»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It? |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
After my father died a couple from one of his old congregations wrote wanting to share this story about the impact he had on their lives. Let's just call them Jack and Diane.. two American kids from the heartland.. They had been living together for about two years when they decided it was time to get married. The date was set. The reception was planned. The Tuxedos were rented. The gown was done. The flowers were ordered. The license was ready. But, at nearly the last minute the groom got a severe case of hypothermic feet. At the request of the bride my father, who was to have performed the ceremony, went to their home to discuss the situation. Things were naturally strained so they loosened up over coffee and pie in the kitchen. My father didn't talk a lot. He sat mostly chewing the pie and sipping the coffee while the tension in the room continued to build. Finally the groom started coming forth with nervous excuses. "I'm real sorry about the wedding and all man... it's just, not really my thing man, yanno the whole 'establishment' trip. I don't know I just can't get into it." My father looked back at him and nodded. "Establishment." The groom continued, "Yeah man, yanno, you get married and the next thing you know you buy a house and you have a mortgage and you're going to the PTA and... I think yanno, Diane really feels that way too cause we're like on the same frequency... this was just all about her parents yanno? Like... she wanted to like please them, cause like, yanno -- they're like into the whole establishment and religion 'thing'." My father looked at Diane and asked her, "So, the dress, the flowers, the wedding -- that was just to please your parents?" Of course, by this time, Diane was on the verge of tears anyway and she began to weep loudly. My father looked back at Jack and asked him, "Does she always cry like this when she's happy?" Jack said, "Well yeah, she's upset. But, yanno, she like, wanted me to be the one to be the A-hole cause it's like HER parents man. Yanno she wanted to please them and all. She'll be ok." My father got up from the table and walked into the living room of the small apartment -- he picked up an old LP off the shelf and brought it back to the table. The album cover was a picture of John Lennon. My father looked at Jack and said, "Establishment?" Jack didn't get it. He said. "Uh, yeah man, like we can spin that if you want -- I had no IDEA you were into this kind of music." The parson shook his head no and then tapped on Lennon's face. "Is this guy establishment?" Jack hemmed and hawed for a second. "Well, no man.. he's like totally not establishment, I mean -- you ever listened to that song 'Imagine'? I mean.. no offense and all, I know you're a man of God but -- he's like, bigger than Jesus." My father then shot back at him. "It's funny you should mention Jesus. You know -- he wasn't married?" Jack said, "Well yeah man... that's what I mean, right there, like if Jesus didn't get married," Interrupting my father pushed the album over directly in front of Jack, "John got married to Yoko in March of 1969." He paused and waited; "Do you love Diane?" Jack said that at this point he felt like his head was going to explode. Tears were starting to form in his eyes and they burned in his throat as he tried to choke them back. In a shaken, softer voice, he said.. "Yeah man... I love her more than I love myself. She's everything man. She's everything." It was a small kitchen, in a small apartment, and it was a yet smaller table. But, Diane said that it seemed like a thousand miles across at the time. The old man leaned forward in his chair and in his low, priestly voice said, "If you want to share with me the real reason you don't want to get married I'll listen son. Or if you prefer I can leave the room and you and Diane can work it out. But, young man, you're about to lose 'everything' if you don't do 'something' pretty damn fast." Jack put his face in his hands and wept hard. It was the first time he had since he was a young boy. He cried. Diane cried. Time passed. My dad sat and sniffled a bit but remained silent. Finally Diane gathered her voice and in an almost inaudible whisper eeked out, "I don't want to lose you Jack. I don't want to push you into anything.." But Jack interrupted. "It's not that baby, I'm just scared. I can't explain it." Diane asked him, "of what? Scared of ME?" "No baby, it's not that, it's hard.. It's just hard." he said in-between sobs. "I don't want to be the one to let you down. Yanno my parents never got it together man." He said weeping. "And, mom... she would date men after dad was gone and they'd hang around a while and they'd be gone, and then she got married again, and then he was gone, and then she got married again and he was gone.. and it just hurt her so much, and me, every time I got attached to somebody they were gone -- and I don't want to be like that to you -- or our kids if we have any. I just don't want to be like that -- I'm just afraid that I'm not good enough. I don't know how to be good." They sat a while longer until Diane went over to Jack and embraced him. They both cried for a while longer. When it seemed like the time was appropriate for words my father asked Jack, "Do you want to spend your life with Diane?" He said, "Yeah, I do." "You want to take care of her?" "Yeah" he said still holding her in his arms weeping. " I do man. I want to." "Haven't you been taking care of her for two years Jack?" "He has.." she interrupted "You two been faithful to each other?" "Yes." they both said. My father then pulled the license from his jacket pocket and an ink pen and signed it. "As far as I'm concerned Jack you and Diane are already married. You've already been living the definition of it. Probably doing a better job than half the old married couples in my church. You know the scarecrow didn't really need a diploma -- he was plenty smart without it." He laid the license in front of them..."It's up to you now Jack, but, I don't think there's anything to be afraid of anymore. You two don't have to get married -- but if you really want to take care of Diane -- you need to be. That's how to be good. That's HOW to take care of her. All you have to do is take this back to the courthouse. " "That's it man? You mean we're like married just like that?" Jack asked perplexed. "Well we can still have the big wedding if you two want... ", Said dad, "but, You're married Jack. You already were all along. How does it feel?" "It feels a lot better than being scared man." he said. "It feels good. And I am gonna love this woman forever." "Well then," dad gathered himself together, "we'll see you at the church." __________________________________________________ We keep hearing that same-sex unions are going to 'erode the meaning of marriage' and examples are cited from Scandinavia, which doesn't have same-sex marriage by the way -- but a type of civil union, as an example of the dread that awaits any nation that might bless same sex unions. What keeps getting ignored about that example (aside from a really poorly defined experiment -- one can discover that 100 percent of people who acquire the habit of eating also die but that doesn't show correlation much less causality) is that the trend was away from marriage before civil unions for same-sex couples was authorized there. In order for same-sex unions to have an effect on marriage in this country, or any other, it would mean that if we asked a couple why they weren't getting married they would have to respond -- "Well, it's because gays can get married -- so, we're just not going to." It would mean that when a couple got divorced the predominant answer why would have to be -- "Well, we just decided we couldn't keep it together because homosexuals are getting married." The definition of marriage only exists between the couple that gets married. At best it exists individually in the minds of each one who aspires toward marriage. Surely there are millions of couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, out there who are not married but are already living the definition of marriage. Is it necessarily a bad thing if the definition of 'family' is expanded to include 'any definition anyone wants'? What is the continued relevancy of marriage, religious or civil? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-21-2004 12:32 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, I knew it was only a matter of time before this one came up. If the traditional view of marriage is going to be challenged and changed into "anything anyone wants" ... Why not any combination conceivable? Why not Three men? Why not two women and three men? Why not two friends ... you can "call" that marriage too if you want to, just to get the social benefits. Why not biological brother and sister? Why not a brother and a brother? Why not a father and daughter? These may sound absurd. But so did homosexual "marriage" about 50 years ago. The arbitrary alteration of something that has such a strong anthropological, biological, and cultural/ religious base brings something into play. No barriers. No safeguard. No limits to the redefining process that will occur because of popular desire. It's a slippery slope that will undermine society as a whole. Your story above is touching and has beauty. But it doesn't in any way suggest that marriage should be "whatever we want". It merely showed that this young man was already living the principles that a good marriage requires, and therefore need not fear to go through with the clinching of it all. This isn't a question of what live-in situation someone may consider to be "family". It is the push to arbitrarily redefine the institution of marriage. So there's been a trend away from marriage ... why let the institution of marriage be dragged away with the trend? That's no argument that same sex "marriages" should be allowed. more later ... Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Not being sexist is not opening the door to "anything anyone wants" It is simply not being sexist |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephen you may want to take a look at these threads /pip/Forum6/HTML/000950.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000952.html Which have been going on for some time in the alley. You're right -- it doesn't prove anything -- which is not what I wanted to do in this thread... I'd like to -- if possible -- go beyond rhetoric here and get into the specifics. Gay people are already gay. They're already living together. They're already raising children. And, obviously conservative Christians are already conservative Christians and doing the same. I'm certainly interested in your thoughts -- but thought you might want to look at where the conversation has already gone in the PIP world. Hopefully we can do something substantive here. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok.. fair enough... somebody told me I'm not being very clear here... IF gay marriage is going to have an 'effect' on marriage -- it has to have an impact on Jack and Diane... How? When phrases like 'undermine society as a whole' get tossed around.. what, exactly does that mean? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
In Dan Savage's book 'Skipping Towards Gomorrah' he basically stated that he thinks the religious right is scared of gays being married because good, monogamous straight couples will see those frisky, married gay couples sleeping around and follow suit. It's interesting to note that he pointed this out in a chapter about the straight 'swing' culture, which is already in full swing (pun intended) and doesn't really seem to adversely affect (aka promote promiscuity in) straight couples who are determined to remain monogamous. Long story short: If straight swing culture doesn't encourage monogamous straights to cheat and/or swing (it's not the same thing), how on earth can it be logically argued that gay swing culture would influence them any more? Wouldn't monogamous straights, logically, first imitate swinging straights rather than jump right in an imitate swinging gays? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: The proliferation of any lifestyle will have an impact. I'm sure the philosophy of the swing culture has indeed contributed to the fall of many would-be faithful men, into adultery. It looks good to our lower nature. It's tempting. It's negative ramifications are downplayed by Hollywood and media. Our pop-culture's heroes are often steeped in this same mentality and practice. It does rub off. But the whole issue is much deeper than that. I think the main concern is about redefining marriage, not about the negative impact of homosexuals as they now relate to presently married couples, and individuals. Though that would doubtless increase, it's already here and is being dealt with. It's the push toward the wholesale acceptance of our society of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle ... not an abberant one, that is even more of a concern. Also there's the dangers of arbitrarily redefining something with such strong antrhopological, biological, cultural, and spiritual roots, as marriage. There will be no safeguard against a perennial redefining that will ultimately destroy "marriage" ... not individual marriages now, but marriage as an institution later. LR: quote: I'm basically reiterating what I hinted about in my above response to Hush ... But here's the scenario. The time tested boundaries that exist with an important social custom get moved. The anthropological, biological, religious, cultural foundations of why it is as it is, get ignored or pushed out of the conversations in favor of a pseudo-moral outcry of "denying someone's rights". A precedent is set. All arguments that hint of having a well defined and exclusive view, are slurred as "bigotted". But then there's absolutely nothing left to keep this process from repeating itself again and again, pushing marriage beyond recognition and meaning. Something that was once honorable and beneficial will eventually become a mockery and a travesty. Marriage itself is what is in danger. That in turn will "undermine society". That will affect countless Jacks and Dianes ... it's just not as evident right now. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen... I have a lot of respect for you as a person, but I've got to say... if you don't want me to call you bigoted, you probably shouldn't call me pseudo-moral. It's insulting to my intelligence and to my morality... which, by the way, I do have. Anyway- 'It's the push toward the wholesale acceptance of our society of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle ... not an abberant one, that is even more of a concern.' Here's where we differ. I would wager to guess that you base your conviction that homosexuality is abberant on your religious faith. But to say that gay marriages cannot be recognized based on a religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong, in my opinion, violates the separation of church and state. Laws have to make sense in a secular sense, too. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:or a way to consolidate power. garner wealth. political benefit. at the end of a shotgun. to add another woman in the harem... on and on. by the above statement, you're taking a rather small chunk out of the history of marriage and localizing it to a pre-dominately western culture. sanctity is in the eye of the beholder. truth be told, if you believe marriage is sacred, it shouldn't matter who does it; yours should be the one that matters. otherwise, not only should we stop the gays from marrying, but also anyone who's ever been convicted of a crime, anyone who has had intercourse out of wedlock... anyone not of a particular denomination religiously... anyone NOT in and following our western culture as dictated by (pick someone)... too exclusive and too narrowly focused, i think. hush - you have morals? can i buy a couple off you?  |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
ps - LR: very well written story. smooth pace and compelling. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
nodding agreement with Chris...loved the story, Reb. er, yanno? Of course yaddo.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Hush, First of all I was responding to LR when I wrote that. But to clarify, I wasn't referring to anyone as a "pseudo-moral person" ... whatever that would mean. I know you have morals, and never doubted it. That much is evident from your posts. By "pseudo-moral" I was referring to that which some always rely on in this debate ... the tacit assumption that it is wrong to deny anyone any "right" at all. And so the issues often aren't looked at or listened to ... why? Because it is automatically a civil rights concern, as plainly evil as segregation. It's a falsly moral stance when you are tagged as "immoral" (by some) if you happen to be against gay marriage. If that shoe doesn't fit you then don't wear it. And even if it does fit you ... it doesn't mean that your entire view of ethics is off base. Apologies If I offended you, but I don't think it was aimed at you personally ... yet it still expresses my thoughts on much of what I see and hear in this debate (not referring to the debate in this forum particularly, but at large). Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-24-2004 07:34 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christopher: quote: Not really. Regardless of variations on Marriage, the male/ female relation has been common among all. Very little (if any) institutionalizing of "same sex unions" has been evident in pre-modern history. As far as I know most cultures have viewed homosexuality as deviant ... how much more the elevating of the union to a place of public honor? quote: My concern is primarily a societal one, not a personal one. Though I care about my own family, I care about much more ... so why would I want to consider this as applying to my own marriage only? quote: Seeing that none of these things are directly contrary to what marriage is, and has been for thousands of years (and not just in Western culture), there's good reasons why we should not forbid such people from marrying. These are all secondary issues. The issue of same-sex marriage involves a radical redefinition of what marriage IS. Going outside of marriage to tyrannically determine who is fit for it is one thing (to which I am opposed) ... Preserving the essence and definition of marriage is quite another. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if03h01 http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04B01 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33660 |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
