Author Topic: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say  (Read 22174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #70 on: April 25, 2012, 08:59:06 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".
We've had this exact same conversation before. Instead of responding to this again, I'm just going to copy a post from an earlier thread (which you, of course, did not respond to).

Omega, maybe I jumped to conclusions about your response. I still think you are completely, unabashedly, unequivocally wrong, but I won't get hung up on a couple of your less well-constructed arguments and write a formal response to your last post.

A But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. B So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? C And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. D And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? E And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I  do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
A. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the concept of same-sex marriage confuses our classical concept of marriage, ripping it from tradition and custom and making it arbitrary and meaningless. This would be a valid point if we did have a traditional and nonarbitrary concept of marriage, but we don't. Originally, marriage was a process by which the wife was given to the husband by the wife's father. With modernization, civil rights, and the like, this process became a little less misogynistic and awful, but marriage as a tradition has been in a constant state of flux for thousands of years. The way marriage is now is not traditional or significant in any way. People can make their marriages into whatever they want them to be. Married couples can be loving, exclusive, and pious, or they can be hate-filled, open, and atheistic. A heterosexual couple can make a marriage whatever they want; tradition and the church need not be involved. It is arbitrary. Marriage is not an ancient, holy rite. All it is is two people agreeing to get married and do whatever marriage means to them. Marriage is two consenting people agreeing to be wed.

B. What is a "polygamous couple"? Regardless, there is no reason to offer a group marriage. If we look at marriage as what it is, two people consenting to be wed, then group marriages are ruled out. Social norms and our current governmental infrastructure rely on marriages' being between two people as well.

C. I am not opposed to incest in principle. But if we have arbitrary restrictions in place in heterosexual marriage, why does the introduction of homosexuality remove these arbitrary restrictions? I'm sure whatever arguments there are against incest -- the genetic, for example -- still apply.

D. I don't know, basic logic and the definition of consent?

E. See above. Children are not capable of making decisions with such extreme consequences, and as such they cannot give consent. They have never been able to give consent. This is why underage heterosexual couples cannot marry.

Your argument is similar to one I've heard thousands of times by Rick Santorum et al.: marriage is an institution, and the introduction of homosexuality will cause a chain reaction that will allow people to marry dogs, children, corpses, and toasters. That's not the case whatsoever. Marriage is nothing. It is arbitrary. It is a piece of paper. Gay marriage only removes the arbitrary restriction that you can only consent to marry people with opposite genitals.
tl;dr: The Church doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. All marriage is is two people committing to each other. There isn't any redefining involved; that's what marriage is. Gays, being people who are already able to marry half the world's population, should be able to marry the other half if they so choose.

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2012, 09:04:24 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".

It's funny seeing you make an argument centered around the definition of marriage when the definition that suits you was made relatively recently. Going by your logic, the Defense of Marriage Act should have never gone through because if you're going to add restrictions then why not throw in more based on, say, the couple's ability to have children?

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #72 on: April 25, 2012, 09:15:30 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".
We've had this exact same conversation before. Instead of responding to this again, I'm just going to copy a post from an earlier thread (which you, of course, did not respond to).

I'd rather you specifically respond to what I just posted on this thread. Please, with a cherry on top. I don't want to get into a worthless and tangential argument about necrophilia or age of consent. And sorry for not responding. I must have meant to but forgot. Believe that or chalk it up as an excuse. I'm discussing the very topic now, anyways.


Quote
All marriage is is two people committing to each other. There isn't any redefining involved; that's what marriage is.

You're simply choosing an arbitrary definition of marriage which cannot be supported if you think that what we traditionally view as marriage and what is grounded in Natural Law (man and a woman) is open to "redefinition" to include a man and another man or a woman and another woman (the redefinition here is obvious; the movement in question is called "same-sex marriage," not "marriage". Regardless of whether you believe this is the traditional or correct definition of marriage, given liberalism and the medium of democracy, coupled with the claim that marriage is defined by consensus, such a definition would still be as open to challenge as "between a man and a woman."
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 09:22:43 PM by Omega »
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 #73 on: April 25, 2012, 09:23:29 PM »
What grounding in 'Natural Law' does monogamy have?
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 #74 on: April 25, 2012, 09:24:18 PM »
What grounding in 'Natural Law' does monogamy have?

