should be today, that clearly was more about economics than child rearing. Bastards were accepted and common at that time, and they had a place in the household.
So really, your argument not only is ignoring counter arguments, but it's historically unsound.
-
By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation.
Correct, as there are different principles of marriage other than your narrow view.
You have, in fact in my opinion, changed its definition in such a way as to destroy the necessity of the institution...
FIFY
......since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
Factually incorrect.
So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Right.....kind of like by you opposing same-sex marriage, you're acting as if the institution has no basis other than your narrow, and historically unsupported, view.
I would hardly consider same-sex marriage an arbitrary "whim", but I guess you have to, to support the slippery slope cartoon marriage scenario you love so much.
Same sex marriage fits our definition of marriage, but not yours. We get it. What we don't get is your continued insistence that you are right and we are wrong. It appears that it is difficult for you to seperate your opinion from what is objectively fact/correct/right.
-
Oh shit, you're right! (No, seriously)
-
Oh shit, you're right! (No, seriously)
Well actually, I really think there is no "right" or "wrong" on this issue. It is perfectly fine for Omega to interpret "marriage" the way he does. It is abundantly clear though, that very few people will agree.
The problem comes when someone can't accept that others can have a perfectly valid and logical reason to have a diametrically opposed opinion.
-
Even if marriage only originally existed to "to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation", why can't we change its function now? What's so horrible about that?
-
Even if marriage only originally existed to "to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation", why can't we change its function now? What's so horrible about that?
I agree. Not only can/should we change its function now, but its function has been changed/altered/tweaked in many cultures over thousands of years. The function of marriage has already been changed from Omegas narrow view. In his view, my 80 yr old Grandmother shouldnt marry the widower she meets in the Assisted Living home, as their primary purpose isnt procreation.
But no one is up in arms over that....but queers marrying? THAT destroys the intitiution!! :facepalm:
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
Does the religious authority for marriage state that it is exclusively for procreation, or does it allow for hetero marriages for the sole purpose of companionship?
Also, are their records of the institution of marriage that FAR predate the bible?
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
This is a good point that is often lost in these debates. The fact is, "marriage" is a legal, binding, civil contract between two consenting adults. Yes, it has traditionally (until relatively recently) been restricted to man/woman. But, as has been the case throughout the history of mankind, our society is evolving. Marriage, as a legal, binding, civil contract between two consenting adults, is evolving along with it.
The fact that religious people get all twisted up in emotional knots about this is something I find quite baffling.
At the end of the day, who cares? Why can't they just leave it be? No one is forcing anyone to marry a person of the same gender if they don't want to.
Bottom line: Mind your own business, please.
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
Does the religious authority for marriage state that it is exclusively for procreation, or does it allow for hetero marriages for the sole purpose of companionship?
Also, are their records of the institution of marriage that FAR predate the bible?
initially, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." I think this was simply because at that time the earth was empty and God wanted it to be filled.
I have tried to find earlier records of it, and haven't. I would love to know if anyone finds something earlier
-
Makes you wonder what the point of marriage is though. It's just a piece of paper, and I don't really need that to know I'm madly in love with the person I'm with. She and I are planning on living together some time this year or the next, and I know she wants to be married but honestly I don't feel it's important as long as we vow to stay true to one another.
-
If we take the biblical view a step further, some people might reasonably ask why the fundies don't put their money where their mouth is and actually demand the death penalty for homosexuality? In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say over here.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
I'd be interested in seeing an actual reply to this.
Not to mention that the Old Testament is the old law and the New Testament is the new.
Homosexuals are still deserving of death according to the New Testament.
-
Makes you wonder what the point of marriage is though. It's just a piece of paper, and I don't really need that to know I'm madly in love with the person I'm with. She and I are planning on living together some time this year or the next, and I know she wants to be married but honestly I don't feel it's important as long as we vow to stay true to one another.
My wife and I were "together" for more than 20 years before we tied the knot. The only reason we actually tied the knot was because of health insurance.
-
That's beautiful man. :tup
-
If we take the biblical view a step further, some people might reasonably ask why the fundies don't put their money where their mouth is and actually demand the death penalty for homosexuality? In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say over here.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
I'd be interested in seeing an actual reply to this.
Not to mention that the Old Testament is the old law and the New Testament is the new.
Homosexuals are still deserving of death according to the New Testament.
the period of Jewish history you are quoting from was a period of theocracy.
I am unaware of the passage in the new testament you are referring to.
This is, though, the reason that Paul was the primary one to discuss the question of homosexuality - he was writing to Gentiles where it was rooted in their culture. The jews understood the warnings of their law and would not need a reminder.
-
I was talking about Romans 1:26-32
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
I'm not sure you know what the phrase "on record" means.
There were definitely marriages before the Old Testament was written, and even before when Biblical literalists would tell you Adam and Eve existed.
-
I was talking about Romans 1:26-32
Hmmm...I had overlooked that angle of that passage.
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
I'm not sure you know what the phrase "on record" means.
There were definitely marriages before the Old Testament was written, and even before when Biblical literalists would tell you Adam and Eve existed.
Gen 2 is the oldest reference to the origin of marriage I know of. If you know of another I am interested
-
Again though, even if marriage was created by religion, I don't think it always has to be affiliated with religion.
-
Again though, even if marriage was created by religion, I don't think it always has to be affiliated with religion.
Indeed. I think of baptism. I get underwater regularly after my workout. I was baptized once as a declaration of my commitment to god. Same act. Different motives. Different rewards
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
I'm not sure you know what the phrase "on record" means.
There were definitely marriages before the Old Testament was written, and even before when Biblical literalists would tell you Adam and Eve existed.
Gen 2 is the oldest reference to the origin of marriage I know of. If you know of another I am interested
Marriage existed before the Bible did.