From your first link quote:This is saying almost the same thing as I hear in your comments - to me, it sounds as if it could be rearranged to say that the "sanctity" of marriage is based on an assumed mass biological imperative to beget children and raise them to do likewise. There's no sanctity there... and I'm not comfortable with the results of this survey either; children do well when the people raising them are [good] people. Determination, responsibility, etc. are the key factors in that equation, not the fact that mom and dad are still residing in the same house; proximity does not equal success - perhaps many of the fathers or mothers that have left the "home" should have. To stay may have caused more damage. I was raised by a single father, my brother and sister by a single mother. Doin' fine here and I don't consider myself an exception. What I do buy is that structure matters for children. That doesn't have to be by a male father and a female mother, however - families are what one makes of them. (Which leads to another pondering - perhaps one of the biggest things dragging our culture down is the lack of an extended family...) Structure can be invoked without the above male and female, brought right back around to good people, not good heterosexually focused wedded couples. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
2nd link quote:Three in one shot - these guys are invalidating any marriages that don't involve children. If that's the case, then marriage between homosexuals should be encouraged! They can't [directly, without interference] have children within their union, so won't be contributing to the already overpopulated society that, as some seem to be saying, will be collapsing if said marriages are allowed. Yet I doubt that any of these three people would invalidate a marriage between a man and woman when the couple either could not or did not have children. Children are not necessarily a by-product of marriage (there are certain religious sects that bypass this), but rather a by-product of... sex. In a culture where sex is rarely, rarely limited to the confines of a marriage certificate, it's almost laughable to imagine the looks on the faces of all the people who, by the above definitions of the above, are already married! |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
The last word in the third link was about right; "oxymoron." This person nearly contradicted himself the whole way through. How one can liken children and adults voting to homosexuals and heterosexuals marrying is beyond my understanding. There is no analogy there other than the author's desire to link to one=good, the other=bad. He also says that marriage should be limited to people who are theoretically able to have children (on their own, though I wonder how he'd feel about involving scientific aid if his heart stopped working...), yet goes on to say that society should also allow those who can't have children to marry too. quote:Oh the horrors! Isn't that what he's doing by drawing said metaphorically arbitrary and inexact line before the idea of same-sex marriage? This whole article could have been summed up into the following phrase and saved the man a lot of time: "Homosexuals shouldn't marry because I don't want them to." |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Fourth link quote:It would be. quote:As we did once blacks were legally recognized as equal to whites. Once discrimination fails, so must the curriculums enforcing them. quote:Because ALL homosexual relationships are broken up, while good, straight, god-fearing heterosexual relationships last happily ever after, la-de-dah. quote:The Ku Klux Klan held the religion that blacks were [are] inferior, a race of animals. That a religion holds a belief doesn't make it right, or more valuable than the rest of the society's beliefs. Does that mean I think we should invalidate their beliefs? No, but I also don't believe that a society under constant flux will allow continued predjudice. I believe that it's a matter of time. People throw around the query "should same-sex marriage be allowed" as if it's still under debate as to if it ever will be. I contend that "if" should be substituted with "when." In the maxi-liberal society where it is fashionable to step outside the box (seen much more in the younger [did someone say future lawmaker?] generations, while the older, MUCH more conservative generation is dying off), it's only a matter of time. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Not a big deal, Stephen- I interpreted your comment to encompass everyone who supported gay marrige as a right... I knew it wasn't directed directly at me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christopher: quote: It is (and was) based upon a mass biological imperative to beget children and raise them to do likewise. If the foundations of marriage are not rooted in recognition of this biological / anthropological reality, then how do you explain the nearly wholesale absence of institutionalized homosexual "unions" in this historical record? Bigotry no doubt? Even today the majority census is against homosexual marriages ... extremist activists and legislating liberal judges are responsible for the push through of laws that do not recognize traditional wisdom ... nor the will of the people as a whole. quote: I'm glad your doing fine, as you say. And I do recognize that many situations can be overcome. I applaud all who having come out of divorced families "did okay". That's not the point ... The exception should never be made into the normative rule. Statistics DO show less problems when the traditional family unit coheres. Today's society overall is a case study of this effect. The Breakdown of families does have a negative impact upon the whole. To deny it is to ... well, live in denial. You just can't make examples that stand out against the trend, as proof that the trend isn't there. quote: My hats off to children of single parents who ended up doing pretty well. Still, science and common sense support the fact that children typically do better with Mothers and Fathers. There are real differences between the genders that are needed by kids. Much psychology has shown this to be true. How much also does the very nature of things show us this? For thousands of years you couldn't have kids any other way ... the ones who made them are best fitted to raise them. Of course even hetero couples can fail in this arena ... but still that doesn't discount the truth that Moms and Dads raising kids should be the ideal of a society. quote: That one shot isn't as devastating as you suppose. Their argument is not to invalidate individual marriages on the basis of a lack of child rearing. It is rather to show the anthropological and cultural foundations for the elevation and honoring of the institution of marriage. The whole aim is not to give some bullet-proof proof of heterosexual marriage as the only way (it's not, we are free to do what's wrong) ... it's to show its base, and to illustrate the dangers we will face by allowing it to be arbitrarily redefined, dangers we will face as this process will be repeated again and again. quote: Are you saying that mere population is the concern of those against homosexual marriage? That's a strawman. When they say society will destabilize they are not talking about population ... but civilization. quote: you're right. Nor do their arguments suggest that they should. quote: But sex doesn't raise kids. I guess I still don't see what your above statement has to do with homosexual marriage being legalized. quote: I think you missed something... When he says that marriage should be limited to people "theoretically able" to have children, he is referring to gender alone. Therefore what he "goes on to say" does not contradict what he stated. You may disagree with his statement, but it's not contradictory. quote: It seems that this analogy was merely to show a legal limitation based upon general differences ... The example is that a smart kid who might in actuality be able to vote with more knowledge and discretion than a 51 year old guy who just mindlessly pulls a lever, does not in any way suggest that the law should not remain as is. EXCEPTIONS should not alter what is based upon the normative rule. Come on Christopher, that's not that hard to understand. quote: No, that's not at all what he's doing. His above examples involved extending law beyond principles and general definitions, to whether individuals choose to have children or not. The law has function, but it's arm should not be that long. Keeping the traditional form of marriage seems to me to actually resist a roughshod arbitrary tendency, rather than foster it. It is preservation, not radical change. You've got it backwards. quote: The question is "should it be?". quote: Don't take the laurels of one argument and so rashly apply them to another. Interestingly enough, more blacks support traditional marriage than whites. I guess they, who should understand discriminatory issues more than anyone else, are more "homophobic". Fancy that. Actually, many of them are actually wearying of that poorly drawn comparison. Bandwagoning is great ... only you don't typically steal someone elses wagon. This just begs the question. Let's first ask is it really a civil rights issue? Why should we first assume that two men or two women have the right to get married? It depends upon what marriage really is fundamentally. I don't currently have the right to join the girl scouts, should I? It's a good question, and should be explored. But if you answered "yes", the scout master would want some rationale. quote: The arguments never deal with "ALL". Promiscuity is bad wherever it's found. And of course it exists abundantly in the heterosexual married community. But do you seriously doubt that there's a noteable difference between the two? quote: The Ku Klux Klan was also an organization of hatred that actually contradicted what their professed religion taught. Are you suggesting that those who support the traditional view of marriage as binding, or who believe that homosexuality involves immorality are like the Klan? It has not been conclusively shown that sexual orientation is comparable to the color of one's skin. Nor does a moral stance, or a stance on public policy, preclude hatred. quote: This still has nothing to do with the issue. And I don't necessarily agree with you. Right now the majority in our country believe same sex marriages to be wrong. If anything pushes it over the edge it will be political tyranny through the judicial branch. But let's say you're right. Maybe it's all changing as individualism and ultra-pluralism takes hold. Perhaps the liberal trend to "step outside the box" is moving at such a rate that relativistic morals will seem to prevail. Even if it is, it's worth the resistance if the cause is a right one. Entire cultures have rejected their "prophets" before. Nothing new in that. When I consider the present mindset that you describe in relation to "boxes", the name Pandora often comes to mind. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2004 12:15 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I don't have any time right now, Stephan, but wanted to comment to part of your last statement, "Even if it is, it's worth the resistance if the cause is a right one.", that I support that wholly. If it were an easy issue, it wouldn't be one. All issues need sides and the best people are those who believe in what they're promoting. Also, I don't think (bandwagon-jumping not withstanding) the issue is too far from that of the minority battles; predjudice is predjudice, whether it's skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I know you don't think that. But you haven't shown me why I shouldn't think that. To me it is a vastly different issue ... the parallel is only drawn if "prejudice" is assumed. Are we "prejudiced" for not allowing polygamy, or biological siblings to marry? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
And by the way ... about the articles above. I'm not saying that they perfectly reflect my views on every point. I just wanted to include some material that doesn't a priori assume that we are limiting someone's intrinsic rights, by holding an exclusive and more traditional view of marriage. I just included them to stir up some thinking, and get some discussion going. And Christopher ... As well known as I am for my short posts that require very little time to respond to, I understand that you have a life. Post when you can. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless. Stephan asks if someone is prejudiced for not allowing polygamy, apparently not realizing that our laws DO allow polygamy. I've been married twice. If we're not allowed to redefine marriage, then I'm apparently still married to both women. I'm legally committing polygamy. Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless because it's been redefined many, many times and will continue to be redefined no matter how hard someone beats their head against the wall trying to stop it. Undermining society as a whole is an equally meaningless argument. No one yet has explained how proposed same-sex marriage will hurt another person. Can anyone cite a single example of something that hurts society without ever hurting a person? I sure can't. If it doesn't hurt a person, it can't hurt society. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex, kids, or even love. All of those exist outside of marriage and there are plenty of marriages that don't involve any of those. Arguing tangents isn't arguing the issue. Who does it hurt? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But you certainly don't show them to be, by merely stating it. quote: Nice sleight of hand. Polygamy is being married to two women at once. Divorce has been around since some of the earliest of cultures. By the way, even Jesus said that divorce was permitted only because of "hardness of heart". If you ask me ... I'm not exactly "for" divorce either. But you can't compare such a radical deconstruction of something, such as same sex marriages, to something like divorce... That escape hatch has pretty much been coexistent with marriage all along. quote: Ron ... Answer this question for me then. Should biological siblings be allowed to marry each other? Should mothers and sons be allowed to marry each other? If no, then why not? And what sublime difference would make your answers exempt from meaninglessness? quote: I guess that settles it then. Ron has spoken. quote: That's not true. I know a homosexual who confided in me that he knew that his problem with attraction to the opposite sex was not deterministically caused or genetic ... He traced the situations in his life (including a poor relationship with his father) that led to an abnormal identification with homosexual thoughts and later actions. He told me of the grief and pain that this struggle has caused him his whole life. The widespread acceptance of it in any society will only help many more take the same path into pain and sexual deviance. Individuals will be hurt. And though LR pointed out that there was already a trend away from marriage in Scandinavia before Same Sex Unions were legalized, it is undeniable that this move only helped contribute to the dissolution in a remarkable way. And the results of the breakdown of family do hurt people. Mostly the children. http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg= quote: Funny that traditionally speaking it has nearly always had to do with these things. And in societies where the trend has been away from these, and toward a sterile social contract ... there has been social breakdown and increased turmoil. So your insipid definition (or non-definition) of marriage is perhaps the whole problem. Sure it can be argued that for certain cultures marriage became less than a covenant of love and fidelity between men and women ... but these cultures were the weaker for it. quote: That's like saying since medical practices exist outside of the Medical community, and since there are plenty of quacks, that physicians actually have nothing to do with treating disease. That reasoning really isn't compelling. quote: Here, we agree. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2004 05:19 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No physical point like gender may compare to loving someone above all others. Either you love one that much or you don't. That is what makes marriage true or false, I believe. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hush, Savage makes an interesting observation but, I'm not able to agree. I find that when an issue engenders this level of conflict in a society there are deeper implications than puritanical prudes stressing over whether or not people are having fun. When people talk about 'time-tested boundaries' and 'undermining society as a whole' and 'tradition', they are employing metaphors for 'we might have been wrong'. Stephen is correct when he says the 'proliferation' of any lifestyle will have an impact -- but the question is -- what kind of impact? And, in this case the other question is what kind of proliferation are we talking about since gays represent about 5 to 10 percent of a population and that people aren't going to arbitrarily change their sexual orientation. The real worry is that if Rachel and Sarah move in across the street and their daughter Heather (who has two mommies) comes over to play with Jack and Diane's daughter, Jessica -- Jessica may learn that Rachel and Sarah and Heather are perfectly normal people and not the bogey men they are made out to be by the loud preacher at their fundamentalist Evangelical church. This might cause Jessica to question the faith of Jack and Diane. She may reject it entirely. She may find that she can find faith in a more liberal Christian church.. or another religion altogether. If there are too many Jessicas then their movement will lose political ground. Their preacher will lose political power. And, even worse, Jack and Diane may be forced to question their own beliefs and practices. This becomes on the order of magnitude of discovering the Earth is not flat -- even though the Bible says so. That slavery is not acceptable -- even though the Bible says so. That capital punishment is -- oh yeah -- that's still acceptable. That's the unraveling of society. Just as the Jim Crowe society unraveled. Re-ordering one's faith is a constant fear. Especially to practitioners of strict, rigid, dogma. The more defined the position.. the harder it is to defend. Christopher -- good work -- but, when responding to anything that comes out of The Weekly Standard -- you can really just say -- so what? It's just Bill Kristol's http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol.asp propaganda rag -- by conservative Republicans, for conservative Republicans -- it doesn't need to be treated as an objective source. And thanks -- glad you liked the story -- and you as well Blazey. Ron -- thanks for attempting to redirect the thread back to the topic -- but, I suppose since no one can actually claim a specific damage to Jack and Diane -- there is truly none -- just rhetoric. Stephan -- this story contains what really makes a mockery of marriage -- the enemy of marriage is not same-sex unions -- it is divorce and serial monogomy. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: Are you suggesting that large segments of society have never rejected anything but what is "wrong" and "archaic", as opposed what is wise and prudent? I'm sure you don't really believe that. quote: Children and teens are still before or at that crossroads. When homosexuality is embraced by an entire culture, it does increase. Remember it was "Jack and Diane's" kids moreso than Jack and Diane that I'm concerned about. quote: Does the teaching that a behavior or lifestyle is sinful, mean that those who practice it are monsters? If that's true we're all monsters. "Perfectly normal" people are sinners. And homosexuality is sin. But I don't have to teach my kids to hate homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals myself. quote: Why? Because her faith is at odds with society at large? That's not exactly a new thing. But you are right. The widespread acceptace of what is wrong, does increase the tendency of apostasy from the faith, because it makes holding to the tenets of that faith even harder to do. quote: Is that your attempt to make the Bible look out of touch with reality? The Bible nowhere teaches that Slavery is acceptable ... It rather teaches Christian slaves to be in submission to their masters and for Masters to treat their slaves with some measure of kindess. Taking the biblical teaching as a whole, the Bible gives an overall negative picture of slavery (ever since Egypt). Only it is not a social Custom that is ripped from the roots by the apostles (impossible to do), but borne with ... Interestingly, Christian principles have often been instrumental in the abolishment of slavery. And I'm curious, where does the Bible say "The Earth is Flat"? And if discovering that society is increasingly geared toward moral relativism, social decay, and breakdown of families, is like discovering that "The earth is not flat" ... then the Bible has been greatly helpful in dispelling that myth. It's all been predicted. quote: For sure. But the difficulty in defending something is not always indirectly proportionate to it's truth. quote: That could be said of anything you don't agree with right? ... by liberal Democrats, for liberal Democrats- it doesn't need to be treated as an objective source. I don't line up with the republicans on everything, by a long shot. But I just wanted to turn that around and let you hear what it really sounds like ... a convenient way not to respond. quote: I believe you when you say that Divorce and adultery are responsible for the general state of marriage. But I disagree with your assertion that redefining marriage to include homosexuality will not add to that downward trend in a more drastic way. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You are perfectly free to teach your morality, Stephen. The law, however, should confine itself to protecting people from people, not from themselves, and certainly not from someone else's personal ideas of right and wrong. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No, I don't really believe that because it's not what I said. At all. What I said is that people are cloaking their meanings. Just like white males did in trying to justify segregation in the south, in keeping blacks out of professional sports, and trying to fight against the 'Negro music' rock and roll. We know what the real underlying fears and insecurities were. Teens aren't trying to make up their minds about their sexuality. They aren't at a crossroads. Unless you think everyone is born bi-sexual. They're trying to figure out who they are. That much is true -- but -- they aren't going to have very much say over their sexuality. When people like Robertson and Falwell blame homosexuals and feminists for 9/11 -- yep -- that's painting them as monsters Stephen. Plain and simple. Wouldn't homosexuality only be a sin for Jewish people though? After all -- they were the only ones the death penalty applied to -- right? Jessica won't question Jack and Diane because their faith is at odds with society at large -- because it's at odds with what she can see, hear, and feel.. right across the street. Are you actually suggesting that Christians didn't use the Bible to justify slavery for hundreds of years Stephen? Do you want me to start quoting which parts they used? I can, as well start pulling out all the verses that address the cosmology of a flat-earth world view -- if you like. But it's going way, way, way off point. Propaganda is propaganda -- whether it's liberal or conservative. It doesn't factor in because it's propaganda. Why respond to it? Rush Limbaugh bills himself as an entertainer. If we quote him everyone understands that it isn't serious commentary. The Weekly Standard tries to pass itself off as an actual magazine. Kind of like the New York Times tries to pass for a newspaper. Or Fox News Channel. Everyone is free to believe what they want and teach what they will in their homes and churches. And, I assure you that if there is any attempt made by a Federal Marshall or any other law enforcement agent to abridge your first amendment rights or violate the establishment clause -- it will not be with pseudo-moral outrage that I come to your defense. Now, about Jack and Diane? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Ron: That seems to be a pretty naive jurisprudence. And you're presupposing that lawmakers ought to have jurisdiction over marriage in the first place. If the law should "confine itself to protecting people from people, not from themselves," why should suicide be illegal? Why should I have to park my car on the other side of the street on Tuesdays between 8:30 and 10:30?Further, what does sanctioning marriage have to do with protecting people from people? Jim |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: L.R., I think I would classify "sexual orientation" as one of those "spin" words. I think it tends to give the impression that homosexuality is more of a biologically determined condition that one can't do much, if anything, about. The scientific jury is still out on that issue, though, but more and more research tends to lean towards it probably being more of an environmentally determined behavior than a biological issue. And the 5-10 percent figure is now considered, even by homosexual researches, to be a bit inflated, and most researches put the figure at around 1-3 percent of the general population. Proliferation doesn't have as much to do with "numbers", I don't think, but with how some in that number are able to use their influence to undermine the foundation of our society, the rule of law, particularly through flouting existing law and through use of judicial activism in an attempt to remake society in their own image, with total disregard and contempt for the "will of the people." That's the more immediate danger that I see for our country in all of this, and then the more gradual but eventual downward spiral that I believe the redefining of marriage itself would have on our society. If one person or group of people gives themselves the right to break the law, in lieu of following the process of working legally through the system, then any person or group can justify the same action. If the foundation upon which our government is built is destroyed, people may indeed gain all the "rights" that they have ever insisted upon, but no one's rights will be able to be guaranteed/protected in a lawless society. quote: It's unfortunate that they did that, but they don't speak for Christians in general, anymore than it could be said that a Betty Friedan or a Gloria Steinam speak for women in general, or a Roger Moore speaks for Democrats in general. I think that the majority of Christians have the correct understanding that no one sin is more aggregious than any other in the eyes of God. quote: No, it doesn't mean that. According to the Bible, the entirety of the human race has been declared to have fallen short of the perfection and glory of God, and all are therefore guilty of sin. That the Mosaic Law and its penalties were only given specifically to the nation of Israel and not to the other nations does not mean that those of the other nations were not capable of commiting sin. Those under the Law and those not under the Law are equally concluded to be under sin. God dealt with Israel through the Law and with the other nations through the conscience. quote: It's not going off point if your making such assertions about the Bible as a way of making it appear to be false and irrelevant. The Bible does not condone slavery anywhere. It does give advice on how to live under it, just as it gives advice on how to live under any adverse condition. That it gives advice on how to live under persectuion and tyranny does not mean that it endorses such things. That some misuse it doesn't invalidate what it does teach. And I believe that somewhere in Genesis the earth is described as "a sphere hung on nothing" by God. If there are verses elsewhere that may seem to describe it as flat, I would think it would be just a case of a descriptive view from earth-bound man's vantage point that is being expressed there. quote: But who would you defend when two opposing views conflict? Would you defend the mother who has been forbidden by a judge in Massachusetts to teach her daughter her own religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and even more than that, she must ensure that her daughter not only never hears that at home from her, but she must ensure that she never hears it at church either, or she will be in danger of losing custody, or would you side with the judge (and the woman's lesbian ex-lover), who in decreeing homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle, and attempting to protect the rights of the lesbian ex-lover (and who had never been granted parental legal rights by the legal mother, by the way) is in fact, in my opinion abridging someone's religious rights and freedom of expression? Things can tend to get very complicated, can't they? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There's more than a few issues hiding in your question, Jim. How do you intend to punish someone for killing themselves immediately springs to mind as one, and why should you be allowed at all to park on a street you don't own is another. But those issues, and the few score ramifications they raise, are probably fodder for another thread? Nonetheless, you're certainly right that my view of government is probably naïve. Though I prefer to think of it as simple? IMO, the only true mandate of government is protection and defense. Everything beyond that is just varying degrees of enforced socialism. Do we need to force people to cooperate? Probably, at least to some small degree, but we should recognize it is no longer cooperation at that point. It becomes coercion. Again, fodder for a different thread perhaps? Setting aside those tangents, however, and returning to Stephen's words, the minute you mention "sin" in the context of our legal system I think we are clearly entering a different arena. I believe legislating cooperation is a bad idea, but I also recognize it works. Legislating morality, on the hand, doesn't. You guys know me, and know I'm a man of faith, so please take this within that context. Christians, I believe, need to worship God and stop trying to play God. We have a right to protect ourselves, but when we begin advocating laws designed only to enforce our interpretation of Laws we are essentially usurping God's authority with our own. He can't get it right and needs our help? I just don't think that's the way He intended it to work. If two people getting married and taking responsibility for each other can be shown to hurt others, then it should certainly be a crime. Whether it is a sin or not isn't for the State to judge, but should remain instead in the hands of God. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which is a very apt description, Denise, of Rosa Parks. If two laws were passed that were in obvious and direct conflict with each other, you would have no choice but to break one of the laws. When two laws are passed that are in less obvious conflict, it is the role of our judicial system to resolve the conflict. Should Rosa Parks have been punished for breaking an unjust and illegal law? Not according to the law. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Yeah, we only "own" the streets (and sewer pipes too, for that matter) when it is time to pay for their repair!  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'll be back later on, Ron, I have my own 'conflict' going on right now to tend to. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
*sigh -- If I must; Let's take a look at the Traditional Value of Slavery in the Bible. All from New International Version quote: But now let's go back to Exodus to find out how hard we can beat our slaves: quote: Thus the immortal words of good ol' Jeff Davis; quote: If you say the number is only 3 percent -- it just goes to my point even more Denise... Thanks Good luck with your conflict(s) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
This one is another one of my favorite Traditional Family Values and marriage passages from the Bible; quote: BTW -- no, I've never said the Bible is irrelevant. To the contrary. What I've always said is that attempting to literalize it renders it that way. In this particular example what I'm saying is people were afraid of what new knowledge would do to 'society' and the church-- both in the instances of abolition and of Copernicus and Gallileo -- it meant their 'time tested' translations might have to be rethought. This is another one of those crossroads and the Christian philosophy is perfectly capable of surviving yet again. The fears are not justified. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, Ron, I don't think Rosa Parks should have been punished for breaking an unjust law. But that still doesn't mean that I think she should have broken it, and if I were in her shoes I may very well have done the same thing, but I think the unjust law could have and should have been challenged through legal means even though it would have taken longer. I guess I wonder sometimes, even with the good that has been accomplished through the use of civil disobedience, if an even greater outcome might have been achieved ultimately if the established procedures for redress of grievances were followed. I see a big difference in the Rosa Parks case and the case of the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples, though. Rosa Parks was a private citizen who was making a stand against the government. The ones who are breaking the law now are the government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the law, so, to me, I think that places an even greater responsiblity upon them to do things properly and in order. L.R., I don't agree with the conclusion that Jeff Davis came to, of course, but could see how he came to that conclusion given the mindset of the times. I think that God was just giving the people rules to regulate what they were doing already to ensure the most humane treatment possible under those conditions, not that He decreed it a good thing or was giving it His stamp of approval. And I think people forget sometimes that slavery was deeply entwined with the socio-economics of those times (just as it was here) and it wasn't something that people really recognized as the evil that we recognize it as today, and it also wasn't something that could have been done away with without a complete reorganizing of their culture and economic system, not something that could happen quickly or easily. And no big surprise here either, but I hold the exact opposite view about the Bible than you do. I think rendering it as non-literal makes it irrelevant. But we do agree that the Christian philosophy is perfectly capable of surviving and people don't need to fear change, even change that they see as undesireable. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: and ... quote: Ron ... In addition to the dangers of going too far in blending State and Church, there is indeed a danger in going too far in their separation. But tell me, how does your view constitute a Christian view of Government? How do you interpret the following passage? ... "... The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is not necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." (Romans 13:1-5) You admit "hurting others" as a rule of law. And yet you say that law has nothing to do with morality. But hurting or not hurting is based upon a moral principle ... never sheer pragmatism. Your description of what law "should" be based on, is your own personal philosophy of law. And I respect it. But history has not borne out your philosophy. Law has often been based upon moral principles. Nor do I think that law CAN be free of moral considerations. And one last question. If homosexuality IS sin, how can you, from a Christian point of view say it doesn't hurt anyone? At the very least, doesn't it bring people into the judgement / punishment of God? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But defying a statute is EXACTLY how the law is tested in our system, Denise. It's the old checks-and-balances stuff we learned in high school. The legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law (which presumes someone first has to break it), and only then does the judicial branch have its chance to either uphold or strike down the law. Haven't you wondered why all those officials breaking the law haven't been prosecuted, yet? Until the executive branch gets its turn, the judicial branch has to wait. One might presume those who break the law want the law to be tested and are confident they will be vindicated when it is overturned as unconstitutional. One might also presume, in the absence of prosecution, that maybe others are less sure of their legal standing. It takes all three branches of government for a law to truly be a law. quote: I don't believe that for a minute, Stephen. And I think the only ones who ever do believe it are the ones convinced they have the votes to insure "their" church is the one that dominates. quote: I don't believe that one, either. Butchering a chicken is not immoral. It still has a tendency to hurt the hen. Many believe that executing a serial killer is moral. Few would argue it doesn't hurt him. Morality, as history has unfortunately proven over and over, does not guarantee empathy. Nor, I believe, is it a necessary ingredient for empathy. We each know hurt when we see it, regardless of morality, because each of us is capable of feeling hurt. quote: And that's a bad thing how? Surely, Stephen, you're not suggesting that it's our job to protect people from God. Your crimes are between you and the State, and that's an equitable situation because not everyone in society commits crimes. There's a reason, after all, why convicted felons can't sit on juries or shouldn't hold offices of high power. Only the innocent can properly judge the guilty. Your sins, however, are between you and God. That, too, is equitable, because the rest of us are ALL convicted felons and have neither the right nor the wisdom to interfere. The bottom line is pretty simple, Stephen. If you truly want to discriminate against others because you believe they've sinned, you really have no choice but treat everyone exactly the same. In which case, of course, it's not discrimination any more. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But what then holds the Judicial in "Check"? Our system is woefully deficient to defend against judicial despotism if the Judges are only accountable to Judges. quote: Basically what you are describing here is "Secularization" which is, as Ravi Zacharias put it ... Where religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations, have no social significance or place in public policy. The only problem is that your position is not at all biblical. If God "judges" nations, then their laws must open to the same moral scrutiny that our lives are. quote: You beg the question Ron ... Then WHY is it immoral to hurt people and not chickens? Even that question is a moral one ... and one upon which the foundation of those type laws are based. And regarding execution ... when I'm talking about "hurting" I'm talking about undeserved, unjust, hurting of others, not punishment by the State for wrongs done. And that's evident regardless of what side of the Capital Punishment debate you're on. quote: True. But when I talk about law being based upon moral principles, I don't see that empathy is a necessary ingredient. Empathy comes from individuals, not systems of law. Empathy and compassion are absolutely necessary for a society too. But rules of law should be based on a mix of pragmatic and moral considerations ... and that has very little to do with emotion. quote: Despite your attempt to make it sound absurd by oversimplifying ... yes I am. Since biblically, the function of government authority is to reward and punish. And also to contain and limit the wickedness of the depraved and unregenerate. If those in authority are God's "ministers", then he does use civil authority to limit the sins of the people ... to "protect them from themselves". quote: I agree with those statements. Only they don't suggest that some sins shouldn't also be crimes. And remember Ron, I'm not pushing to make homosexuality illegal. But if it's wrong, it should not be elevated to a place of honor ... which, despite our failures, Marriage is in. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure ..." And lastly, your willingness to see marriage turned into something else is not biblical either. Biblically speaking, marriage is defined. And remember that the scriptures, when speaking of marriage do not speak of it as something given to God's people alone, but to all. The reason that societies have generally seen marriage as between male and female, is the guiding hand of God. Therefore, if some cultures arbitrarily redefine what God has built into nature and conscience, then there will be ill consequences for them, and not just on "Judgment day", but before. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I guess that's where we differ, our understanding of the system and what makes it work. The power of enforcement, as I see it, is designed to be a deterrent, not merely something that was set up to deal with infractions, as if breaking a law is necessary to the facilitating of the checks and balances between the three branches. Sure it works that way when a law is broken, out of necessity, but I don't see the breaking of a law as the proper channel for redress of grievances. And yes, I'm sure that the government officials breaking the law are doing so exactly for that reason, to force the issue into the Judicial Branch. But they are violating their oath of office and misusing their office and showing contempt for the will of the people who elected them in doing so and shouldn't retain their elected position, in my opinion. Stephen, the Constitution does provide a check on the Judicial Branch. They really don't have the final say on any matter as most of us have been led to believe. There is an Article in the Constitution (I can look it up later if I have the time to give the exact wording) that gives Congress the authority to limit the issues that can even be sent to the Judicial Branch for a hearing. Perhaps as misuse of the system by intentional lawbreakers and the judicial fiats that result increases in arrogant opposition to the will of the people, Congress will once again exert its lawful authority to ensure a check on the Judicial Branch. And of course there is always the possibility of using the impeachment process. Individual members of the Judiciary are also subject to that remedy as well. quote: I agree. And I think that is one of the reasons why we are seeing some of the problems that we have today in our society. I think that the reason God decrees certain things as the 'right' way, and decrees certain things as 'wrong' is not to be a killjoy and to ruin anyone's fun or pleasure, but because He knows what leads to real happiness and fulfillment and He knows what leads to healthy and prosperous relationships and societies. And whether people choose to follow after God's wisdom or choose to follow after their own wisdom, they, and the society in which they live, will reap what has been sown. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here it is: Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: On the contrary. Judges are appointed by the Executive branch and need to be confirmed by the Legislative, both of which, of course, have been elected by the people. Check-and-balances. It's a system that has worked remarkably well for a few hundred years now. quote: Yep. Because I have absolutely no faith at all in ideas, institutions, and interpretations. Do you? quote: I don't need morality, which is too often open to interpretation, to know what I don't want done to ME. If I don't want it done to me, it would be shortsighted and foolish to condone or sanction it for others; because as sure as the sun rises in the East, it WILL come back to bite me. Or worse, someone I love. Which is precisely why separation of Church and State is important. Without it, I know as sure as the sun rises in the East, that my children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren will one day be forced to bow to the wrong god. What goes around comes around is as inexorable as the laws of gravity. I don't insist my Hindu friend down the street should be free to worship as he wishes because I think he's right. I don't do it because it's moral. I do it because it's the only way to make sure my children's children are given the same freedom of choice. quote: And systems of law come from individuals, too. quote: Pragmatism too often leads to expediency and morality inevitably leads to discrimination. Laws need only be just and fair to everyone. Emotion? IMO, every law should be weighed against the very real FEAR that it will one day be used against you or someone you love. quote: Thus abrogating free will? (There's so much more to say, but that discussion would take us far astray from this one.) quote: Government's role should never be to "honor" people by granting them more rights than others. Privileges, sure, but not rights. In 1960, this country elected the first Catholic President, in spite of many predictions that our government would soon find itself ruled from the Vatican. Those old enough may remember it as one of the larger issues in the campaign. Turns out the fears were unjustified, but let's pretend for a moment they weren't. Let's pretend for a moment, as could very realistically happen, that the Pope determined the state of marriage in this country. Certainly, there would be no legal recognition of homosexual marriages. But there would also be no legal recognition of second or subsequent marriages, either. And don't for a minute think the Catholic Church can't quote chapter and verse to support their doctrine. If marriage is a reflection of our union with Christ, after all, there is a very compelling argument against divorce. It all comes down to interpretation. One could even argue, I think, that unlike a homosexual marriage, a divorce will always result in someone getting hurt. Usually the kids everyone so wants to protect. About fifty percent of our adult population would suddenly find themselves in the same situation as a homosexual couple. And, very frankly, I think it would be much easier to justify. Marriage is a commitment. People might be less inclined to make that commitment lightly if they knew they could only make it once. Break the promises you made to one person and you can live with another person, have sex and children with another person, even engage in civil contract with another person, but you will never ever be a family. Am I seriously suggesting everyone should be limited to only one chance at marriage and family? No. But I would hope everyone can recognize the parallels. The arguments against homosexual marriage are pretty much identical to the arguments against multiple marriages, with the only real difference being that you might agree with one and disagree with the other. Why should we recognize your interpretation of sin and fail to recognize the Pope's? If you insist the Vatican is wrong, why should anyone believe you are right? Is sin now something to be voted into being? Our hearts and stance with God should be subject to majority rule? If sin is to remain between an individual and God, as it must so remain if our relationship with the divine is a personal one, the only societal question is the same one that has been repeatedly asked and never adequately answered. When two people commit to care for each other for the rest of their natural lives together, who is harmed? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, you posted while I was still writing. Didn't mean to ignore you points, though. quote: On the contrary, Denise. If they chose to obey illegal laws, they would then be violating their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They recognized a conflict and were forced to make a choice. If Congress passed a law that any unwed mother HAD to have an abortion, would you encourage women to first follow the law and then try to get it changed? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephen -- you're sounding more like a Theonomic Reconstructionist than an Evangelical... I don't think you are one because I don't recall ever reading anything you said that sounded as though you reject antinomianism per se. But even Ralph Reed has denounced such views as being anti-democratic. Small point for Denise -- the officials you refer to as not respecting the electorate -- more probably DO respect the wishes of the people that elected THEM in their JURISDICTION... wouldn't you think? The Mayor of San Francisco is after all, the Mayor of San Francisco. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But Ron, it's only an "illegal" law that they are violating in their opinion. That doesn't necessarily make it so. And no I wouldn't encourage a woman to follow such a law as mandatory abortion because I consider abortion murder, and as I've stated before, that is the only acceptable time according to my conscience anyway, to break a law. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Probably, L.R., but the mayor of a city is still bound by the laws of the state and has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and its laws, the State Constitution and its laws and whatever local charters and laws of his jurisdiction. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: No, it doesn't. But they are elected and paid to have those opinions and act on them. That's what executives do. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But they aren't paid to break the law that they have sworn to uphold. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
which one? (If we're going to square dance don't we need a caller? Grab you're partner dosey doe... promenade) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, One problem I have with your complete dichotomy of government and morality ... is that you seem to imply that the moral standards of the Bible are taught in a Vacuum. One (not all) of the reasons homosex is sin, is that it does hurt individuals and societies. Sodom and Gommorah bears that out. Other civilizations have borne that out. If a male/ female relation is the normative standard layed out in the Bible regarding marriage, then how can you say that such an "abnormal" societal view will fare just as good? You keep asking how "commitment" can hurt anyone. That's not the question. Mothers are committed to sons, for life. Friends are committed to friends. But that's not what marriage requires. In a transcedent way, marriage being given by God himself to humanity, that's not what marriage IS. Let me ask you a couple of final questions: Does God play any role in marriage? Do you hold to the truth that God is "joining together", making the two becoming "one flesh"? If you say yes, then does God join homosexuals together in the same way? If you say no, then you are lining up with LR in saying that the Bible gives nice word pictures, but nothing substantive? ... that it makes for interesting literature, and anecdotal entertainment, but it's not really that reliable for founding life principles upon? Is that your stance? Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
False choice Stephen. He can line up with me in saying that things like kidnapping, rape, and slavery aren't reliable for founding life principles upon. Or do you want to try to justify them? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ahh, I missed that part, Denise. So, you agree it's okay to break the law. You only want to be able to pick and choose which ones according to your own conscience? It shouldn't really surprise you, I would think, that others will want to do the same. I don't mean to pick on you, Denise, but rather I would hope you can see that all of us, including yourself, are forced to draw lines and refuse to cross them. Did you follow the Alabama case where Chief Justice Moore installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse rotunda and then willfully disobeyed a Federal court order to remove it? He did what he felt was right, not what was expedient and easy, and he ultimately paid a high price for his personal convictions. Officials who marry homosexuals in defiance of statute will face consequences, too, if they are prosecuted and the laws upheld. That's simply the way our system works. I think Moore was dead wrong and the Mayor of SF was absolutely right, but I respect and admire BOTH for the courage to risk their own well-being for the sake of what they believe is right. The only people they ever put in jeopardy was themselves, and they did so for no real gain for themselves. Like you, Denise, they insisted on following their conscience. (Stephen, I was typing while you were. I'll be back in a bit to try to answer your questions.) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, my personal relationship with God is exactly that -- personal. What I believe the Bible is and can do will dictate the way I live my life. Those beliefs give me absolutely no right at all, however, to dictate how others will live theirs. If God wants people to have free will and make their own choices, I will (quite literally, I believe) be damned if I'll try to mandate for them what those choices should be. Our role should be to teach, mostly through example, and never to force. Coercion, either through law or social pressure, makes a mockery of Christianity and exposes our trust in God to be nothing but a lie. If you are going to advocate even a single law based solely on Christian teachings, Stephen, you might just as well go all the way. Do you really want to pass a law that everyone must read the Bible, pray for salvation, and go to church on Sunday? Can you honestly think that would ever bring anyone closer to God? Do you really believe that's what He wants? People have a God-given right to sin. If you could ever take that away from them, Stephen (and you can't), you would also be taking away their right to choose not to sin. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt. 7:3) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Gender/Sex does not make us true or false. A true or false will does. And that's what we shall be judged by. If we call it "marriage" or do not, that does not change the truth or falseness either. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-29-2004 12:33 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR ... about slavery and the Bible ... *sigh -- If I must; It's easy to "proof text" to make a point ... but what does slavery look like Biblically when all of the scripture is taken into account? I wanted to add a few considerations that you didn't mention. 1) There are different meanings and nuances of "Slavery" in it's social construct and praxis, and so it's important to consider what slavery actually consisted of in the ancient world, and in Israel in particular. 2) Just because Civil War, pro-slavery arguments were constructed from proof-texts from the Bible, that doesn't mean automatically that such arguments were valid or incorporated sound exegesis of the Bible. There are other views, (such as from the abolitionist Christians) that must be considered. You only quoted "half the story" and much less than half of the scriptures pertaining to this issue. 3) The whole history of the Jewish people was built on a generally negative view of Slavery ... in Egypt. The Prophets reiterated this again and again. 4) The regulations about slavery in the Bible were a) mostly concerning domestic slavery rather than national slavery (I've got an article below that illustrates in great detail the differences), and b) were quite mild in comparison with the systems of surrounding nations. 5) A smattering of Biblical passages which express a negative view of slavery issues ... Exodus 21:16 2 Chronicles 28:8-15 Jeremiah 22:13-17 Jeremiah 34:8-16 Amos 1:6-9 1 Timothy 1:9-10 James 5:4 Revelation 18:13 (Sorry ... I don't have the time to type these out. Those interested will have to look them up for themselves) 6) The ethics of the New Testament were presented more as a dynamic agent that would change the heart ... as the understanding of what it means to be "in the body of Christ" came into play. Ripping up entrenched social customs by the roots, was (understandably) not the chosen method. 