I'll try to answer this tomorrow.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #75 on: April 25, 2012, 09:31:47 PM »
I can't wait to see the definition of "natural law" that completely ignores what actually happens in nature.

Offline Ravenheart

  • Hair
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3263
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #76 on: April 25, 2012, 09:52:48 PM »
Awful lotta cartoonophobes in this thread.

Offline LieLowTheWantedMan

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #77 on: April 25, 2012, 09:59:15 PM »
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.

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 #78 on: April 25, 2012, 10:02:31 PM »
Omega:

First of all, where is this "Natural Law" you keep citing? Where can I find a copy?

Now, the post from the earlier thread is far more relevant than you think, but I'll outline the points more clearly:

Let's say there is a Natural Law which wants one man and one woman to be monogamous. Even if there is one, it doesn't matter. We're not discussing what is natural according to some book or ancient worldview. We're talking about what is legal.

Legally, men and women can be married but don't necessarily have to act in the traditional, Christian, monogamous way. A man and woman can get married and have sex on the side. A man and woman can get married and have sex on the side with people of the same gender. A man and woman can get married but refuse to have sex whatsoever and only have sex with other people (some of which, what the hell, can be of the same gender). A man can get married to a woman, but never talk to her, and instead room with and have sex with one other man, monogamously, for the rest of his life. A man and woman can get married and, god forbid, practice anal sex. Christianity is unhappy with all of these married couples, and I'm sure they're failing to go along with your "Natural Law" in some way.

Married people have these rights because the government A) it doesn't have the power to police the personal lives of its citizens in this way and B) the government doesn't have anything to do with the Church anyway, which is the only organization that might care what people are doing in the bedroom. So what, legally, is marriage? It's basically just a piece of paper that gives you (and a partner to whom you consent to be legally tied) a number of legal privileges. Marriage as it exists today doesn't have anything to do with any Natural Law whatsoever.

So we've got a legal institution that ties men to women, but this tie isn't morally or spiritually significant in any way. Great. So why should same-sex marriage be legal? Let's take a step back:

Mark is a capable male adult.
Jerry is a capable male adult.
Craig is a capable male adult.
Cara is a capable female adult.
Synthia is a drawing of a capable female adult.

Cara and Craig can marry. This is because they are capable adults.

Mark and Jerry are both capable adults, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage. This isn't really fair, given that the marriage of Craig and Cara affords them several perks that Mark and Jerry won't get, even if they commit to one another informally. Because they're capable adults, you would assume that Mark and Jerry would be able to marry if you saw them on the street individually, but this isn't the case for some reason. This disparity, according to supporters of the gay rights movement, should be rectified.

Mark and Synthia cannot marry. Mark is a capable adult but Synthia is a drawing and cannot give consent. Only the very confused would argue for Mark and Synthia's marriage. Mark and Jerry's marriage makes sense because they are both adults and should be able to consent to marriage, but Mark and Synthia's doesn't, even though Mark is male and Synthia is (a drawing of a) female.

Basically, you don't have to think gayness is legitimate. I don't care if you think all gay people are violating "Natural Laws". But the government's failing to recognize gay marriage is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing gay marriage is the only way to achieve equality.

(A few spare notes: homosexuality does occur in nature. Monogamy is quite uncommon in nature. The definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman" is very recent indeed - the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in '96 (thanks Wikipedia). A few governments are still rushing to define marriage as being between a man and a woman (see beginning of this thread) -- the "definition of marriage" argument doesn't really work in that respect.)

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #79 on: April 25, 2012, 10:02:35 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".

Because a cartoon figure isn't, ya know, real. It's not possible for you to marry a cartoon character. What are you marrying? Your hypothetical is completely impossible to occur. Whereas gay marriage is simply changing the conception of marriage from: a consenting agreement between a man and a woman, to a consenting agreement between a person and another person. It doesn't make marriage completely relevant, it doesn't make the definition just up for grabs - it makes it one between two consenting adults, persons and citizens.


Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #80 on: April 25, 2012, 10:08:50 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.
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.  It just isn't a relevant discussion.