-
my understanding of the issue is rooted in the fact that the earliest institution of marriage on record is Gen 2 where God calls Adam and Eve to leave "father and mother and be one with his wife." this is the religious authority for marriage.
however, we are not a theocracy. while a move towards "same-sex marriage" is a move away from God's original intent, I cannot expect a secular government to legislate religious morals.
I'm not sure you know what the phrase "on record" means.
There were definitely marriages before the Old Testament was written, and even before when Biblical literalists would tell you Adam and Eve existed.
Gen 2 is the oldest reference to the origin of marriage I know of. If you know of another I am interested
Marriage existed before the Bible did.
Yup.
-
Yes. The bible is referring back to the earliest time as to why there were marriages prior to its writing. If you know of an earlier document that references the origins of marriage, I am interested
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He offcially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
-
Things are hard now but they're slowly getting better. Hopefully one day you'll be able to tie the knot.
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He offcially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
:tup Thanks for sharing.
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He offcially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
Yes. Thanks for sharing
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He offcially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
Respect :hat
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He offcially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
You mean you don't just hold sodomy parties every night? :omg:
But seriously, thank you for sharing. Please contribute more for the benefit of humanity. :tup
-
Thanks for sharing Shadow!
-
Shadow, that is awesome. Thank you for sharing that with all of us. :tup
-
I truly appreciate the kind words, and it simply reaffirms why this forum is so important to me. Thanks, everyone.
I may not have the post count to show it, but I've been here for just over three years, and you guys helped me through some tough situations when I was still new here. Seriously, thank you guys.
-
Note: this post does not just address your comments, Scheavo.
I've addressed this numerous times, and you ignore it.
By the way, marriage has not always been simply about procreation. Study Spanish society in the 1500's. Marriage was a contractual agreement, like it should be today, that clearly was more about economics than child rearing. Bastards were accepted and common at that time, and they had a place in the household.
So really, your argument not only is ignoring counter arguments, but it's historically unsound.
Are you kidding? Why do you think that the institution of marriage was established and has been attended to throughout history? To get tax breaks and to be able to visit your wife or husband at the hospital circa 1500 AD? The establishment of marriage, grounded upon obvious and basic biological, metaphysical, social, and practical foundations, has always existed to attend to the obligations and nourishing responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the raising of valuable and productive members of society. The reason for the existence of marriage is painfully obvious to anyone willing to stop blocking their ears with their hands screaming "No! No! No! That cannot be what marriage is because it doesn't conform to my irrational support of same-sex 'marriage'!" The institution of marriage was not established simply so that Janet and Bob could visit each other in the hospital when Bob comes down with explosive diarrhea again; nor as an elaborate, nefarious economic scheme to trick governing authorities into extending tax cuts and other financial benefits; nor as to grant social permission to flaunt a golden band on the ring finger or to invite a select group of easily-inebriated socialites to some fancy wedding reception in a tropical Thailand resort; nor to allow two grown men to play House together in their forties.
This isn't just some "arbitrary" or "narrow" definition of marriage. There is no "your definition" of marriage nor "my definition" of marriage. But by supporting same-sex "marriage," you're destroying the very necessity for the institution of marriage! For if to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon both procreation, the nourishment, and raising of a productive member of society are to be understood as irrelevant to marriage, then why marry in the first place? You've reduced marriage to become an "unnecessary" vestige of a "once-backwards" society; a simple socio-economic tool to be abused by all who see fit. Besides that, you're simply saying that "marriage" can be understood to be whatever the majority of people in a democracy "feel" "marriage" should be defined as. You have, in fact, opened any redefinition of "marriage" open to challenge! So why think that your redefinition of "marriage" won't be come to be seen as "backwards" and "outdated" by people in the near future, disgusted at the thought of being deemed "intolerant" by peers or the media for not supporting a "marriage" as absurd as that with a cartoon? After all, they wouldn't want to "discriminate" against cartoonophiles, would they? Once you have removed marriage from its foundations, you have determined that "marriage" could be understood with no basis apart from one's own arbitrary whim. So then, why think that "a binding contract between two people" is not then open to challenge? "At the end of the day, who cares?" One such supporter of interdimensional marriage could say. "Why can't they just leave it be? No one is forcing anyone to marry a comic book character if they don't want to. Bottom line: mind your own business, please." Once you have reduced "marriage" to be determined by people's opinions, you have done the very thing that I warned you you'd be doing; you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim and, in doing so, have exposed any attempted "redefinition" of "marriage" as open to challenge as much as the heterosexual principle. I've also (if you have even bothered noticing) made no references to any biblical claims nor theological grounds and you needn't be religious to agree with the points I'm making. Opposing same-sex "marriage" is no more associated with any sort of a "religious moral" any more than being opposed to a law that attempted to institutionalize an impossibility as attempt to repeal the law of gravity or some such nonsense as same-sex "marriage." And, as I have stated in one of my arguments ad nauseum: where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle!
Of course infertile heterosexual couples can marry; of course heterosexual couples past the childbearing age can marry, for, in principle (as in "not relating to particular circumstances" and as in "relating to the definition of"), between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible in principle! Procreation is never possible either in principle or incidentally between two people of the same sex.
-
(https://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh125/Pohaku66/deadhorsesm.jpg)
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He officially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
Shadow, I understand the possibility that my opposition to same-sex "marriage" may lead people to believe that I'm some sort of bully who condones the verbal, emotional, and physical abuse of homosexuals. That is not the case, I'd like to say. I sympathize with you to some extent and would not be against, as I have stated -- regardless of my position on same-sex "marriage" -- with the idea of providing legitimate same-sex couples with some of the economic benefits they desire (as well as being able to visit one another in the hospital, etc).
-
The establishment of marriage, grounded upon obvious and basic biological, metaphysical, social, and practical foundations, has always existed to attend to the obligations and nourishing responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the raising of valuable and productive members of society.
