Author Topic: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say  (Read 20331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16207
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #175 on: April 30, 2012, 12:41:24 PM »
Well as far as I'm concerned, it's a match made in Heaven (lol). :heart
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21670
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #176 on: April 30, 2012, 01:07:07 PM »
BUT HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILDREN


Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #177 on: April 30, 2012, 01:08:18 PM »
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.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21670
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #178 on: April 30, 2012, 02:18:02 PM »
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.

Offline LieLowTheWantedMan

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #179 on: April 30, 2012, 03:00:32 PM »
Yeah, I don't see why anyone cares so much that two humans of the same gender might get married. Kinda really silly tbqh.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #180 on: April 30, 2012, 03:34:47 PM »
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.

_______________________________________________________

Quote from: Scheavo
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.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 03:41:32 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #181 on: April 30, 2012, 04:15:32 PM »
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.

Quote from: Scheavo
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.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11551
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #182 on: April 30, 2012, 04:17:39 PM »

Quote from: Scheavo
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.

Quote
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. 
Quote
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.
Quote
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. 

Quote
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? 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #183 on: April 30, 2012, 04:22:22 PM »
Quote from: Scheavo
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.

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 7004
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #184 on: April 30, 2012, 06:57:05 PM »

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).
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.
Quote from: Cyril
I'm going to fall on top of you if I do and we'll both go down together

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #185 on: April 30, 2012, 07:39:02 PM »
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.


Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #186 on: April 30, 2012, 09:53:17 PM »
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."

ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #187 on: May 01, 2012, 12:09:36 AM »
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.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #188 on: May 01, 2012, 06:46:30 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 06:56:06 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16207
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #189 on: May 01, 2012, 06:50:19 AM »
Oh shit, you're right! (No, seriously)
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #190 on: May 01, 2012, 07:02:13 AM »
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. 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 07:23:29 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline TheOutlawXanadu

  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Male
  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #191 on: May 01, 2012, 07:38:55 AM »
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?
:TOX: <-- My own emoticon!

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #192 on: May 01, 2012, 08:21:41 AM »
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:
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 08:35:08 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #193 on: May 01, 2012, 08:37:36 AM »
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.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #194 on: May 01, 2012, 08:40:11 AM »
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?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #195 on: May 01, 2012, 08:44:34 AM »
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.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #196 on: May 01, 2012, 08:48:32 AM »
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

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16207
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #197 on: May 01, 2012, 08:49:16 AM »
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.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #198 on: May 01, 2012, 08:51:37 AM »
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.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #199 on: May 01, 2012, 08:51:46 AM »
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.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16207
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #200 on: May 01, 2012, 08:52:35 AM »
That's beautiful man. :tup
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #201 on: May 01, 2012, 09:12:04 AM »
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.

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #202 on: May 01, 2012, 09:27:20 AM »
I was talking about Romans 1:26-32

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #203 on: May 01, 2012, 09:28:05 AM »
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.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #204 on: May 01, 2012, 09:34:27 AM »
I was talking about Romans 1:26-32

Hmmm...I had overlooked that angle of that passage. 

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #205 on: May 01, 2012, 09:47:13 AM »
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

Offline TheOutlawXanadu

  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Male
  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #206 on: May 01, 2012, 10:33:55 AM »
Again though, even if marriage was created by religion, I don't think it always has to be affiliated with religion.
:TOX: <-- My own emoticon!

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #207 on: May 01, 2012, 10:57:29 AM »
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

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #208 on: May 01, 2012, 11:06:58 AM »
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.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #209 on: May 01, 2012, 11:20:11 AM »
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.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29