These threads deteriorate remarkable quickly.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #81 on: April 25, 2012, 10:16:05 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.
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations.  It just isn't a relevant discussion.

These threads deteriorate remarkable quickly.

Over 2000 years worth of Biblical scholars would've very much disagreed with you on that.  Rather strongly, indeed.
"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 senecadawg2

  • Posts: 7004
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #82 on: April 25, 2012, 10:40:35 PM »
Sorry Omega, but I think the whole cartoon argument is complete idiocy. You never answered my question, why should you (or anyone else) feel entitled to tell me what I can or cannot marry (be it a man or a two demensional drawing). Regardless of the absurdities, it isn't your decision. It's very simple, and I don't see how you can make any argument against it.
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 hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41886
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2012, 04:54:20 AM »
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. 
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11551
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2012, 05:45:46 AM »
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married.  Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2012, 07:07:45 AM »
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married.  Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.

He's not even arguing "slippery slope."  He's saying that gay marriage is already more ridiculous than marrying a cartoon.
"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 skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11551
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2012, 07:17:03 AM »
But to even bring it up as a possibility for legalization if Gay Marriage is legalized seems like a slippery slope to me.  Whatever the argument, I think we can agree its silly.  :biggrin:

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2012, 07:46:59 AM »
We have already highlighted the differences between gay marriage, Christian marriage, atheistic marriage and so on. Omega has a keyboard and an audience so he is going to fire away. There are gay Christians, believe it or not, Omega.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2012, 09:24:27 AM »
There's nothing ridiculous about allowing two consenting adults to get married.  Omega, your slippery slope fallacies ARE ridiculous.

He's not even arguing "slippery slope."  He's saying that gay marriage is already more ridiculous than marrying a cartoon.

Which doesn't even make it not a slippery slope. Slippery Slopes don't matter where you start or where you end, it matters how you get from point A to point B. In this case, using a comparison that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and forcing it to be analgous, and then using said analgoy to draw a ridiculous conclusion, is fallacious as all hell. Doesn't matter if you wanna call it a slippery slope.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41886
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2012, 09:30:19 AM »
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin.  Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs.  If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview."  They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.

But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins.  So how seriously should they take that?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 10492
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #90 on: April 26, 2012, 09:40:50 AM »
I contend that a reasonable person, without presuppositions or beliefs, could read the Bible and see that a Biblical worldview, in the case of homosexuality, is defined as sin.  Therefore, leaders of a biblical community are irresponsible by disregarding their guide book to publicly affirm and rejoice for behavior that their guidebook says brings death.
There are no reasonable people without presupposition or beliefs.  If there were, they wouldn't identify a "Biblical worldview."  They wouldn't view the Bible as anything different than any other book of stories.

But if there were such people, they would also read that eating shellfish and women having short hair, among other things, are also sins.  So how seriously should they take that?

Give me a break...the Bible does say that if women have long hair, it is a glory to them....but it doesn't say that women with short hair are deserving of death.  (something it does say about homosexuality)   You're misrepresenting what the Bible says.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11551
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #91 on: April 26, 2012, 09:49:56 AM »
We it's a good thing Hef didn't say that, isn't it? :tup

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #92 on: April 26, 2012, 10:49:55 AM »
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. 
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth.  Context.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3992
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #93 on: April 26, 2012, 11:55:33 AM »
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. 
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth.  Context.

Yet they articulated the age of the Earth regardless.  Just because it isnt a "primary goal" doesnt mean it wasn't done.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 616
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #94 on: April 26, 2012, 12:22:29 PM »
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. 
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth.  Context.

We it's a good thing Hef didn't say that, isn't it? :tup

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #95 on: April 26, 2012, 12:57:25 PM »
You're simply choosing an arbitrary definition of marriage which cannot be supported if you think that what we traditionally view as marriage and what is grounded in Natural Law (man and a woman)

You have two options for "Natural Law"

(1) The "Natural Law" seen by humans, and interpreted for some meaning.  (philosophers and theologians, ie Aristotle)
(2) The "Natural Law" shown by nature without any further interpretation needed (scientists and naturalists..ie Descartes, Bacon, and others of the scientific revolution)

The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience.  The second, which asks "how," doesn't. 