Factually incorrect.
-
Omega:
Are you kidding? Why do you think that the institution of marriage was established and has been attended to throughout history? To get tax breaks and to be able to visit your wife or husband at the hospital circa 1500 AD? The establishment of marriage, grounded upon obvious and basic biological, metaphysical, social, and practical foundations, has always existed to attend to the obligations and nourishing responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the raising of valuable and productive members of society. The reason for the existence of marriage is painfully obvious to anyone willing to stop blocking their ears with their hands screaming "No! No! No! That cannot be what marriage is because it doesn't conform to my irrational support of same-sex 'marriage'!" The institution of marriage was not established simply so that Janet and Bob could visit each other in the hospital when Bob comes down with explosive diarrhea again; nor as an elaborate, nefarious economic scheme to trick governing authorities into extending tax cuts and other financial benefits; nor as to grant social permission to flaunt a golden band on the ring finger or to invite a select group of easily-inebriated socialites to some fancy wedding reception in a tropical Thailand resort.
Ya know, you should really study some history. There's a lot on it, especially regarding marriage and gender norms. It changes from society to society, and it fits what that society seems to consider important, and how they structure themselves. It's almost like you're completely unaware of polygamy, or how almost all early human societies practiced polygamy.
For if to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon both procreation, the nourishment, and raising of a productive member of society are to be understood as irrelevant to marriage, then why marry in the first place?
Way to ignore the argument while saying your are addressing the argument. Very impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
You should really watch that video, and read his new book on the issue: My Two Moms.
-
Scheavo, the issue at hand isn't whether (Insert Name Here) would have liked to have been raised by a homosexual couple, nor is it the question of whether kids raised by homosexual couples are more happy members of society, etc.
-
So there's absolutely no possibility that the meaning of a word can change over time? Absolutely none? Hey Shadow2222, is it cool if I just start using the term "fag" indiscriminately? I'm only referring to a bundle of sticks, not using a slur against your sexuality. I'm not even referring to the British slang for cigarettes! To do so is impossible! :facepalm:
Omega, how the hell does allowing same-sex marriage invalidate any need for marriage? From what I can see, marriage is more about the union between two people who love each other, and that's the way it has been for a loooong time now. Those people don't have to get married to show that love, but they can if they want to. It has nothing to with facilitating procreation and had nothing to do with facilitating procreation back when it was more of a contract between two families. Again, I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of animals with no concept of marriage (like ducks. Look 'em up. They're fucking serial rapists), and really we're just animals who can build cities and guns.
As for your slippery slope argument, again, I have to stress, marriage is between two consenting individuals. You can't force someone to marry without the law coming to stop you (at least not here). For your inane cartoon argument, a cartoon can't think, feel, express, or do anything outside of what its creators put onto the screen or the page. Forget marriage, any kind of mutual connection between the two is impossible. Its not impossible for such a bond to exist between homosexual people, as Shadow2222 and plenty of irl people I know have demonstrated. Will this definition change in the future? Its certainly possible, but I don't see it happening as long as people believe in rights of consent.
-
MUST...NOT..POST..IN...THIS...THREAD......AARRAGGHHGHKSDHGDJGLKJ!!!!!
Ok screw it I can't resist any longer.
Serious question for you Omega, so I can better understand where you're coming from: what is your relationship status? Are you married? Have a girlfriend (or boyfriend, which obviously seems unlikely but really you never know)? And if the answer to either of these is no, my next question would be: have you ever been in a relationship (with another person)?
-
Omega:
Um, ya it is. Your definition of marriage, as natural law, is , YOUR QUOTE, "the nourishment, and raising of a productive member of society." Gay people can help in this, and as the above also demonstrates, in today's day in age, they can also be involved in the procreation as well.
You're trying to say our definition dissolves into meaninglessness, becuase it doesn't do the above. I'm showing a definition of marriage which includes homosexuals as marrying, which doesn't throw out any of the aspects of a marriage which you deem necessary. So, forgetting that definitions of social institutions are subjective, if I take your definition of marriage, homosexual marriage does not break said definition.
So I repeat: gay marriage and homosexuality FITS the "natural law" definition of marriage you are giving. THe reason it works, is becuase no one is saying that gay marriage become the "new rule," or something, whereby only gays can marry, or something. Since that isn't the case, straight people will continue to fuck each other and produce children, some of the time unwantingly, and gay couples and gay persons can help in raising and nourishing these children - through adoption, or just being involved in your nieces and nephews lives.
-
I've never chimed in on anything in the P&R section before, since it's not necessarily my cup of tea (the discussions, I mean, as I both vote and consider myself a Christian).
However, being one of the only gay people on the forum (as far as I know), I wanted to tell a story.
I was bullied quite a bit during middle school and high school for my sexuality, to the point where I wanted to just "turn straight." As most gay people know, it is impossible, as being gay (IMO) is not a choice. I wasn't even quite sure why I was made fun of, because I am not effeminate in my actions or speech. I never dated anyone through school because I was too afraid.
Fast forward to the end of my first year of college, and I meet a wonderful man named Tim. He is four years older than me, and he is beautiful to me, both on the outside and inside. He officially asked me out after about a month of talking to each other and going out.
April 14, 2012 already marked one year and two months together. It may be my first relationship, but i am not naive. I truly love him, and he loves me. Sure, we argue, but it only strengthens our bond. We fully intend to marry each other some day. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio, where it is not even close to being legal. We aren't trying to hurt anyone, nor offend anyone's religion, so I just can't understand how anyone can be a detractor of gay marriage. We love each other, and that's what matters. We can certainly live without getting married, but it makes us feel like we have to keep our relationship hush hush.
Well, that's my two cents.
