Author Topic: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say  (Read 20059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #105 on: April 26, 2012, 04:40:05 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.

 :facepalm:
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #106 on: April 26, 2012, 04:45:03 PM »
I did take the time to edit my post and explain what I meant by that. You keep throwing out words like "necrophilia" and associating it with homosexuals.

I do believe that homosexuality is a sin.

It is no greater a sin that when I say fuck, like right now. Fuck. And every time you get super nutjob Christians saying "THEY SHULDNT GET MARRIED HURR" I want to smack them. Their notion of marriage is completely different than what I expect to get in May. It feels as though you aren't accepting that at all. You're hung up on "being right" (just the tone your posts give) as opposed to actually discussing the topic.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #107 on: April 26, 2012, 04:45:55 PM »
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.

Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #108 on: April 26, 2012, 04:46:51 PM »
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.

Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.

Fun fact: Not everyone agrees on everything.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #109 on: April 26, 2012, 04:48:03 PM »
You keep throwing out words like "necrophilia" and associating it with homosexuals.

I've done no such thing on this thread. In fact, I explicitly stated that I wish to refrain from discussing necrophilia.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #110 on: April 26, 2012, 04:48:36 PM »
Fun fact: Not everyone agrees on everything.

Irrelevant.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #111 on: April 26, 2012, 04:49:27 PM »
I'm confused, are you a Christian? (Sincere question. I am a Christian)

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #112 on: April 26, 2012, 04:52:43 PM »
I'm confused, are you a Christian? (Sincere question. I am a Christian)

Roman Catholic.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #113 on: April 26, 2012, 04:58:19 PM »
Okay, I've sent a PM.

Apologies for clogging up the thread.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #114 on: April 26, 2012, 05:00:28 PM »
I, along with what I would like to think is the majority of America, thought that marriage was a way to formally and publicly tie yourself to a romantic partner.

Consider, though, that this may be false. In fact, I gave good reason to believe that it in the post. Regardless, it doesn't matter what "the majority" thinks. We're interested in truth here, not what most people believe should be true.

When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #115 on: April 26, 2012, 05:14:12 PM »
When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.

Sorry for tempting you with that post, Scheavo, but that comment wasn't exactly intended to spur another tangential conversation. I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion. Sorry. And sorry, too, if this comes of as dickish; it isn't meant to.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #116 on: April 26, 2012, 05:48:38 PM »
When it comes to social agreements and social order, it certainly does matter what the majority thinks. You're interested in truth, but there ain't none to be had. Any study of history and gender will reveal that.

Sorry for tempting you with that post, Scheavo, but that comment wasn't exactly intended to spur another tangential conversation. I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion. Sorry. And sorry, too, if this comes of as dickish; it isn't meant to.

Don't see how its really tangential at all. You're trying to narrowly define marriage, one which isn't true of many other societies. Marriage has been many things. If you want to have such a strict definition of marriage, you're going to have to argue for why marriage should be defined in this way, and not simply state that this is the definition.

The meanings of words change, and constantly so. Words don't have a strict meaning, they have an ever evolving meaning. Fittingly so, even the meaning of evolution has evolved over time, as new insights and new narratives arise.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #117 on: April 26, 2012, 05:52:41 PM »
I'm in the process of writing a very brief defense of marriage through Natural Law, Scheavo. I'm sure you're giddy with anticipation.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #118 on: April 26, 2012, 06:26:37 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!

I'll try to present Natural Law as best as possible. This is of my own free will, so I'm not terribly inclined to delve into a comment, defend, comment, defend type situation. Due to the inherent complexity of explaining such a philosophical concept, this post will get long. Sorry. And don't believe that will write this without the help of literary companions, etc. I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.

Natural Law theory is very badly understood by those who criticize it. Common objections go something like:

"If it's wrong to go against nature, then isn't it wrong to wear glasses or drive cars since these are artificial?"

or

"If what's good is what is natural, isn't everything good, then, because everything that happens in nature is therefore 'natural'?"

or

"If homosexuality is genetic, doesn't that show that it is natural too?"

etc.

Aristotle takes a thing's form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it. Hence a "good" triangle is one that corresponds as closely to the form of triangularity as possible. Accordingly, a "good" squirrel is one that has the typical marks of the species and one that successfully fulfills the the characteristic activities of a squirrel's life, etc.

When we turn to humans, we find that we too have a nature or essence, and the good for them, like the good for anything else, is defined in terms of this nature or essence. Unlike other animals, though, humans have intellect and will, and this is where moral goodness enters the picture. Human beings can know what is good for them, and choose whether to pursue that good. And this is the natural end of the faculties of intellect and will; for like our other faculties, they too have a final cause, namely, to allow us to understand the truth about things, including what is good for us given our nature and essence and to act in light of it. Just as a "good" triangle is a triangle that most closely approximates the form of triangularity, so too a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are our by virtue of our nature or essence.

The will of its very nature is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards as good. You don't need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this. You know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something desirable or providing some benefit. Human action is of its nature directed toward what is perceived as good in some way, whether it is truly good or not.