Bees and primates, for eample, engage in homophobic activities.  Bees and primates are part of nature and therefore it is natural.  End of story.  Thats it.   Homosexuality, is a rare, but natural occurance of the biosphere.  The only reason to detest it is if one follows the first view of "natural law" which always seem to blindly extrapolate laws of nature.

Religion aims for a certain perfection without realizing that there can be perfection in seeming chaos.  Exceptions and rarities do not disprove laws; it reinforces them!
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 01:03:30 PM by soundgarden »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #96 on: April 26, 2012, 02:01:02 PM »
Quote
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience.

I don't know if it's inadvertent... having studied physics, talking with professes, answering how is simply not enough. I pretty much agree with where it ends, but when I ask why, I know that I'm going beyond the realms of current science, which means I don't take it to mean much. Physics can explain the light we see, why it is the color it is, etc, but it still doesn't tell us why we see what we see, or mean that we all see the same thing, etc. I'm also not sure scientists don't ask why, and I might contend asking why is important for scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. "Why" leads to "how," in the scientific process. Why does the electron not fall into the nucleus of an atom? Why does the speed of light remain constant?

Aristotle did hit something right on the nail: virtue is between two vices.

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #97 on: April 26, 2012, 02:25:40 PM »
I would disagree with those scholars.  The Bible does not articulate the age of the Earth, it articulates the relationship God has with his creations. 
Which articulates the age of the earth, since the genealogies start with Adam and Creation.
Primary goal of the Hebrew authors was not to articulate the age of the Earth.  Context.

Yet they articulated the age of the Earth regardless.  Just because it isnt a "primary goal" doesnt mean it wasn't done.
Just because much of Biblical scholarship states that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, doesn't mean that all Biblical scholarship is invalid.  Earth age science is less than 300 years old in regards to the current estimation of the Earth's age.

Not even trying to put words in hef's mouth, and I don't think he'd accuse me of doing so, either.  I'm only furthering my point.

All that said, an argument like "Well, all Christian leaders have to claim the Earth is 10,000 years old" isn't a good argument.  Science has proven otherwise, we can move on from that.

Concerning homosexuality - I believe that consenting homosexuals ought to be married if they so choose.  Fundamentalist Christians who defend the "definition of marriage" seem confused as to what Jesus teaches regarding worldview.  The state does not need to affirm a Christian's worldview.  People don't believe in Jesus because the law forces them to.  It defeats the whole purpose of the Gospel to go about it in this way.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #98 on: April 26, 2012, 02:40:25 PM »
Quote
The first, which asks "why," will inadvertently move away from what is actually natural and can eventually collapse under inquiry or historical experience.

I don't know if it's inadvertent... having studied physics, talking with professes, answering how is simply not enough. I pretty much agree with where it ends, but when I ask why, I know that I'm going beyond the realms of current science, which means I don't take it to mean much. Physics can explain the light we see, why it is the color it is, etc, but it still doesn't tell us why we see what we see, or mean that we all see the same thing, etc. I'm also not sure scientists don't ask why, and I might contend asking why is important for scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. "Why" leads to "how," in the scientific process. Why does the electron not fall into the nucleus of an atom? Why does the speed of light remain constant?

Aristotle did hit something right on the nail: virtue is between two vices.

The why I was referring to relates to purpose, whether metaphysical or religious.  Of course scientists ask why; but its a why to search for natural relationship; never to suggest something supernatural.  I am not suggesting old philosophies are wrong, absolutely not; but those ideas which are made on testable observations and which do not make suggestions beyond nature stand up to time better.

For me, and perhaps for the likes of Descartes, the more important question I would ask Aristotle is how and why a range of vices exist in the first place.  His comment is obvious, but says nothing to me.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #99 on: April 26, 2012, 03:57:09 PM »
Married people have these rights because the government A) it doesn't have the power to police the personal lives of its citizens in this way and B) the government doesn't have anything to do with the Church anyway, which is the only organization that might care what people are doing in the bedroom. So what, legally, is marriage? It's basically just a piece of paper that gives you (and a partner to whom you consent to be legally tied) a number of legal privileges. Marriage as it exists today doesn't have anything to do with any Natural Law whatsoever.

