Author Topic: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say  (Read 20342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline comment

  • Custom Title
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
  • What’s on your mind Facebook?
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2012, 08:21:11 PM »
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-nothing-fear-bishops-090507675.html

Quote
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. 
Signature

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2012, 08:25:32 PM »
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.

Offline comment

  • Custom Title
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
  • What’s on your mind Facebook?
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2012, 09:19:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 09:31:54 PM by comment »
Signature

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2012, 10:15:55 PM »
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.

Offline Odysseus

  • Posts: 245
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2012, 10:11:05 AM »
  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....

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2012, 10:16:14 AM »
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.

Offline comment

  • Custom Title
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
  • What’s on your mind Facebook?
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2012, 09:33:01 PM »
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.
Signature

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41477
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2012, 04:31:02 AM »
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.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline comment

  • Custom Title
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
  • What’s on your mind Facebook?
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2012, 03:01:52 PM »
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.
 
Signature

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2012, 03:49:00 PM »
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.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2012, 04:00:45 PM »
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.
"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 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 #46 on: April 25, 2012, 04:02:30 PM »
But it is less than 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs are a myth.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2012, 04:05:04 PM »
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.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2012, 06:24:39 PM »
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.
"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 Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2012, 07:22:32 PM »
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.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 7004
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2012, 07:29:29 PM »
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.
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 #51 on: April 25, 2012, 07:37:21 PM »
...

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.

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 7004
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2012, 07:43:15 PM »
Also, I'm all for people marrying comic books. Whatever floats your boat, it's not my issue.
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 theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2012, 07:49:46 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2012, 08:07:34 PM »
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.
"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 Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2012, 08:15:41 PM »
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?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2012, 08:16:15 PM »
Since when is sodomy "contrary to the Natural Law"? (in capitals, too!  What the fuck does that mean?)

I rest my case.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3624
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2012, 08:20:09 PM »
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.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2012, 08:20:30 PM »
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.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13536
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2012, 08:20:42 PM »
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.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2012, 08:22:42 PM »
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.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2012, 08:32:48 PM »
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"

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2012, 08:33:47 PM »
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.

ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13536
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2012, 08:37:00 PM »
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.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2012, 08:38:56 PM »
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.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2012, 08:39:59 PM »
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.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2012, 08:42:48 PM »
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"?

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2012, 08:44:31 PM »
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.
"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 Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2012, 08:54:46 PM »
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".
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2012, 08:56:39 PM »
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.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