Shadow, I understand the possibility that my opposition to same-sex "marriage" may lead people to believe that I'm some sort of bully who condones the verbal, emotional, and physical abuse of homosexuals. That is not the case, I'd like to say. I sympathize with you to some extent and would not be against, as I have stated -- regardless of my position on same-sex "marriage" -- with the idea of providing legitimate same-sex couples with some of the economic benefits they desire (as well as being able to visit one another in the hospital, etc).
I'm sorry but the fact that anyone can respond this way after such a heartfelt personal outpouring seems kinda heartless imo. I'm fairly certain the economic benefits are only a part of why Shadow would want to get married.
-
^ Exactly. Sure, those "economic benefits" are important, but maybe you are missing the whole point of marriage, Omega, if you think that gay people want to get married for those reasons instead of because they simply love someone.
Tim told me yesterday, "I love you, and I have no doubts that I will be your husband some day."
He didn't say, "I have no doubts that I will be your husband some day, because of the economic benefits that come with it."
-
^ Exactly. Sure, those "economic benefits" are important, but maybe you are missing the whole point of marriage, Omega, if you think that gay people want to get married for those reasons instead of because they simply love someone.
Tim told me yesterday, "I love you, and I have no doubts that I will be your husband some day."
He didn't say, "I have no doubts that I will be your husband some day, because of the economic benefits that come with it."
Exactly. Marriage between same-sex couples and opposite sex are the exact same sort of thing as far as I'm concerned. Two people love each other, and they wish to be wed. What is so offensive about that that it must be stopped at all costs?
-
I truly could care less if a gay couple wants to get married. It doesn't affect my heterosexual life at all.
The only people that are affected are gay couples that want to marry and lawyers who have a bigger pool for divorce court. :lol
-
So Omega, your argument is (apologies for my shitty argument form):
1. The original purpose of marriage was to get people to procreate
2. Gay people cannot procreate
3. Gay marriage destroys the original purpose of marriage because gay people cannot procreate
---
4. Therefore, gay marriage should not be allowed because it destroys the original purpose of marriage
Is that basically what you're saying?
-
Serious question for you Omega, so I can better understand where you're coming from: what is your relationship status? Are you married? Have a girlfriend (or boyfriend, which obviously seems unlikely but really you never know)? And if the answer to either of these is no, my next question would be: have you ever been in a relationship (with another person)?
I've had a fair share of girlfriends. I'm not old enough to be considering marriage yet. Accordingly, of course I've been in a relationship with another person. Why am I being psycho-analyzed?
-
Serious question for you Omega, so I can better understand where you're coming from: what is your relationship status? Are you married? Have a girlfriend (or boyfriend, which obviously seems unlikely but really you never know)? And if the answer to either of these is no, my next question would be: have you ever been in a relationship (with another person)?
I've had a fair share of girlfriends. I'm not old enough to be considering marriage yet. Accordingly, of course I've been in a relationship with another person. Why am I being psycho-analyzed?
Just curious, since you have a very specific idea of what marriage is I was just wondering how much hands on (no pun intended) experience you had in that area. Your answer is interesting, educational and has been noted. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
-
Omega:
Um, ya it is. Your definition of marriage, as natural law, is , YOUR QUOTE, "the nourishment, and raising of a productive member of society." Gay people can help in this, and as the above also demonstrates, in today's day in age, they can also be involved in the procreation as well.
My more full quote was actually the following (I've taken the liberty to bold some important points in the quote):
"Suppose then (if you must, in the name of "for the sake of the argument"), that things really do have final causes, including our various biological capacities. Then, obviously, the final cause or natural purpose of sex is procreation. And procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally."
So, no, of course a same-sex couple can't be involved in procreation. At best, Scheavo, you could make a huge stretch and suggest that people of homosexual orientation could impart some of their accumulated cultural wisdom upon children already born to a heterosexually married couple to "aid", if allowed by the parents of child, in the cultural knowledge of children just as much as would a repentant murderer be able to, perhaps, if allowed, be granted the ability to pass on the cultural knowledge or wisdom he has gained throughout his life (yet this would, obviously, do nothing to warrant allowing an impossibility such as same-sex "marriage" to be institutionalized). But obviously this is not procreation. The biological and cultural nourishment occurs in the context and confines of a marriage between a man and a woman.
So, forgetting that definitions of social institutions are subjective
You are, again, acting as if the institution has no basis apart from one's own arbitrary whim. If marriage really is subjective, as in dependent upon opinion, then there's no foundation, justification or reason to allow some peoples' "ideas" of "marriage" and not others. For example, if the institution of marriage really is just subjective and has no basis apart from our own opinions, then we have no reason to disallow someone from doing the absurd and marrying their own foot or a trash can! At best we could say that we "don't like it," but we wouldn't be justified in disallowing such a "marriage" to occur.
So I repeat: gay marriage and homosexuality FITS the "natural law" definition of marriage you are giving.
Of course not. Absolutely not. It seems almost as if you've decided not to read anything I posted on Natural Law or anything else I've addressed.
-
Just curious, since you have a very specific idea of what marriage is I was just wondering how much hands on (no pun intended) experience you had in that area. Your answer is interesting, educational and has been noted. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
No problemo.
Oh my God! Is that -- is that a -- a -- a tumor?!
(https://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/11522321.jpg)
Sorry. This thread needed a laugh.
-
^ Exactly. Sure, those "economic benefits" are important, but maybe you are missing the whole point of marriage, Omega, if you think that gay people want to get married for those reasons instead of because they simply love someone.
Of course it's not for money. I understand that. Yet such is an impossibility just as much as making a round square or meeting a married bachelor or repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. I've explained why so extensively on this thread.
-
So Omega, your argument is (apologies for my shitty argument form):
1. The original purpose of marriage was to get people to procreate
2. Gay people cannot procreate
3. Gay marriage destroys the original purpose of marriage because gay people cannot procreate
---
4. Therefore, gay marriage should not be allowed because it destroys the original purpose of marriage
Is that basically what you're saying?