Suppose then (if you must, in the name of "for the sake of the argument"), that things really do have final causes, including our various biological capacities. Then, obviously, the final cause or natural purpose of sex is procreation. And procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring biologically but also culturally.

And, now, for the more awkward part of discussing how Natural Law deals with the sexual act...
If we consider the structure of the sexual organs and the sexual act as a process which, through the prospect of pleasure, begins with arousal and ends in orgasm, it is clear its biological function, its final cause, is to get, uhm, semen into the vagina. The organs fit together like lock and key. This all blindingly obvious, though, and you'd be unreasonable to deny it. But from the point of view of biological final causes, all of this exists only so that men and women will engage in a sexual act, so that it will result in the deposition of sperm into the vagina, so that in turn offspring will be generated and so that the father and mother will be strengthened in their desire to stay together which is nature's way of sustaining that union upon which children depend for their material and spiritual well-being.

If there really are Aristotelian natures, essences, final causes, etc, then the lesson of all this for sexual morality should be reasonably obvious. Since the final cause of human sexual capacities is procreation, what is good or human beings in the use of those capacities is to use them only in a way consistent with this final cause or purpose. This is a necessary truth -- for the good for us is defined by our nature and the final causes of its various elements. It cannot possibly be good for us to use them in any other way, whether an individual thinks it is or not any more than it can possibly be good for an alcoholic to indulge his taste for excessive drink. This remains true regardless of the reason for someone's desire to act in a way contrary to nature's purposes (no, this doesn't mean that people must always intend to have children with every sexual act nor does this mean that all organs must serve only one core function).

Natural Law doesn't condemn using a natural capacity or organ other than for its natural function, but only in a manner contrary to its natural function, frustrating its natural end. Natural Law also does not entail that every frustration of nature's purposes is a serious immorality. Where certain natural functions concern only some minor aspect of human life, a frustration of nature's purposes might be at worst a minor lapse in virtue like prudence. But when they concern the maintenance of the species itself, and the material and spiritual well-being of humans (as is the case with sex), acting contrary to them cannot fail to be of serious moral weight.

Cute, Omega, but how does this have to do with homosexuality and "same-sex marriage"?

Does natural law entail that homosexuals cannot marry? They can marry. But of course, what that means, as a matter of conceptual necessity is that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. What they cannot do is marry each other, no more than a heterosexual could marry someone of the same sex, and no more than a person could "marry" a fish or a can of motor oil or his own right foot. For the metaphysics underlying natural law theory entails that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final causes, inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. There is no such thing as "same-sex marriage" any more than there are round squares. There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Sodomy, between two men or a man a woman or two women, no more counts as "sex" than puking up some pizza counts as eating. No ordinance, legislature or opinion could possibly change these facts any more than they could repeal the law of gravity or the Pythagorean theorem. Any "law" that attempted such an impossibility would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 08:44:51 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #119 on: April 26, 2012, 06:45:49 PM »
Other animals don't have intellect or will?  That's an awfully flimsy (and wrong) assumption to base an argument off.
"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: 16206
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #120 on: April 26, 2012, 06:52:42 PM »
 :corn
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #121 on: April 26, 2012, 06:57:37 PM »
Quote
Suppose then (if you must, in the name of "for the sake of the argument"), that things really do have final causes, including our various biological capacities. Then, obviously, the final cause or natural purpose of sex is procreation

When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc. In this capacity, researchers have discovered a legitimate role for homosexual persons. They look at nieces of nephews, and other members of the family. Clan and family can effect DNA, so it provides a way for the genetic code to be preserved, and thus actually still exist in nature. I would expand upon this, and say that gay couples would make great families to adopt children, further helping society "procreate," as you prefer to call it.

Also, sex is NOT marriage. Gay sex is legal in this country, and has been for a while, and thank god that it is. Talk about an invasion of privacy. Marriage comes with benefits, ones I've mentioned previously which you have ignored. In acknowledging gay marriage, we are not talking about sex, we're talking about an emotional connection that can occur between two people. Seems like the first gay couple I hear about getting married is almost always an older couple, who are probably well beyond sex, and who are doing it for a variety of other reasons not even related to sex, or such a "final cause."


Lot of unproven presuppositions to support your argument.


« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 09:22:44 PM by Scheavo »

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3597
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #122 on: April 26, 2012, 07:00:54 PM »
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

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 #123 on: April 26, 2012, 07:09:01 PM »
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3597
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #124 on: April 26, 2012, 07:12:19 PM »
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?

\Nope.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline LieLowTheWantedMan

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #125 on: April 26, 2012, 08:38:58 PM »
Is there really any point in arguing with someone who believes the definition of a word is a metaphysical truth?
Not at all which is why I'm trying to stay out of it. It's kinda hard though. :(

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #126 on: April 26, 2012, 08:49:17 PM »
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.

Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"

Never mind trying to comprehend how someone's "arguement" can be "shown as false simply by observing reality"...

Oh, and don't respond to this post of mine in the future; if you want to have a reasonable conversation, how about you address the page-long post of mine above?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16206
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #127 on: April 26, 2012, 09:15:24 PM »
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #128 on: April 26, 2012, 09:25:21 PM »
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.

Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"

Than why do you keep ignoring my rebuttals? Great apologies if you're currently writing them, but you ignored them before.

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #129 on: April 26, 2012, 09:33:25 PM »
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.
If the "rapture" were to happen (no substantial biblical evidence to suggest it), a lot of the ones that believe it would happen would still wind up here.  Some of us are very wayward and misguided.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3597
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #130 on: April 26, 2012, 10:11:46 PM »
Most of his arguement is quite easily shown as false simply by observing reality.

Really? I was actually expecting substantive responses. Not just "oh, well, uh, what he said was pretty stupid, you know, because it was just flimsy, right? Right?"

Never mind trying to comprehend how someone's "arguement" can be "shown as false simply by observing reality"...

Oh, and don't respond to this post of mine in the future; if you want to have a reasonable conversation, how about you address the page-long post of mine above?

It was a perfectly fine response.  The evidence that your entire arguement is false is all around you.
I thought it was consice and clear, but I guess I will have to give you an example.

"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."

Incorrect.  Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation.  Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons.  That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.

We could go on and on, but it is clear to every other poster here that your position holds no water.

You can believe whatever you want, and that is cool, but in the end it will just be your own fanciful opinion.

Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 7003
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #131 on: April 26, 2012, 10:31:37 PM »
YOmega! (see what I did there?  ;))


You kind of just ignored me before. The manner in which you, or anyone else, defines marriage seems beside the point.

Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right????

Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives? Did god give you that right? God created the universe, would you suggest that he didn't create homosexuals? If he really had a problem with gay marriage, why are we even having this conversation?

Oh, and did I mention, it's not your job to make important life decisions for other people (regardless of your own definitions of marriage).


Maybe I just have a simple mind, or maybe it's just that simple
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 eric42434224

  • Posts: 3597
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #132 on: April 26, 2012, 10:44:23 PM »
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself.

So Natural Law analyzes human nature, both social and personal, to deduce binding rules of moral behavoir.
Interesting.  It appears Natural Law can easily allow for homosexual marriage if it is a valid part of social and personal human nature.  Here is where my response about reality references.  Homosexual sex, love, partnership, and marriage are indeed an obvious part of the human experience, personally and socially.  Your insistence that Natural Law deals with the specific purposes for things like sex, simply isn't valid.  That is merely your own moral views.  One can easily argue that "man-made" law banning gay marriage is against Natural Law.

Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society.  Subjective Morals anyone?   :lol

I'm just not sure you really understand what Natural Law is.  You seem to have twisted Platos Form of Good and Aristotles view on Natural Law into your own Frankenstein to show Gay marriage is not only wrong, but doesnt exist.

 :facepalm:
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 04:45:52 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #133 on: April 26, 2012, 10:56:14 PM »
Aristotle takes a thing's form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it. Hence a "good" triangle is one that corresponds as closely to the form of triangularity as possible.

But that is simply another assumption based on, well, nothing.  It is an untestable assertion and therefore cannot be taken as a truth.  Aristotle created his own criteria and then followed his biased assumption in seeking examples to prove it.

The absolute single and only moral (and I use moral lightly) that exists on the planet is the product of the individual will to live.  Species long discovered that cooperation in their species helps their own survival chances.  "Goodness" and "Badness" is how well a member cooperates with other members or not.  Religion built on this already existing natural law and the imagination of humanity did its magic.

It IS that simple.


Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41386
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #134 on: April 27, 2012, 04:31:23 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.
I didn't say they were deserving of death.  You're misrepresenting what I said.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline ZBomber

  • "The Analogy Guy"
  • Posts: 5502
  • Gender: Male
  • A Farewell to Kings
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #135 on: April 27, 2012, 06:33:58 AM »
I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.

Really? I would have thought so since you seem to have the answers on all things natural.

Offline Odysseus

  • Posts: 245
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #136 on: April 27, 2012, 09:53:16 AM »
If God really is planning on sending the Rapture to take all the believers up to Heaven....he can have 'em.

Amen to that!  Dunno if you saw this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbb92PePH4I

 :tup

Offline LieLowTheWantedMan

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #137 on: April 27, 2012, 09:53:43 AM »
I am not a professional philosopher of ethics and natural law.

Really? I would have thought so since you seem to have the answers on all things natural.
omega for pope

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 9589
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #138 on: April 27, 2012, 10:20:58 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.
I didn't say they were deserving of death.  You're misrepresenting what I said.

I didn't say that *YOU* said that....but you were equalizing all sin.  (or at least, the sin of homosexuality and the "sin" of a woman having short hair....which isn't even listed as a sin *AT ALL*)

I was pointing at that your statement was ludicrous.
"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 Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Is Nothing To Fear, Bishops Say
« Reply #139 on: April 27, 2012, 10:38:05 AM »
Wow.

I say we let cooler heads prevail and discuss this further on Monday. Seriously. I don't think I can stomach another "insightful" "rebuttal" or comment to Natural Law.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