Remove marriage from natural law and allow "us" or "the majority" to "define" what is or isn't marriage and all you are left with is a might makes right scenario in which if the majority of people think that marriage should be x, marriage becomes x.

Quote
So we've got a legal institution that ties men to women, but this tie isn't morally or spiritually significant in any way. Great. So why should same-sex marriage be legal? Let's take a step back:

Mark is a capable male adult.
Jerry is a capable male adult.
Craig is a capable male adult.
Cara is a capable female adult.
Synthia is a drawing of a capable female adult.

Cara and Craig can marry. This is because they are capable adults.

Mark and Jerry are both capable adults, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage. This isn't really fair, given that the marriage of Craig and Cara affords them several perks that Mark and Jerry won't get, even if they commit to one another informally. Because they're capable adults, you would assume that Mark and Jerry would be able to marry if you saw them on the street individually, but this isn't the case for some reason. This disparity, according to supporters of the gay rights movement, should be rectified.

Mark and Synthia cannot marry. Mark is a capable adult but Synthia is a drawing and cannot give consent. Only the very confused would argue for Mark and Synthia's marriage. Mark and Jerry's marriage makes sense because they are both adults and should be able to consent to marriage, but Mark and Synthia's doesn't, even though Mark is male and Synthia is (a drawing of a) female.

Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.


Quote
Basically, you don't have to think gayness is legitimate. I don't care if you think all gay people are violating "Natural Laws". But the government's failing to recognize gay marriage is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing gay marriage is the only way to achieve equality.

Basically, you don't have to think "cartoonism' is legitimate. I don't care if you think all "cartoonophiles" are violating "Natural Laws." But the government's failing to recognize "interdimensional marriage" is nothing short of unfair, and legalizing "interdimensional marriage" is the only way to achieve equality.

Quote
A few spare notes: homosexuality does occur in nature.


As does incest, genocide, rape, polygamy, murder, theft, etc. I'll address this further in soundgarden's post on Natural Law.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #100 on: April 26, 2012, 04:00:36 PM »
There are gay Christians, believe it or not, Omega.

What does that have to do with anything pertinent here? If you think it is pertinent, I'm inclined to believe that you're missing the point.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

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 #101 on: April 26, 2012, 04:08:04 PM »
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible.
ok

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #102 on: April 26, 2012, 04:20:00 PM »
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible.
ok

Taking that out of the context of explaining what "in principle" means will only lead to me being misunderstood and misrepresented by those who do not know what "in principle" means. I guarantee you that 4 people will take this out of context quote and state something similar to the following:

"wow lol Omega thinks taht infertile people cant/shouldn't marry! wow i knew he was a douche! Twelve!"

Please refrain from doing so, future posters, and read the entirety of the post this was derived from.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

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 #103 on: April 26, 2012, 04:35:16 PM »
Omega, you did take the time to shield yourself from the inevitable "lol wut about infertile ppl" posts, and I respect that you thought far enough ahead to do so.

Even with that consolation in place, that sentence is where I realized this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, and for that reason I'm going to remove myself from it. I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner. You think, for some reason, that marriage has nothing to do with any of that, and has everything to do with making babies.

Do excuse me for not responding to your points in full, but I'm done here. Someone else can explain to you why two people might want to get married even if they can't have children, and why replacing the word "homosexual" with "cartoonophile" in other people's sensible arguments doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for your side.

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #104 on: April 26, 2012, 04:39:34 PM »
Omega, you did take the time to shield yourself from the inevitable "lol wut about infertile ppl" posts, and I respect that you thought far enough ahead to do so.

Even with that consolation in place, that sentence is where I realized this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, and for that reason I'm going to remove myself from it. I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner. You think, for some reason, that marriage has nothing to do with any of that, and has everything to do with making babies.

Do excuse me for not responding to your points in full, but I'm done here. Someone else can explain to you why two people might want to get married even if they can't have children, and why replacing the word "homosexual" with "cartoonophile" in other people's sensible arguments doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for your side.

Because he has an agenda. He's saying what he wants and covering his ears yelling "blah blah blah!" when other people talk.

I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but Omega is far from conversing. It is a monologue at this point.