No, please: I've articulated my arguments clearly ad nauseum and would not like to see them get misrepresented or "summed-up" when they cannot and should not be. Sorry.
-
Comparing upbringing by a gay person to upbringing by a murderer and telling a gay person he can't feel love. Now I've seen everything.
-
Comparing upbringing by a gay person to upbringing by a murderer and telling a gay person he can't feel love. Now I've seen everything.
I never said one is like the other. I didn't compare the two, they are independent examples.
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
-
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin. Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs. If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview." They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.
But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins. So how seriously should they take that?
:) Hef...
I contend that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas, could read the Bible and see a Biblical view that defines homosexuality as sin. I also contend, that a reasonable person, without preconceived ideas could read the Bible and conclude that marriage, from the Bible's view, is a coupling of men and women. I think it would be fair minded for that person to conclude that leaders of a community, that have a Biblical worldview, are irresponsible by publicly "affirming" and "rejoicing" for behavior that their guidebook views as sin. And also irresponsible by encouraging a homosexual coupling for marriage.
How serious they take what they read is the fundamental/nominal distinction you made earlier. I don't think it's necessarily that, but that's fair. In this case though, I think someone whose reasonable could read the Bible for the first time and then read this threads internet article and go :o "WHAT?? Did they read the same book I read? Their leaders of a community that uses that book as a guide and their "rejoicing" at WHAT?" I think it's a reasonable scenario and conclusion. I know it's not popular, but this is religion after all. :angel: That same person may not agree with the Bible and think it's unreasonable in todays world, but I think they could make a fair distinction on what a biblical view is for certain issues. Maybe not shellfish, but homosexuality...I think so.
Contend away.
No, I think I'll end the contention convention, regarding this article. :)
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
Not without seeing a host of other strange things as sin. So such a person wouldn't take the Bible seriously at all.
Okay, that's fair.
I'm just adding this on for a fun way of illustrating my point in a lighthearted manner... :)
Someone new to the DTF, reads the rules.
"5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. ...."
Then they read a moderators reply right underneath them that violates it. :) I know it's meant to be funny, but one could say irresponsible. The same principle could be applied to what these leaders in this article have stated publicly against what their Bible says.
-
So, no, of course a same-sex couple can't be involved in procreation. At best, Scheavo, you could make a huge stretch and suggest that people of homosexual orientation could impart some of their accumulated cultural wisdom upon children already born to a heterosexually married couple to "aid", if allowed by the parents of child, in the cultural knowledge of children just as much as would a repentant murderer be able to, perhaps, if allowed, be granted the ability to pass on the cultural knowledge or wisdom he has gained throughout his life (yet this would, obviously, do nothing to warrant allowing an impossibility such as same-sex "marriage" to be institutionalized). But obviously this is not procreation. The biological and cultural nourishment occurs in the context and confines of a marriage between a man and a woman.
You keep talking about the cultural nourishment. That's some gay couples do well, perhaps exceedingly well. You seem to have decided to ignore the example I already gave you, becuase it falsifies your last statement, that such only occurs in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Gay parents and gay relatives can be great sources of love. Feeling loved is a vitally important part to growing up and being a successful member of society. Hell, I might argue it's the most important thing parents can give to their children.
You continue to ignore the fact that gay couples can raise and educate children and orphans.
And comparing this to a murderer? :facepalm:
So, forgetting that definitions of social institutions are subjective
You are, again, acting as if the institution has no basis apart from one's own arbitrary whim. If marriage really is subjective, as in dependent upon opinion, then there's no foundation, justification or reason to allow some peoples' "ideas" of "marriage" and not others. For example, if the institution of marriage really is just subjective and has no basis apart from our own opinions, then we have no reason to disallow someone from doing the absurd and marrying their own foot or a trash can! At best we could say that we "don't like it," but we wouldn't be justified in disallowing such a "marriage" to occur.
Ahh, once again, you display your massive misunderstanding of social theory, and social relativism. And, once again, you completely ignore the argument being made. Are you even trying to understand the argument? Are you even trying to see what other peoples arguments and points of view are?
So I repeat: gay marriage and homosexuality FITS the "natural law" definition of marriage you are giving.
Of course not. Absolutely not. It seems almost as if you've decided not to read anything I posted on Natural Law or anything else I've addressed.
Actually, quite the opposite, I've read your argument, I've seen what you're going for, and I'm showing you how homosexuality and gay marriage fits in line with "natural law." I'm taking the definition you are giving, I'm working with the definition you are giving, and I'm showing you how this definition works with homosexuality.
-
Gay parents and gay relatives can be great sources of love. Feeling loved is a vitally important part to growing up and being a successful member of society. Hell, I might argue it's the most important thing parents can give to their children.
Of course they can be great sources of love; any human being can. I'm not contending that. This has nothing to do with marriage. Just because a person can be loving it doesn't logically entail that such a person can do the logically impossible and "marry" someone of the same sex, no matter how "loving" this or that person may be. As I have stated before, procreation is, in principle, impossible between two members of the same sex. Love does not equal procreation.
-
Sounds like you've read the Bible. Do you think a non-religious, reasonable person, could put aside their preconceptions, read the Bible, and NOT see the Bible views homosexuality as sin?
I think most non-religious, reasonable people are quite capable of reading the bible and seeing that the contents reflected the views of a bronze age community that could have no real clue about life in the 21st century. The issue for me is not whether the bible views homosexuality as a sin, but whether that particular view has any place in a world which has developed beyond all recognition.
If we take the biblical view a step further, some people might reasonably ask why the fundies don't put their money where their mouth is and actually demand the death penalty for homosexuality? In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say over here.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Furthermore, it might be asked why our fundie brethren don't go balls-out and get stuck completely in rather than just cherry-picking aspects of scripture that they think they can get away with? For example, who hasn't muttered curses to their parents when they were young and stupid and wanted that new bike that they couldn't afford? Do we really want to follow scripture on this too?
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
I thought not.
It's the 21st century. Whatever you gotta do to have a good time, let's just get on with it as long as it doesn't cause a murder. Let's not pretend that some ancient tribal deity from Shitkicker, Canaan is going to visit fire and pestilence upon homosexual people out of his 'Infinite Love'. It's not really an intelligent viewpoint, is it?
:) Hey Ody...
I think those are fair questions answered in a contextual reading of the Bible and not cherry picked out of it. And just a fun word of caution, I'd be careful with the word "Fundie". I think it's clever and funny, but it just might become the defamatory label for those who value the Bible and maybe even set off an unreasonable Fundie or two. :) Cheers!
-
Gay parents and gay relatives can be great sources of love. Feeling loved is a vitally important part to growing up and being a successful member of society. Hell, I might argue it's the most important thing parents can give to their children.
Of course they can be great sources of love; any human being can. I'm not contending that. This has nothing to do with marriage. Just because a person can be loving it doesn't logically entail that such a person can do the logically impossible and "marry" someone of the same sex, no matter how "loving" this or that person may be. As I have stated before, procreation is, in principle, impossible between two members of the same sex. Love does not equal procreation.
Still not clear on the "logically impossible" part of your gay marriage argument, considering it has and still does happen all the time. Same with the procreation bit. Also I notice you never disputed my claim that you think gay love isn't a real thing.
-
Also I notice you never disputed my claim that you think gay love isn't a real thing.
What? What do you mean "not a real thing"?
-
Sorry omega, think you need to leave this discussion. You're not convincing anyone, and the debate is not reaching any agreement.
-
Also I notice you never disputed my claim that you think gay love isn't a real thing.
What? What do you mean "not a real thing"?
^ Exactly. Sure, those "economic benefits" are important, but maybe you are missing the whole point of marriage, Omega, if you think that gay people want to get married for those reasons instead of because they simply love someone.
Of course it's not for money. I understand that. Yet such is an impossibility just as much as making a round square or meeting a married bachelor or repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. I've explained why so extensively on this thread.
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
For me, this is really all it comes down to. The bottom line is that legalizing gay marriage would allow thousands of gay people to attain greater happiness and peace in their lives without negatively affecting anything.
From where I'm standing Omega, it looks like you would rather gay people not attain greater happiness and peace just so some definition of marriage can remain unscathed. Is that really worth it? Is it worth denying people like Shadow the right to marry just so you can keep "natural law" intact?
-
Gay parents and gay relatives can be great sources of love. Feeling loved is a vitally important part to growing up and being a successful member of society. Hell, I might argue it's the most important thing parents can give to their children.
Of course they can be great sources of love; any human being can. I'm not contending that. This has nothing to do with marriage. Just because a person can be loving it doesn't logically entail that such a person can do the logically impossible and "marry" someone of the same sex, no matter how "loving" this or that person may be. As I have stated before, procreation is, in principle, impossible between two members of the same sex. Love does not equal procreation.
Never said love equals procreation, but it is a vital and necessary part to properly raise a child to fit in with society.
As we've been over, and as you've agreed, "procreation" is more than simply impregnating another human being. Gay couples can also still impregnate and become pregnant, as I've also demonstrated (though, not by each other, at least not quite yet*...). So even ignoring the definition of marriage as ONLY ensuring the next generation exists survives, ensuring the next generation is something gay couples, and gay married couples, can partake in.
*Scientists have made sperm and I believe egg cells from stem cells - meaning, two gay women could have an offspring that is genetically theirs, and two gay men could have an offspring that is genetically theirs. Under such a scenario, this means that hypothetically gay couples will now be able to fully achieve what you consider to be a "natural law" marriage, be it through unnatural means. Assuming this, would you still oppose gay marriage? I'm assuming you'd protest the procedure through which gay's could have children?
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
For me, this is really all it comes down to. The bottom line is that legalizing gay marriage would allow thousands of gay people to attain greater happiness and peace in their lives without negatively affecting anything.
From where I'm standing Omega, it looks like you would rather gay people not attain greater happiness and peace just so some definition of marriage can remain unscathed. Is that really worth it? Is it worth denying people like Shadow the right to marry just so you can keep "natural law" intact?
Did you ever read Macbeth? Maybe Omega's definition of natural law is kind of like what happened after Macbeth killed the king. You know, everything in nature going out of whack because Macbeth disturbed the natural heirarchy. Maybe he's working so hard to keep marriage intact because if you let gay people marry and sully marriage, then nature will go batshit insane.
-
Except it wouldn't. Unless your gay, legalizing gay marriage isn't going to effect your marriage. Heterosexual couples will still want to fuck each other, and that'll still lead to children being born. I mean, we also have clear examples of this isn't true. Just look at Massachusetts, or any state where gay marriage has been legalized.
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
For me, this is really all it comes down to. The bottom line is that legalizing gay marriage would allow thousands of gay people to attain greater happiness and peace in their lives without negatively affecting anything.
From where I'm standing Omega, it looks like you would rather gay people not attain greater happiness and peace just so some definition of marriage can remain unscathed. Is that really worth it? Is it worth denying people like Shadow the right to marry just so you can keep "natural law" intact?
Precisely.
-
Sorry omega, think you need to leave this discussion. You're not convincing anyone, and the debate is not reaching any agreement.
Ah! Well, excuse me. I don't think I need to "leave" as it were. Thanks for the advice though.
-
^ Exactly. Sure, those "economic benefits" are important, but maybe you are missing the whole point of marriage, Omega, if you think that gay people want to get married for those reasons instead of because they simply love someone.
Of course it's not for money. I understand that. Yet such is an impossibility just as much as making a round square or meeting a married bachelor or repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. I've explained why so extensively on this thread.
It's simply a misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that "love" is an impossibility; I was saying same-sex "marriage" is.
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
For me, this is really all it comes down to. The bottom line is that legalizing gay marriage would allow thousands of gay people to attain greater happiness and peace in their lives without negatively affecting anything.
From where I'm standing Omega, it looks like you would rather gay people not attain greater happiness and peace just so some definition of marriage can remain unscathed. Is that really worth it? Is it worth denying people like Shadow the right to marry just so you can keep "natural law" intact?
I explained why it would be "negative" in that page-long post of mine on this alleged "nonsense." You're free to read it at any time.
-
Did you ever read Macbeth? Maybe Omega's definition of natural law is kind of like what happened after Macbeth killed the king. You know, everything in nature going out of whack because Macbeth disturbed the natural heirarchy. Maybe he's working so hard to keep marriage intact because if you let gay people marry and sully marriage, then nature will go batshit insane.
Can you at least imagine my bewilderment at how people are still unsure what I mean by "Natural Law" ("nonsense" as it has taken to being called now) when I dedicated an entire page to Natural Law (while even that was just an overview of Natural Law)?
-
So maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly will homosexual marriage negatively affect anything? Never mind this "natural law" nonsense, how will it have a negative impact on people?
For me, this is really all it comes down to. The bottom line is that legalizing gay marriage would allow thousands of gay people to attain greater happiness and peace in their lives without negatively affecting anything.
From where I'm standing Omega, it looks like you would rather gay people not attain greater happiness and peace just so some definition of marriage can remain unscathed. Is that really worth it? Is it worth denying people like Shadow the right to marry just so you can keep "natural law" intact?
I explained why it would be "negative" in that page-long post of mine on this alleged "nonsense." You're free to read it at any time.
The problem with that argument is that, in the real world (y'know, where people live) it is kind of proving that it isn't harming anyone or anything unless your definition of marriage is a rigid, unchanging thing between a man and a woman for some reason (ignoring again historical evidence that marriage was very rarely for this strangely specific purpose. If you were Henry VIII, maybe...).
You're basing your entire argument on Aristotelian premises that I've mentioned are already inherently flawed (as is any moral philosophy) and your inability to realize or adequately address these faults is what makes it so frustrating to read your posts. Aristotle was a man, like any other, and men make mistakes.
Did you ever read Macbeth? Maybe Omega's definition of natural law is kind of like what happened after Macbeth killed the king. You know, everything in nature going out of whack because Macbeth disturbed the natural heirarchy. Maybe he's working so hard to keep marriage intact because if you let gay people marry and sully marriage, then nature will go batshit insane.
Can you at least imagine my bewilderment at how people are still unsure what I mean by "Natural Law" ("nonsense" as it has taken to being called now) when I dedicated an entire page to Natural Law (while even that was just an overview of Natural Law)?
Can you imagine our bewilderment that you've made page-long posts that have no relevance to the world in which we live while we discuss an issue of ensuring everybody has equal rights? Also, I'm glad the first post of mine you responded to was a joke. Go me. I'll have to do that more often. :biggrin:
-
Sorry omega, think you need to leave this discussion. You're not convincing anyone, and the debate is not reaching any agreement.
Ah! Well, excuse me. I don't think I need to "leave" as it were. Thanks for the advice though.
:lol Maybe I worded that wrong. You yourself don't need to leave per say, but maybe I do. With such a controversial topic, debate of this manner tends to only further reinforce all of our own opinions. It's argument for the sake of argument; a competition to beat our own dead horses. All I was saying is that no one here agrees with your views, and you are not going to convince anyone. However, your persistence is completely fine with me, and it is not my place to tell you how to live your life.
-
Never said love equals procreation, but it is a vital and necessary part to properly raise a child to fit in with society.
As we've been over, and as you've agreed, "procreation" is more than simply impregnating another human being.
The obligations upon procreation extend further than just birthing a new member of our species, yes, but the main goal of procreation is the generation of a new member of our species, and you'd be unreasonable to deny that. You're losing sight of the primary objective of procreation in an attempt to somehow bridge over the term "procreation" as something that a same-sex couple "could" "do" or "participate in" when by its very principle such a feat would be impossible.
Gay couples can also still impregnate and become pregnant, as I've also demonstrated (though, not by each other, at least not quite yet*...). So even ignoring the definition of marriage as ONLY ensuring the next generation exists survives, ensuring the next generation is something gay couples, and gay married couples, can partake in.
Exactly, a same-sex couple cannot, in principle, procreate. Hence marriage cannot be something that can be extended to them any more than the right to be recognized as a lizard can be granted to another human, any more than the law of gravity can be repealed.
*Scientists have made sperm and I believe egg cells from stem cells - meaning, two gay women could have an offspring that is genetically theirs, and two gay men could have an offspring that is genetically theirs. Under such a scenario, this means that hypothetically gay couples will now be able to fully achieve what you consider to be a "natural law" marriage, be it through unnatural means. Assuming this, would you still oppose gay marriage? I'm assuming you'd protest the procedure through which gay's could have children?
"Whatever, dude," as the kids say. This does nothing to change the definition of a same-sex couple, who, in principle, cannot procreate. It would be as analogous and as absurd as to saying "Well, a lesbian in a same-sex couple could go get pregnant through natural heterosexual means and come back to her same-sex partner and then 'marry' her, right?" Wrong. That would do nothing to change the understanding of same-sex couples in principle.
-
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Someone please lock it.
-
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Someone please lock it.
-
John Marsten would be ashamed.
-
:lol Maybe I worded that wrong. You yourself don't need to leave per say, but maybe I do. With such a controversial topic, debate of this manner tends to only further reinforce all of our own opinions. It's argument for the sake of argument; a competition to beat our own dead horses. All I was saying is that no one here agrees with your views, and you are not going to convince anyone. However, your persistence is completely fine with me, and it is not my place to tell you how to live your life.
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Someone please lock it.
If you don't want to take part of the conversation:
(https://i.qkme.me/3570q5.jpg)
-
(Accidental Double Post; Ignore)
-
Okay, guy who's probably younger than me.
-
If you don't want to take part of the conversation:
(https://i.qkme.me/3570q5.jpg)
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_5935_1328912888.jpg)
No u
-
The problem with that argument is that, in the real world (y'know, where people live) it is kind of proving that it isn't harming anyone or anything unless your definition of marriage is a rigid, unchanging thing between a man and a woman for some reason.
Okay, but if we were to follow out the path of that logic, "marrying" a cartoon character, then, isn't "hurting" anybody and thus should be allowed. Or do you want now to present a rigid, unchanging "definition" of marriage?
You're basing your entire argument on Aristotelian premises that I've mentioned are already inherently flawed (as is any moral philosophy) and your inability to realize or adequately address these faults is what makes it so frustrating to read your posts. Aristotle was a man, like any other, and men make mistakes.
There was no critique or demonstration of flaws with Aristotelian final & formal causes; you simply stated comments along the line of "well, you see, there's just a lot of assumptions, I think" or "Aristotle was a man and he made mistakes. Therefore, everything he wrote on can be condemned as just a 'bunch of mistakes.'"
If you don't want to take part of the conversation:
(https://i.qkme.me/3570q5.jpg)
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_5935_1328912888.jpg)
No u
:metal :tup
-
No, but seriously.... This is some scary shit.
(https://www.zuguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/gran-torino-clint-eastwood.jpg)
-
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness on page two when gay marriage was compared to marriage to a cartoon. Someone please lock it.
Fixed.
-
I think the moral of this thread is, if Omega really wants to marry his comic book, none of us here at DTF are gonna judge him.
-
The problem with that argument is that, in the real world (y'know, where people live) it is kind of proving that it isn't harming anyone or anything unless your definition of marriage is a rigid, unchanging thing between a man and a woman for some reason.
Okay, but if we were to follow out the path of that logic, "marrying" a cartoon character, then, isn't "hurting" anybody and thus should be allowed. Or do you want now to present a rigid, unchanging "definition" of marriage?
That doesn't logically follow though. As has been mentioned before, its a slippery slope. You're making a leap from the idea of two people marrying to a person marrying something without a semblance of consciousness. Its certainly possible that one can fall in love with a cartoon character, surely, but the cartoon can't reciprocate that. It can't make its own decisions. No its technically not hurting anybody, but you're not making an argument that can be compared to what we're actually talking about. We're talking about giving human beings equal rights. Until a cartoon character comes to life with its own AI, it can't even be considered alive. That's nowhere near the same thing unless gay people aren't really alive somehow.
You're basing your entire argument on Aristotelian premises that I've mentioned are already inherently flawed (as is any moral philosophy) and your inability to realize or adequately address these faults is what makes it so frustrating to read your posts. Aristotle was a man, like any other, and men make mistakes.
There was no critique or demonstration of flaws with Aristotelian final & formal causes; you simply stated comments along the line of "well, you see, there's just a lot of assumptions, I think" or "Aristotle was a man and he made mistakes. Therefore, everything he wrote on can be condemned as just a 'bunch of mistakes.'"
[/quote]
I'm not saying everything he wrote about can be condemned as a bunch of mistakes. There's a lot we can learn, but we can't just assume that everything he wrote about was right. The real process of learning, as I'm sure he would tell you himself, is to look at things skeptically. I feel that his moral philosophy doesn't really hold water, and it certainly doesn't hold water the way you are utilizing it.
-
I think the moral of this thread is, if Omega really wants to marry his comic book, none of us here at DTF are gonna judge him.
I'll judge him.
-
I think the moral of this thread is, if Omega really wants to marry his comic book, none of us here at DTF are gonna judge him.
:lol
-
CARTOONOPHOBE!
-
I think the moral of this thread is, if Omega really wants to marry his comic book, none of us here at DTF are gonna judge him.
I'll judge him.
Well obviously YOU would with your crazy right wing worldview.
-
Now now cartoons have just as much rights as humans. In fact, they should have more.
-
Never said love equals procreation, but it is a vital and necessary part to properly raise a child to fit in with society.
As we've been over, and as you've agreed, "procreation" is more than simply impregnating another human being.
The obligations upon procreation extend further than just birthing a new member of our species, yes, but the main goal of procreation is the generation of a new member of our species, and you'd be unreasonable to deny that. You're losing sight of the primary objective of procreation in an attempt to somehow bridge over the term "procreation" as something that a same-sex couple "could" "do" or "participate in" when by its very principle such a feat would be impossible.
Gay couples can also still impregnate and become pregnant, as I've also demonstrated (though, not by each other, at least not quite yet*...). So even ignoring the definition of marriage as ONLY ensuring the next generation exists survives, ensuring the next generation is something gay couples, and gay married couples, can partake in.
Exactly, a same-sex couple cannot, in principle, procreate. Hence marriage cannot be something that can be extended to them any more than the right to be recognized as a lizard can be granted to another human, any more than the law of gravity can be repealed.
You're losing the forest for a tree. Individually, gay couples may be not be able to do exactly as you say. However, we live in a society, one where there will be orphans and other persons who could use an adoption - which ties in with abortion - which is where gay and homosexual couples can fill a societal need.
-
It is amazing how one holds to a definition of marriage that has been shown to be historically and factually incorrect.
-
since we are a democracy, the votes for closing this thread win.
goodnight all