7) Though slavery was quite a different thing in the American Civil War era, "Emancipation" advocates mostly based their views upon Christian principles. Though you (we) are getting way off the subject (imagine that!), I don't think you've treated the subject of slavery and the Bible comprehensively enough. And I don't think your conclusion is warranted. Anyway for any who are interested here are a few articles of interest. Does God condone slavery in the Bible- (Old Testament) ... http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Does God condone slavery in the Bible- (New Testament) ... http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html Slavery, Homosexuality, and the Bible: ... a response http://www.robgagnon.net/RespKrehbiel.htm More later, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, your personal Christian responsibility and the responsiblity of Government are two different things, yes. But you fail to admit that the Bible portrays the role of Government as an upholder of what is "right". You still haven't answered how you interpret Romans 13. Far from being a theonomist myself, I still recognize that such scriptures must have some measure of public application, or they are meaningless. What does Romans 13 mean to you? You constantly negate, but never offer a postive Christian view on such scriptures. I would still like to hear one. quote: Relax Ron, you're not a legislator. I never asked you to mandate anything. To uphold something in principle and support is a different matter. quote: I totally agree. Aren't you confusing the Church with those in Governmental power again? There is a very different role for both, in scripture. One is a legislator and enforcer of law ... the other is a prophetic advisor. The separation of Church and State was never supposed to be so total that the State can't hear and submit to the word of God, was it? quote: Agreed. You're blurring the distinction between Governent and the Church again. quote: ...a non sequitur. quote: No Ron, I don't. quote: Well, I don't trust much in what you or I "think" he wants ... especially when he has revealed much of what he does want. I really think, rather than trying to constantly prove me wrong here, you ought to consider a couple of ideas from scripture that may at least modify (not totally overthrow) what you believe on these issues. Because as always, I see truth coming from both sides. And believe it or not, I consider things you say and don't dump them without scouring them for truth. As someone has said before, this may be a case where you and I are "right in what we affirm and wrong in what we deny". think about these scriptures ... "The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ ..." (Galatians 3:24) and ... "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for udulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1 Timothy 1:8-11) Where's Jim? ... I know he could quote me some Luther on the functions of, and the differences and similarities between Moral and Civil law. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I almost missed this one... No I wasn't talking about their appointing, but their decisions which apparantly have no checks to prevent judicial tyranny ... when they arbitrarily redefine a law, or call it unconstitutional, or initiate a "precedent" that becomes the standard. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The separation of Church and State should insure that the State can't hear and submit to someone's interpretation of the word of God. The alternative to that seems to be Crusades and Inquisitions. My trust in God does not extend to you, Jerry Falwell, or Jesse Jackson. When it comes time to condemn others for nonharmful actions, I don't even trust myself. There's just too many unacknowledged planks obscuring our vision. The fact that we've strayed so far off-topic is probably significant. Stephen, if your interpretation of Scripture is the *only* argument you can raise against same-sex marriages, then I think you've pretty much answered LR's original question. No harm, no foul. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Ron, Go back and read. I have discussed reasons, though you don't accept them. The Biblical position provides an overview and a warning for us all. But there are naturalistic reasons too ... Scriptural truth was never given in a vacuum. Though you don't trust your interpretation of scripture ... I can't agree with you on that until I hear it. If you conclude that God is quite right, yet so ambiguous that our mortal minds can never "get it", then are you bordering some kind of deism or agnosticism? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Conversely, The State can't hear and submit to the word of God without someone's interpretation. The alternative to that seems to be atheistic "manifestos" and totalitarian rule. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
It's coming down to this for me. I don't think we've been critical enough of the presupposition of this whole thread. Firstly, I don't believe changing marriage to include same sex unions will be without harm. But why are we pretending that "well it doesn't apparantly hurt anyone" is a valid argument for such a major alteration? If I wanted to change and augment the National Space Program to include underwater / oceanic exploration, would it fly very far on the argument ... "it won't hurt anyone."? I just wanted to say that, though far from conceding that homosexual marriage being legally accepted will not harm anyone, I don't really accept the "lack of harm" argument as a valid reason to change something so drastically. What are the positive arguments for homosexual marriage? How will they benefit society? Remember you are talking to someone, (and there are many others) who don't think those of the same sex have any intrinsic right to get married to each other .. though they have the right to marriage as it stands just like anyone else. It just seems like pretense to say since something "won't hurt anybody" (though that is strongly debatable) it is therefore desirable as a social policy. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- Homosexual marriage will benefit the homosexuals that enter into them. I thought that was self-evident. Who did it benefit to let blacks sit at the front of the bus? Blacks. But on a broader scale... when any civil rights progress is made... it benefits us all by further incorporating that maxim "all [people] are created equal." It furthers us toward what America truly (IMO) should be about. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Thank you, Amy. Well said. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephen What do you mean by "intrinsic" right? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., I believe that the current understanding of the law should be honored until it is decided, if it is decided, through the legal process, that it means what those who are currently breaking it contend that it means. Ron, My conscience can only speak to my own personal actions, true, but I also believe that the only time it is acceptable for anyone to break the law is if it is to save a life because once you take a life you can't reverse that decision/action in court. All other issues can be handled through the process for redress of grievances. I think Judge Moore was wrong, just as I think that the Mayor of San Francisco was wrong. Ess, I think what Stephen means is that marriage isn't a "right" conferred on "couples". It is a right conferred on "individuals", and in that respect everyone has the same right to marry as everyone else, subject to the conditions of the marriage contract. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephen, Assuming a literal translation of the Bible is accurate -- then when the Pentateuch was written the ancient Israelites had no 'all of the scripture' to take into account. Did they? Slavery is slavery. Conservative Christians have been trying to spin it ever since the Quakers and Wesley started to develop a conscience on the subject. Up until that time the interpretation by both Christians and Jews was that slavery was 'Biblical'. Are we then supposed to believe that God thought it was OK to enslave millions of people over the course of thousands of years because he gave a more 'humane' prescription for it? C'mon. Get real. How much clearer can the issue of slavery be than a direct reference to how hard you can beat one? How much better is kidnapping and rape than just raping a woman right on the battlefield? I'm not going to lay out the entire scope from Genesis to Revelation because this isn't that battle. Ron summed it up quite well. You have no case on the thread subject. If you want to open up a thread on Higher Criticism, Midrash, or Lower Criticism -- go ahead. I may, or may not, participate. It depends on whether or not it is done with any purpose. That Conservative Christians have put a spin on slavery in the Bible, as well as a flat Earth, just goes to my point Stephen. They changed their interpretations and the Christian philosophy survived. What didn't survive was the wickedness of slavery or the myopia of the Church in the middle ages. And that's fine by me. Denise -- they are bound first to uphold the Constitution. It is the superior law they must uphold. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Constitution, L.R., or their interpretation of how it should apply to the laws on marriage? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It is, of course, their interpretation of the law, Denise. Frankly, if I have to trust between yours, mine, or theirs, it's not going to be a real tough choice. My law degree is a bit lacking, I'm afraid. How about yours? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Can't keep up with you guys ... Ron: quote: We do punish people for ATTEMPTED self-murder. In administrative law, decisions are often made on the basis of whether something is considered "just, reasonable, and in the public interest." I think these are far closer to being moral valuations (concerned with the "public good") than more precise legal standards (e.g., reasonable doubt, preponderence of evidence, etc.). If you are trying to hang your "gay marriage hat" on the assertion that morality is not something to be legislated, then I'd have to say you better find another place to hang your hat. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
On the contrary, Jim, my hat is very comfortable where it is. Punishing someone for having a medical condition is foolish and archaic. "Just, reasonable, and in the public interest" is not the same thing as morality. There is nothing just, for example, about discrimination. If you are going to define moral valuations as being concerned with the public good, then the question still stands. Who does a same-sex marriage harm? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Ironically, of the two of us, I would consider myself more of a human rights advocate than I would consider you. I've seen discrimination against the most vulnerable of citizens that, if left unchecked, would have had lifelong implications and I've invested considerable energy in doing something about it. I think the real test of whether discrimination is the bad kind of discrimination is accomplished by determining whether there is a substantive violation of life and/or liberty. Is denying a child access to free, appropriate, public education on no other basis besides a school psychologist's unilaterally determination that the child is "uneducable" discriminatory and harmful? Yes. Was slavery discriminatory and harmful to the African-American? Yes. That said, I fail to see how denying marriage to gay couples causes substantive harm to life and liberty ... certainly not in the same way as pre-1970s exclusion policies toward disabled children or slavery did. So who is really harmed by telling the homosexual, "Marriage, if for no other reason except the thousands of years precedent, is defined as is the union of man and woman"? Stephan is right, I think, in pointing out that marriage was an institution before the law recognized it as such. I believe it wasn't until late 18th century that American law even claimed the smallest jurisdiction over marriage. To argue now that it is the law that defines the institution is absurd. I don't really think there is any real harm to entitling homosexuals to similar legal benefits as are afforded to married couples, but I think calling it marriage is a mistake. Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Jim quote: Would it harm you if the government told you that you couldn't get married? My injection of the slavery issue was merely to point to watersheds of change in society. I don't think the situations are completely analagous either. But, there is a related matter that is. Were African-American opposite sex couples harmed when they weren't allowed to marry? And were mixed race couples harmed when they weren't allowed to marry? At an institutional level I don't think there is any question that the religious institution of marriage and the civil definition are two different things. I have stated repeatedly my opposition to anyone trying to redefine 'marriage' for a religious organization. That's a sacrament between them and their god and would obviously violate the establishment clause... Which brings us to your question of why the government is in the business at all -- and -- its the same reasons that show up in court during a divorce -- property, taxes, liabilities, responsibilities. For that, you are correct, it can be called Civil Union or something else and still confer those functions. I'm in favor of it. But, really, isn't it just doublespeak? The numbers that I'm seeing are around 60% against same-sex marriage, but 52% for Civil Unions. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LR has pretty much covered the bases, but … quote: Who is harmed by telling the black to sit at the back of the bus? More importantly, Jim, who is harmed by NOT telling the homosexual that marriage excludes them? quote: Of course it was. As was every other social relationship defined by law. That hardly means the definitions are unnecessary. Marriage as defined by the State and marriage as defined by the Church are already entirely different things. Ask any Catholic or Mormon. As LR said, no one is suggesting that religious definitions be altered. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nope, no law degree here either. But I'm sure you aren't contending that because they are lawyers that their interpretation is somehow more valid than ours? It seems to me that there are plenty of lawyers on both sides of the issue. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Perhaps that much is self evident ... but that we should alter marriage to mean homosexual unions is not therefore self-evident. It would also benefit me to draw unemployment. But alas, I have a job. It would benefit me to recieve an adoption tax credit ... but I haven't adopted (yet). It's not enough of a reason to change a social institution that has been defined for thousands of years, by saying it will benefit someone. Every change will apparantly benefit someone, or it wouldn't have any advocates. quote: Actually it benefited us all. We were denying them the same right that we all have. Homosexuals are demanding a right that no one has ever had, and that is to change what Marriage IS. Homosexuals already have the right to marry as marriage stands ... they have never been forbidden from the front of the bus, figuratively speaking. These issues are not the same. quote: Civil rights "progress", is assuming that there has been something wrong with marriage as stands. That begs the question ... Because the whole debate is, is it a progression or digression? Should children be able to vote? Aren't they "created equal"? There are kids out there smarter than you and I. My whole point is this "fuzzy" argument of homologous rights, cannot be forwarded by itself. It isn't even evident that homosexuals were born as such. Blacks were. To say "homosexual marriage" is a civil rights issue is to answer the question, not to argue for the answer. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
But, Stephen … … who does it hurt? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: No one is saying they are unnecessary ... We're just saying they aren't arbitrary. And Ron ... Why should "not hurting anybody", as vague as that statement is, be an argument for social change? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephen, I don't think anyone is suggesting the definition is or should be arbitrary. People just view the gender pre-requisite as a wrong, for it treats these two people as unfit to fullfill a sacred union, because they are not like those two people. It is not treating two people as two people, it is treating them as one sex or two sexes. I don't see the threat in a definitive change; I don't see a plunge into excess indifference, or a lack of flexibility in Nature's Need, or sense such inflexibility is in God's Wish. Love may really be blind, and sometimes it is blind to gender as well. Sometimes the right love is in the "wrong" sex: but why should the sex overweigh the love? Until I'm shown the virtue in that, personally, I know I shall remain unconvinced. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-01-2004 11:36 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's not, Stephen. But when someone advocates denying others the same rights they enjoy, simply because those others are different, it's about the only argument that might prevail. I don't feel it's necessary to look for reasons to treat everyone the same. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant ... You are the "naturalist" among us par excellence. I marvel that you talk about "perversion" quite a bit, and yet this particular instance of it escapes your notice. The "against nature" argument against homosex has always been one of the strongest, and one taken for granted by most societies up till now. Keys open Locks, for they were made to, by design. God's revelation, the Bible, also says homosexuality is wrong and perverse. quote: Sexuality is a part of our "natural" normative design. We can't deny it's distinctions and expect to prosper. You, as a traditionalist in many ways, are now advocating the radical alteration of a traditional institution that has recognized the cogency of male/female relations for centuries upon centuries. This is a radical precedent, that will not stop there. The redefining will be a perennial undefining, until the national view of marriage is anything but "sacred". And Essorant ... the very "perversions" you tend to see in society, in the areas of sexuality and materialism, and abuses of technology, etc... are usually defended on the same premise that homosexuality is. Ever noticed how your arguments get swatted with such statements as "Whose view of perversion ... says you."? You are seeing cultural relativism at work against your idealism. But I hope you can see that it is the same relativism by which homosexuality is defended as "sacred". Francis Schaeffer in the 1970's wrote: "There is a 'thinkable' and an 'unthinkable' in every era. One era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is acceptable. Yet another era decides that these 'certainties' are unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice. On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as the years move on ... The thinkables of the eighties and nineties will certainly include things which most people today find unthinkable and immoral, even unimaginable and too extreme to suggest. Yet- since they do not have some overriding principle that takes them beyond relativistic thinking- when these become thinkable and acceptable in the eighties and nineties, most people will not even remember that they were unthinkable in the seventies. They will slide into each new thinkable without a jolt" Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I do. Unless you also want to defend the voting rights of children. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perpetual motion is against nature, Stephen. Growing younger, rather than older, is against nature. And please don't forget, walking on water is against nature, too. If homosexuality was against nature it wouldn't exist in nature. quote: Sacred? Please tell me you're pulling my leg. quote: The unthinkable can only exist for those who refuse to think. The unacceptable, on the other hand, can be defined by anyone. But only for themselves. The rest of us are under no obligation to agree. quote: Your children should, I think, enjoy the same rights as my children. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not talking about "against nature" in that regard. I'm talking about something evident as "right" and proper in nature as opposed to perverse. Go back and study the idea of the Tao, and you'll get my gist. The contemporary western concept of "natural" referring to whatever exists, is not what I'm speaking of. quote: First of all, I was responding to what Essorant wrote about Marriage being sacred. I agree with him, as do most others (at least in theory). I don't accept your purely civil / state benefits view of marriage that has nothing to do with sexuality or love. If you think the concept of marriage being sacred is a laughable one, then you must find yourself laughing at the larger part of culture in History, and a large part of our own ... and even the Bible you claim to adhere to. You're in the minority here. quote: You're right. And Schaeffer's point was that moral relativistic culture usually doesn't. What is "unthinkable" is taken for granted as ... well, unthinkable. I agree with you that we should think about the possibilities of some things. But that surely doesn't imply we should accept them all. We should see the possibility of some things if only to prevent them. quote: Good. Most people are against Gay Marriage. And they are under no obligation to agree. Earlier, your argument was much more ambitious using the guise of "rights". And since when did lawmakers only make laws that applied to themselves? Sorry that's never been the way civil government works. quote: I don't know of any who are denied the right to get married, do you? Homosexuals already have the right to get married. Do they have the right to change what marriage IS, is the question. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos Why do you seem to exclude homosexuals from the same inclinations that heterosexuals have when they wish to get married? Are people divided from the most important parts of human nature and the highest sense of something as thoroughly part of life as marriage is, by gender? Does gender really go that deep? I just don't see what is so degrading about being a man and a man, or woman and a woman, instead of a man and woman. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Everything is right and proper in nature, Stephen. It isn't always personally convenient, though. quote: When I look at the way women have traditionally been treated as property, it's hard to think of marriage throughout history as anything sacred. When I look at spousal abuse and infidelity and divorce rates in our own age, it's almost impossible to see marriage today as anything sacred. When I look at ANY social institution as it exists apart and outside the church, sacred isn't a word I find applicable. I believe the Bible is the sacred word of God. That doesn't mean I think all books are sacred. Useful, yes. But sacred simply doesn't apply. Would you recognize a marriage performed in a church, by an ordained minister or priest, even if no one paid fifteen bucks for blood tests and a marriage license? Can they be husband and wife in the eyes of God, and yet not be legally wed and entitled to the same social benefits of marriage you enjoy? Answer no, Stephen, and you are saying marriage within the church is meaningless. Answer yes, and you are recognizing the very real difference between two very different institutions. Marriage within the church does not require the human blessing of a state congressman or judge. And marriage within the State is legal and binding even without the acknowledgement of the church. Though sharing a common name, they are not and cannot be the same thing. Marriage as a social institution existed several thousand years before Christianity, and probably several thousand years before Abraham married first Sarah and later Hagar. It exists today in hundreds of different forms (fifty of them just in the U.S.), and applies to any and every member of any and every society. Atheists can actually get married, Stephen. They can even have children. And when they name those children, it won't be a Baptism, but it will still be legal. And while that may not be acceptable to a Christian, Stephen, it beats the heck out of calling several billion people, "Hey, you." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Well, Ron, without the marriage license the church itself would not recognize a "marriage" under those circumstances, at least none of the churches I have ever attended. But I wouldn't say that makes marriage in the church meaningless. They're just kind of funny that way about honoring and upholding the applicable civil laws if you want them to perform your ceremony. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You think so, Denise? You feel marriage, then, is defined entirely by the state and only upheld by the church? Which would suggest, of course, that when same-sex marriage is upheld by the courts as the law of our land all the churches will continue "honoring and upholding the applicable civil laws." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well for the time being at least, (we'll have to wait to see how the courts trample all over this exercise of religious freedom), churches currently have 'refusal rights' when it comes to those for whom they will perform ceremonies, (i.e., the Catholic Church won't marry people who have been previously married and divorced (unless you're a Kennedy ), some Protestant churches also have that rule, along with premarital counseling requirements, etc., etc., and you usually have to be a member in good standing of the particular congregation). But they won't perform a ceremony at all if all of the 'legalities' haven't been attended to first. But no, people don't have a 'right' to be married in any church. You have to meet their conditions first and then you are more or less granted the 'privilege' of Holy Matrimony. Otherwise, they'll tell you to haul your butt down to City Hall or to the Justice of the Peace if you don't like or don't meet their requirements! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You miss the point, Denise. Unless, of course, you want to relegate the familial role of a priest to that of a boat captain or justice of the peace? The small overlap between religious marriage and civil marriage is just a convenience for those involved, but apparently serves to confuse two very different things for some people. The line wasn't always so easily blurred. How many couples, for whatever reasons, are married in a small civil ceremony and then feel compelled to later repeat the ceremonies in a church? I suspect the number isn't trivial, but let's narrow it to just one person. Would YOU be comfortable in a marriage recognized only by the State? Anyone, I think, who insists on both a marriage license and a minister is acknowledging a difference between the two. Else, legally on one side and morally on the other, just one would suffice. It's interesting, I think, that the line that is so blurred at the beginning of a marriage seems to become much less so at the end of a marriage. Anyone looked in the phone book lately for a divorce preacher? |
||
|
catalinamoon
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543The Shores of Alone |
Hi All, I don't come in this area often, but just want to put 5 cents in here. Why does anyone care if gays are married or not. Other than themselves, that is? I don't care if my straight neighbors or gay neighbors are married or single, if they are pleasant to me. It seems to me that committment is the same for everyone, and if that commitment is legalized, what's the big deal. I don't see too many straight marriages doing all that well these days. Let someone else give it a try. And also we should remember that social change is important, and should not be denied due to the over religiousizing(?) of marriage. There are plenty of civil only marriages. It does not have to have a thing to do with religion if 2 people wish to be in a long term committed relationship with the same rights as the rest of the country. And again, why do we who are not specifically involved, have a say as to what these couples may wish to do, assuming they don't want to put a hex on every straight marriage in the world. Just my thoughts. Sandra |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, I'd personally be comfortable with just the civil recognition as sufficient and acceptable in the sight of God and community as constituting a legitimate marriage. I see the religious ceremony more as an added layer that has spiritual significance for the religious more than I see it as something distinct and separate from the civil ceremony. Some churches do place more significance on the religious ceremony than others do, and some, like the Catholic Church, may even teach that you aren't really married "in the eyes of God" without the religious ceremony, but I think most would acknowledge that a civil marriage is still just as morally and legally binding on the couple even without the religious ceremony, but that a religious ceremony minus the fulfillment of the civil requirements of marriage wouldn't be a marriage at all and therefore not morally or legally binding. Divorce preachers...heh...I guess the closest thing we have to that is the "Annulment" Office at the Vatican. I think they are about as pricey as the divorce lawyers too! |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
ok so Jack and Diane get married and produce a little Jack and a little Diane and a little one called Point 5... If little Jack grows up and is 'taught' by example, ie influenced by surrounding homosexual marriages and then marries another little Jack, and little Diane grows up to marry another little Diane....from where shall more offspring come? will all the weight be on Point 5 to reproduce? and teach the little ones to do so as well, for if Jack and Jack and Diane and Diane are to reproduce it will be by a means outside of a normal 'marriage' relationship as defined by chuch and state. to answer your question, who does it hurt...it hurts the little ones, it forever changes the moral dynamics of the world for the next generation, and the next generation and the next and the next... IMHO that is.... great thread btw....enjoyed the read |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's a really big IF. What you are essentially suggesting is that if little Jack was raised by big Diane, because big Jack took a hike like fifty percent of fathers do, little Jack would be "taught by example" to be a woman. The Nature versus Nurture issue is a complex one, to be sure, but there's no evidence that sexuality is something we have to learn. When the hormones start surging, we seem to figure out what we want without much help. Figuring out what to do with it, of course, takes another thirty or forty years. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Not really justifiable by evidence JB.. according the the American Academy of Pediatrics: quote: Summary quote: Entire Technical Report http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/ 2/341?fulltext=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: "Not really justifiable by evidence JB.. according the the American Academy of Pediatrics" But there's much they apparantly didn't mention... quote: full article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3 Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, that article (which isn't exactly from an unbiased source) has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference. It certainly doesn't present any evidence suggesting that children exposed to homosexuality become homosexuals. People who experiment with sex aren't really the issue. The article merely shows that children raised in the absence of prejudice are less likely to be prejudiced. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (Men in general believe what they wish.) --Caesar There are plenty of biased studies in the world. One of these resources is an organization of nothing but professional pediatricians dedidcated to the health and well being of children in practice (not theory) every single day. The other is a religious organization with a theological view to perpetuate. The preponderance of weight -- goes to the AAP. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Far from justifying these things, I will say that excesses and abuses do not ruin ideals ... or else even what exists inside the church cannot be thought sacred. You may not find it applicable to your opinion, but the bulk of humanity has / does disagree with you about whether marriage is a sacred institution. quote: I do answer yes. But I disagree with your conclusion that "Yes" means these are two totally different institutions. Though they can potentially be severed from each other. You think Jesus erred when he referred to them as one and the same? The influence of the Church by consensus was meant to be a guiding and tempering force for the state ... as it actually was when the constitution was framed. By God's grace the state has had a hand in marriage too. That doesn't mean that marriage in the Christian sense will perish if the State rejects it, it just means that the State's arbitrary definitions of marriage will render marriage meaningless in any secular sense. If the state rejects God's views on marriage, it will unwittingly reject marriage. Then society as a whole will lose a great blessing ... As marriage was given to humanity, not the Church alone. quote: The church's idea of marriage should line up with what is offered in scripture, and has been validated by thousands of years of testimony of nearly every civilized culture... Male and Female. Since God has given marriage to all, no one is suggesting the absurd notion that atheists shouldn't be able to marry, or have names. You can't make one position appear absurd by comparing it to something quite different and obviously wrong, and may I add unscriptural. I never said homosexuals don't have human rights. I said marriage should not be redefined to suit their sexual deviance. Homosexuals are not currently forbidden to marry. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-09-2004 12:28 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Yeah. The only thing is that the studies they quoted and cited weren't done by them, or even by religious organizations. And do you think organizations without "religious" views cannot have alternate views, social agendas, or ideologies to perpetuate. That's a bit naive, or biased, I think. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Or perhaps so to not consider that an organization of the scope of the AAP does not have the results of those works within their body of knowledge. They make their conclusions and take their positions based on the practice of medicine. They do have an agenda. The care of children. And Tacitly -- their own reputations. In an age when Doctors are getting sued left and right wouldn't an orgainization like the AAP be VERY careful before issuing such a position? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-09-2004 12:06 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: quote: That sounds like evidence for increased homosexual orientation among male adults raised by male homosexuals. quote: and that sounds like evidence for increased homosexual orientation among female adults raised by female homosexuals. Unless these are patently false findings, how can you say they present no evidence? Either you are claiming these are false, or you didn't read them. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But assumed knowledge means little when it comes to research. Why should we assume so, based on your confidence? I have already read several accounts (from the mouths of researchers themselves not religious organizations) that the data and sampling is quite limited and inconclusive. So until I see reason why to respect one finding over and above another, I'll have to judge them as equally valid ... or equally invalid. While your appeal to authority is heartwarming, it really is not an argument based upon evidence. It goes as such ... such a fine and reputable organization MUST have it right. Until it is shown why other findings should be discredited and your favored ones not, then it's still in question. It definitely won't have the mouth stopping force you'd like it to. That's all I'm saying. I'd like to consider all research. But again from what I've read from both sides, the research has been greatly limited thus far. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No more time for research tonite Stephan but here are furhter words from Dr. Golombok; quote: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7351/1407 |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: All of this from Dr. Golombok. Then is it conceded that there is more homosexuality, but that homosexuality is not considered an indicator of a problem in "key aspects" of psychological development? I'm interested in how these two statements are synthesized. They sound somewhat contradictory. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No, it's not conceded. Golombok studied 25 children. An extremely small sample. The AAP study cited is a 300 sample... Still small which is why they posited some caution -- but stand on the larger body of evidence. Which is what Golombok is ceding to. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, the bulk of humanity, at least in this country, just says marriage is sacred. Until it becomes inconvenient. Then they get divorced. quote: Right. You're essentially saying you're willing to grant people the rights they deserve as long as they agree to only want the same things you want. If they want something different, they can't have it. FWIW, I agree with what you said, if not what you meant. Gays, indeed, are not forbidden to marry and in fact are guaranteed the same rights as others. Without the arbitrary restrictions you would impose. quote: No, that sounds like a twisting of the facts. Nine percent and 12 percent are not "several times higher" or "at least four times" the standard distribution levels usually estimated at ten percent. About the same as left-handedness. Unfortunately, unlike being left-handed, the estimates remain estimates because homophobes and bigots make it difficult to get accurate statistics. Coming out of the closet can be a little iffy when you know there's a guy standing on the other side of the door with a baseball bat. Still, let's pretend for a moment that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not a genetically predisposed one, and that children in a homosexual home are more inclined to follow the course they see their gay parents following. So what? Are you going to not teach your children to be Christians? Are you suggesting that society should decide the morality we teach our kids rather than the parents? Even if we agreed to accept the results of your article, Stephen, your argument presumes we also agree that homosexuality is "a bad thing" we all want to avoid. It is that specific underlying and unspoken presumption, Stephen, that most needs to be examined because it is the hidden foundation upon which prejudice is always built. I grew up in the Fifties and Sixties, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were standing on opposite ends of the same blurred line, and I can unequivocally say from experience that the worst bigots were always the ones completely unwilling to even question their own hate or distaste. The superiority of one race over another was simply accepted as self-evident. It was a presumption of truth, not greatly different than the one you are making. Homosexuality, in and of itself, hurts no one. It is part of the diversity of nature, made part of our universe at the time of creation, and isn't something to be avoided or denigrated or penalized. I cannot, however, say the same things about discrimination. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thanks for the clarification. It still seems that from looking at ALL of the research on adult children of homosexuals, there is higher incidence of homosexual experimentation and orientation, though the orientation itself is only slightly higher. Still the main consensus is that from the samples, most of them were heterosexually oriented. But there are methodological difficulties which render all of this research inconclusive so far, and "embryonic". Hopefully more research will be done based upon all of this preliminary work. But research for either "side" does not yet provide any magic bullet. quote: Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Agreed. I'm not justifying the fickleness of American culture today. It's that same fickleness that makes many reject the traditional view of marriage. But when I said "Bulk of humanity" I'm referring to former generations as well, not just contemporary America. It's what G.K. Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead", not "the small and arrogant oligarchy of the living". quote: I'm essentially saying that no one should have the right to arbitrarily change the definition of marriage based upon sexual deviance. quote: Wrong. Gay marriages ARE forbidden in many states. A majority of Americans ARE against changing the definition of marriage. And the charge of exclusive heterosexual marriage being "unconstitutional" amounts to the fact it's framers never dreamed something so obvious would have to be protected by law. And these restrictions are anything but arbitrary if history is taken into account rather than arrogantly ignored ... oh yeah and if the majority of America is asked rather than a core group of ultra-liberal judges. quote: Actually I've heard that the number is closer to 3%. But an increase (however much) is what the gist of the article was about. There is a hatred and anger among anti-homosexual persons that is not justified. I am a passivist however. And there are many like me who are against the behavior and against the alteration of what marriage is, but in no way desire to hate people or deny them human rights. quote: We don't have to pretend. The genetic link is just as dubious as the behavioral one. quote: I don't think it has to be "either or". Ideally it would be "both and". Parents are also part of that society, and should be concerned about what it upholds and honors ... for their children's sake. quote: It's not always "unspoken". I believe, as do many others, that homosexuality is wrong and harmful. quote: I have no hatred for homosexuals. I have no hatred for adulterers or child molesters either. That doesn't mean I have to approve. Comparing this to racism conveniently ignores the differences. The conservative Christians had no scriptural ground to consider one race "superior" to another. The scriptures plainly refuted that view of things. It's funny though that the "sacred" book you mentioned earlier ... (unlike any other book I believe you said), is from Old Testament to New Testament emphatically against homosexuality. So was Paul a discriminatory bigot, or was he inspired of God when he wrote Romans 1 and other scriptures which call homosexuality perverse and sinful? You discredit your own teachers Ron, who gave you the gospel of your salvation. How do you continually do that, and yet preserve what you want out of the sacred writings beyond your own doubt? Stephen. |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
thank you all for the debating of my thoughts, it is very enlightening, and no Reb, your quotes do nothing to change my mind, for them to mean anything to me, I would have to know the morals and outlook of the ones doing the study, for many times the 'conclusions' are only what the study looked to prove, not what was actually out there. Were the people in the study honest, many times people are not honest about their sexuality when in a clinical setting....no...no quote from any study is going to make me think that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is going to be good for our society, or for the society we leave for our children to grow up in. We are going to die soon enough...do you feel safe with the decisions you are making about this world you are leaving for your little ones? I feel that we have to look out for the world that *we* are leaving for the little ones...*I* do not want a world that 'teaches' in schools, by law, and by example that it is ok to break God's law and teach children that it is ok to do so as well...... The words "GOD'S JUDGEMENT" is a critical issue in this debate, some it seems are on one side, and some on the other...and *I* suspect we won't know the end of this debate until then...and then...I hope I am on the right side *shrugs and smiles* |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It sounds like you are finally admitting, Stephen, that your only argument against gay marriage has to be a moral one? Unless you are ready to impose your own beliefs upon all the Catholics and Jews and Hindus and Muslims and agnostics and atheists, scriptural grounds can have no authority in civil law. If we're to go the route of imposing our beliefs, however, I would frankly be much more comfortable imposing mine. I believe sin is between the sinner and God, not between the sinner and a whole lot of other sinners. People with planks firmly embedded in their eyes have this nasty tendency of burning others at the stake, sometimes figuratively, sometimes quite literally. I believe the Word of God is personal instruction on how to live MY life, not a license to force my never-perfect interpretation of those instructions onto others. I believe God created free will and the diversity it engenders for a reason, one I don't have to understand to appreciate. I believe, when the Spirit of God's Word contradicts my interpretation of scripture, my interpretation must be at fault. Was Paul a discriminatory bigot? Are those who read Paul's words with a hateful heart, interpreting the words to mean only what they want them to mean, truly accepting the will of God? Stephen, until one man tries to harm another, those aren't questions I'm willing to even explore. I will judge the actions of men, because I must, but their hearts lay outside my jurisdiction. The bottom line, Stephen, is that I believe God is fully capable of judging sin without any help from you and me. We have no right to interfere in another's life so long as that life doesn't interfere with ours. No harm, no foul. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The modern and english word "homosexuality" is in the bible? I don't believe that to be true. From my studies, what we, today, know to be homosexuality is a loose translation of the original Hebrew and Greek, just as I have seen "Easter" to be translated from the Greek word "pascha" - which of course meant, passover. Not only that, say for argument that what we know to be homosexuality is in fact identical to the original biblical terms... does not the bible lump together homosexuals with other sexual "deviations" like fornicators? If the answer is a yes, then how can one justify two fornicators of the opposite sex marrying, but not two homosexuals? "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If homosexuality is wrong, I will hear God himself say it presently and unconfusedly, or it is a lie and a falsness saying it is sin against Him. Until our own God does tell us do otherwise, as long as we live in democracies I believe, the choice should be most democractic--and that should not force us to live up to sexuality or being sexual at all, when two being one together in a sacred relationship does not for sure need to be sexually based at all. You don't have to be sexual to love, so you should not have to be sexual to marry. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2004 02:19 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
jellybeans said; quote: So then if researchers don't share your bias and reject any findings that disagree with your moral views they are biased and dishonest. Why do research at all then? Why not just tell doctors to just read the Bible? quote: I do not feel safe with the decisions that many people are making for this country. I feel perfectly satisfied that leaving my children a free, democratic society is the right choice. Teaching them to abhor bigotry and the violation of human rights is paramount to their own well being. quote: I don't feel 'safe' with ideas like that one. Which one of God's laws is it you don't want them to break? And according to whose interpretation? Eastern Orhodox? Roman Catholic? Anglican/Episcopal? one of the thousand or so Protestant interpretations? Buddhist? Taoist? Shinto? Islam? Mithrian? Ahura Mazda? Christian Identity? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephen quote: Perhaps research will be done to determine the psychological adjustment of children who grow up in conservative Christian homes. Until it is done -- should we suspend their rights to be parents? Of course that idea is preposterous. The AAP based its' decision on the body of the research. You should be glad that they concluded that children fare better with two parents. The only sticky part for you Stephen, is that they aren't particularly biased as to whether it's a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple -- provided it is a good relationship. Since the nature of the data collected in such a study is not variable (that is not having a numeric measurement of a dimension) but are attribute (it is this and not that, pass, fail, good, bad, gay, straight.. etc.) further study of larger sample sizes is only going to improve the prediction of normal probability -- it will not yield any further information such as an X-Bar, Range, Sigma (standard deviation) -- or any of the other variables that we could use to gather further insights into the specifics of a single individual sample. In other words -- further study won't give us much more than we already know. Do we need a study to tell us that children need parents who love them? Look at the number of children who are in foster care. I suppose they must have come from heterosexual unions. But I suspect if the study population was 200 million children that still wouldn't be enough to persuade you if the result didn't agree with your bias. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: In one breath this, in another -- they will bring the downfall of society and civilization. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Learn the runes of being a knight Learn the runes of being a nurse Learn the runes of how to write Your lover the loveliest verse. And then you shall be worthy of Marriage and may you know it well They are the runes and rites of love That kindle its happiest spell. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Misconception #1: Using a moral argument against something means that you have no other arguments against it. And even if you claim to, and share them, they are really nothing more than the moral argument in disguise. quote: Misconception #2: God's word, morals, and principles are for private application only. They have no place in the public square, and are a dead letter when it comes to being any foundation for law. quote: Misconception #3: Agreeing with a clear demarcation, or moral imperative in Scripture really means that you have hate in your heart. Therefore the delicate balance of "hating the sin, and loving the sinner" as exemplified in the life of Christ is an ideal that is not really attainable. So the best thing to do is chant "We are the World", and live and let live. quote: Misconception #4: A moral principle absolutely cannot be the foundation for any law. I will stand by this unflinchingly, all the while ignoring or denying the fact that "Do no harm to your neighbor " is just as much of a moral principle as any other. Misconception #5: To support ANY law based upon morality, necessitates that you must, in principle, support ALL morality being legislated, even down to minutia such as picking your nose in public. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Since you're a citizen of the USA, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that you don't espouse Marxist / Communist ideology, and think it would bad, perhaps very bad, for our society. And yet I'd be a fool to call you a "Communist hater" for that. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant ... I liked that. That actually impressed me, since I am a nurse. It's like you wrote it to me, whether you knew it or not. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thank you, It was for you most of all |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
My father wrote with his right hand. I didn't understand why he had a right-hand catcher's mitt. He was left-handed it turns out. Why did he write with his right hand? He did it because the teachers used to whack his left hand with a stick if he picked up a pencil with it. They forced him to be right-handed. He explained it all to me. Back then people thought it was abnormal to be left-handed. A genetic defect. A mistake of nature. Or maybe just plain evil. At any rate -- they weren't going to teach any left-handers how to write at his school. It's hard to fathom now. But that was the prevailing world-view on hand orientation back then. It's safe to say my father didn't feel particularly loved. Unless he performed according to the conditions required to receive love -- and education. That was a brutal, evil, ignorant cultural phenomenon. If I say I think Communism is a bad idea that's one thing. If I say it is going to be the downfall of the human race -- a Communist might get the idea that I hate him. Or, at the very least -- he needs to fear me. Because -- he will think, no doubt, that I consider myself and my children to be a part of the human race -- and it will follow that he will think that I think he is a threat to me. He may think to himself -- "this is just about having one type of economic system or another -- but that guy over there thinks this is Armageddon. He probably hates me." A bout of human rights violations and oppression during the McCarthy era probably factor into his fear as well. If he is the child of actors who were thrown out of work and forced into soup lines for having an opinion he might think that I hate him if I say things like that. You say things like this; quote: and then like this; quote: and yet this; quote: Personally I believe you if you say you don't hate homosexuals. But, my children have a hard time understanding that I don't hate them when they are being punished. The difference is -- you have no jurisdiction over homosexuals. In all of this there seems an attempt to wrap Christianity, the Bible, and Stephen's opinions all into one neat little package so that if anyone disagrees with you -- they are disagreeing with God and the Bible. That's a pretty convenient strategy. The only problem with that scenario is that there are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you... so you can't speak for them. It's pretty dangerous to speak for the Bible too -- especially when you have a history of saying things like this and being wrong: quote: Slavery and racism are very clearly covered (and clearly condoned in the Book of the Law) from Genesis to Revelation Stephen. It just depends on whose interpretation you want to apply. You want to apply the more benevolent side of the Bible (at least on the slavery issue)-- which is laudable -- but the thousands of different denominations that are out there in the Christian faith really only share a common book and a name. If one wanted to put together a 'Christian' religion based on slavery, bigotry, violence, rape, misogyny -- it could be (and has been) done. The Bible even is responsible for prejudice against those born with physical deformities or those who become maimed or disfigured. Fortunately this was one area where Jesus was particularly pointed about taking on the establishment as he conducted a healing ministry -- that wasn't about performing magic tricks to prove that he was God -- it was about sticking it to the Sanhedrin (and that's the Jesus I like). What's more -- you continue to embrace -- as is your right -- a view of homosexuality that is all but rejected by medicine and science. Even though I don't think you hate homosexuals -- what you seem to be unaware of is how the rhetoric you espouse has caused even greater pain and violence to those in the homosexual community than what was caused to my father for being left-handed. And I'm not trying to make left-handed commentary here. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Misconception #1: Using a moral argument against something means that you have no other arguments against it. And even if you claim to, and share them, they are really nothing more than the moral argument in disguise. No one ever claimed you couldn't add a logical argument to your moral one, Stephen. The claim, rather, is that you haven't done so yet. All you have to do is tell us who will be hurt. Misconception #2: God's word, morals, and principles are for private application only. They have no place in the public square, and are a dead letter when it comes to being any foundation for law. That's not a misconception at all, but a fact. Unless of course, you think God needs your help writing the Ten Commandments? Misconception #3: Agreeing with a clear demarcation, or moral imperative in Scripture really means that you have hate in your heart. Therefore the delicate balance of "hating the sin, and loving the sinner" as exemplified in the life of Christ is an ideal that is not really attainable. So the best thing to do is chant "We are the World", and live and let live. There are no clear demarcations or moral imperatives in Scripture. There are only interpretations, some less cloudy than others, but none fully understood. And live and let live ain't such a bad way to live. Misconception #4: A moral principle absolutely cannot be the foundation for any law. I will stand by this unflinchingly, all the while ignoring or denying the fact that "Do no harm to your neighbor " is just as much of a moral principle as any other. The only misconception in your statement is that harm can only be recognized and condemned within a moral framework. Had you never seen the Bible before, you would still have a black eye and fat lip if your neighbor chose to punch out your lights. Misconception #5: To support ANY law based upon morality, necessitates that you must, in principle, support ALL morality being legislated, even down to minutia such as picking your nose in public. No one ever said that. However, to support even a single law based SOLELY on morality is a usurpation of God's authority and Man's choice. And that's much worse than picking your nose, I should think. Misconception #6: Wrapping rhetoric in a list and giving it a name means you no longer have to offer any support or reasons. Authority can simply be assumed. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ok... I've been reading these posts about marriage and gay marriage and sin and blah blah blah for days, and quite frankly it's giving me a beating my head against the wall headache. Bur I do have one point to make: 'Since you're a citizen of the USA, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that you don't espouse Marxist / Communist ideology, and think it would bad, perhaps very bad, for our society. And yet I'd be a fool to call you a "Communist hater" for that.' Stephen, I would agree that I don't think communism is a good thing. BUT: If others believe it is, I have no right to step in and say "Hold on.... you can't be a communist" or, more appropriately "You can't marry another communist and make little communist offspring!" I could only hope to step in with supporting legislation against them when their views started affecting me... like, let's say I didn't like a 20% tax hike. That's something I could justifiably want and try to change. But I'm not sure how this is a valid comparison, since the last I knew, gays and lesbians weren't trying to overthrow the economic system. They're just trying to marry each other. Reb.... yeah, my dad, too. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: That's not what I'm saying about homosexuality either. But, I would bet that you support public legislation which does not allow communism to flourish within this democratic nation. And yet I'd never call you a commu-phobe, or a communist-hater. My point to LR was, it would be just as valid to call someone a "communist-hater" for being against public establishment of communism, as it would be to call someone a "homo-hater" for being against redefining marriage to suit the homosexual agenda. Hatred and being against an arbitrary change in public policy are not one and the same. It's a logical fallacy to say so ... not to mention slanderous. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: There's only one problem with this comparison ... it's not "back then" yet. The research does not presently indicate that homosexuality is anything really like being left-handed. You can't presume a cogent pro "world-view" about homosexuality based upon correct knowledge (including the social sciences, genetics, and ethics) if it isn't really here yet. You may anticipate it (accurately or mistakenly), but the knowledge heretofore hasn't produced it. quote: In a post cold war era, we too easily forget the militant expansionism that Communism employed. It's way off the mark to say that we fought it, or even should have fought it, as merely a "bad idea"... despite the abuses of "McCarthyism". And by the way, I never said that Homosexuality alone would be the downfall of the human race. Sin at it's very root is the downfall ... which is an insistence upon absolute human autonomy apart from God, and manifests itself in many many "sins". But anything which contributes to the spoiling and fragmentation of culture, or the widespread acceptance and honor of sinful and harmful lifestyles, is by nature a part of the downfall. quote: Sounds deceptive doesn't it? Until you try to defend homosexual behavior, or how it is a positive contribution for public policy, by using the Bible. I'm not trying to smuggle anything by unexamined. If you want an "apologetic" from scripture that shows homosexuality is wrong, I am fully prepared to give it. If you want to present an apologetic that would defend homosexuality by using the Bible, I am fully prepared to refute it. It doesn't hold water. Probably the only headway you'll make here is to continue to say that the Bible is hopelessly ambiguous, using proof texts rather than taking a panoramic view of what the Bible says about a subject. And you'll probably convince many ... at least many of those who do not read the Bible. You're not the first to use this method. Obscurantism makes progress by creating a mood and effect of fog and doubt, so that people don't generally feel like looking for themselves. As effective as it can sometimes be, that still doesn't make it valid argumentation. quote: I'm not. quote: Firstly, I don't think I am wrong concerning the total view of slavery in the Bible. Your proof texting surely doesn't prove my view wrong. Though we can't debate that issue here on this thread, as extensive as it is. If you're going to keep bringing it up, you better start a thread. I'd be delighted to respond and search the matter out in public format. Secondly, I'll admit that the moral focus of the Bible concerning slavery is more upon the things which typically accompany slavery ... cruelty, physical abuse, pride, etc... Choosing to address a culturally pervasive practice, not with external prohibition but with establishment of moral principles. So in that regard the Bible is not as strong upon slavery as it is homosex. But you're not taking the whole of biblical teaching into account, when you say that the Bible "supports" slavery. You can say it's supported from Genesis to Revelation as much as you like, but you only seem to be willing to tell the parts you want to tell. Thirdly, slavery is another issue altogether. There is no ambiguity about homosexuality in the Bible. EVERY reference to it is in the negative. It can be discussed as to why the Bible takes one approach to slavery, versus another to homosexuality. It can be asked is there any justification in the difference. Those are good questions to discuss, especially in a separate thread on slavery. But it is not valid to imply that the Biblical stance on homosexuality is the same as that of slavery. Homosexuality is emphatically spoken of as inherently sinful ... like adultery, fornication, stealing, or murder. quote: By saying "clearly condoned" you are implying that one interpretation is better than another. I agree with that implication. But why do you turn around and shoot your own foot by saying "it just depends on whose interpretation you want to apply". Obviously, you think your interpretation is "clearly" superior to, let's say mine. Therefore obscurantism does you no good. I am prepared to debate, using biblical texts and reasoning, and show that racism is not condoned by the Bible, and that slavery, though permitted, was not upheld as meritorious. You should be prepared to argue the antithesis with confidence, not alongside reiterating the ambiguity of the Bible. Can't have your interpretive cake and eat it too. quote: No. It is all but rejected by relativistic ultra-liberal culture .... and some physicians and scientists happen espouse that ideology and try to wed inconclusive data to their views. But their view is not proven by the data that medicine and science currently provide. quote: Any point of truth, as well as error, can be acted upon in a wrong and immoral way. I am not unaware of such dangers ... I just don't conclude that we should therefore obscure truth just because it can be misapplied. And by the way I naturally (since we disagree) think your view is a bit "rhetorical" too, rather than based in truth. I'd rather keep debating the merits / weaknesses of our positions than continually restating the obvious fact that we disagree, cloaked in terms like "rhetoric". Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: He has. Old Testament: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22) New Testament: "... God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, Go gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:24-27) Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's not entirely relevant to this thread, since interpretations of the Bible hold no authority in civil law, but I honestly think your analysis of Romans is flawed, Stephen. The emphasis should be on "Because of THIS, God gave them over to shameful lusts." By concentrating on details and examples, you are obscuring the real point of the passage. It would not be at all difficult to argue that the sin is lust, not homosexuality, especially when the following verses you didn't cite include all of the other seven deadly sins and examples that at times demonstrate those sins. Or do your really think that all debaters and inventors risk their immortal soul? I don't believe these passages were ever intended to be a definitive list of sin, but rather were a warning against "exchanging the truth of God for a lie." There's a couple of stone tablets that long ago explained what sin is. Romans doesn't detail what sin is, but rather WHY sin is. As to your request for an apologetic defending homosexuality, I thought I already provided that? quote: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt. 7:3) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The Word of the bible is not God's own voice in itself to confirm it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-13-2004 08:23 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Come on, Ron. You're not suggesting that Paul of Tarsus condoned homosexual behavior are you? I think there are some compelling legal reasons for government recognition of homosexual unions (not that I necessarily agree with those reasons, but they are compelling), but that doesn't mean we ought to go back and attempt to rework what has previously been written to bring those writings in line with modern, liberal thought. I think you are partially correct in noting Paul's intent in his letter to the Romans was to explain why sin is, but more importantly, he was building the case for why those who never received the Ten Commandments are still subject to the Law of God and, therefore, subject to the penalty for breaching it. The sins he cited are best interpreted as exemplary of such breaches of God's law - in fact AND attitude. You have to remember that, at the time Paul wrote his letter, homosexual behavior was widely accepted in the Roman world, and would have been practiced without shame in the community surrounding the Roman Christians and god-fearers. Paul would have used it as an example of depravity because of how common a practice it had become. What I think you as the reader of Paul's letter needs to decide is not how to make Paul agree with Ron, but WHETHER Ron agrees with Paul. It is true that the courts have decided that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and legislatures may grant homosexual unions equal or similar recognition as heterosexual marriages, and if that is what the government ultimately decides, fine. But to try to find justification for the behavior in the Biblical text so as to suggest Paul or Moses didn't regard the behavior as sin is just poor exegesis. And to cite the "speck and plank" passage to try to hobble anyone saying the behavior is sin is equally unbiblical, or else Paul himself could never have authored Romans 1. J/M/O. Jim |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
*great big grin* oh my gosh how you guys can argue...I feel sorry for your wives...whatever sex they might be.......*shakes her head* jellybeans gives Argue Awards to the PIP champions *smile* **yes, since you are now asking yourselves how I rate to give out Argue Awards, I am a accredited Argue Award giver...by right of 31 years of arguable marriage** I am not a debater by nature, but love the eye opening words posted here, thank you all now jb then goes back to read more, I am still cheering for the right side *grin* Stephanos' reasoning is close to mine, but his vocabulary and logic far surpasses mine, so will most likely just quiet my fingers and cheer him on however LR, will paste your reply and see what comes to mind....am glad I stopped by to see what's up |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
ok gotta throw in another penny or two...I ain't got many cents, so I am fairly frugal with my thoughts...but there are so many twists and turns to this issue, that I feel shining some light can't hurt Glenn T. Stanton is Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family quote: and in another article… quote: w w w.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The question isn't whether they regarded it as a sin, Jim, but rather why they regarded it a sin. Remember, the same exact behavior between a man and a woman is regarded a sin outside the confines of marriage. As I've said elsewhere, when an interpretation of scripture conflicts with the Spirit of Christianity, I'm going to assume the interpretation is flawed. If that is poor exegesis, so be it. quote: I disagree. There is a great deal of difference between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner. Even if one is convinced that homosexuality is a sin, that view does not warrant man's punishment of the sinner. Or do you think Jesus was condoning adultery when He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? We can and must judge sin, but only within the context of our own behavior. We don't have the authority to judge the sinner. Nor, history would suggest, do we have the wisdom. quote: Tradition was also against letting blacks sit at the front of the bus. Fortunately, mankind has the ability to learn from its mistakes. Even mistakes that have a long history. quote: Isn't it funny how that sounds an awful lot like a description of divorce? |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
and divorce is proven very destructive to children's emotional well being...seems you just made my point |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, do you want to disallow divorce or allow same-sex marriage? By your logic, they should either both be legal or both be illegal. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- 'But, I would bet that you support public legislation which does not allow communism to flourish within this democratic nation.' That's a tough call. The relativist in me says "no, not necessarily" because I believe there is inherent value in almost all ideology... and I believe communism has a "greater good" at heart, even if its implementation leads to nothing but ruin. That's fine, they can ahve their ideology, and they can have their communes and give up personal ownership... I really don't care. It isn't until they try to impose communistic economic sanctions that apply to me that I have a problem. When the communist party starts to harm me, I'll care. And, since I don't recall the homosexual party ever wanting to force gay love on us all, or even having a political party, I must say I think your comparison is pretty logically unsound. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You will probably have to wait for a response a while yet JB... busy week and... my interest is waning. Stephen -- you feel slandered by your own words? |
||
|
jellybeans Member Elite
since 2000-10-13
Posts 2298 |
Ron, Divorce and same sex unions are both spoken against in the bible, if I believe in the bible, which I do, then I am against both of them. what part of 'Til death do we part' equals divorce? no problem reb, has been a rough week here, have just been enjoying using my mind instead of just working *g* |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What part of 'Til death do we part' do you find in the Bible? Protestants seem to be at one end of the spectrum, Mormons at the other, with Catholics sitting in the middle. Seemingly with you? Whose interpretation is wrong? Whose, if any, is right? Are you willing to legislatively impose your interpretation of scripture on the millions of people around the world who apparently disagree and, according to you, are now bigamists and adulterers? I'm honestly not sure if that's courage or hubris. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
But, Ron, isn't your view on the issue based upon your interpretation of the nature of homosexuality? Are you willing to legislatively impose your interpretation of nature on the millions of people around the world who apparently disagree, and, according to you, are now bigots and Bible-thumpers? I'm honestly not sure if that's courage or hubris. While the Laws of God have, in large part, fallen by the wayside as a foundation for American jurisprudence, certainly the laws of nature still hold some weight. And I believe this is certainly something that ought to be vigorously debated by legislatures rather than shifting the presumption of truth to those who advocate the normalcy of homosexuality. And while I don't think this ought to become a thread on hermeneutics, you allusion to the "woman caught in adultery" failed to recognize Jesus' consistent advocacy against the selective, arbitrary enforcement of the Law. In Jewish law, both the man AND woman caught in adultery warranted stoning - perhaps a better understanding of that account would consider Jesus' "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" be first understood as a challenge to the man she was caught with. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Pointing out details and examples is by no means "obscuring" the real point of the passage. If it were, then Paul himself was at fault in his description. I agree with you that sin, as a general concept, is the thrust of this passage. However, considering specific outworkings and examples of sin surely isn't at variance with the general thesis. One supports the other. They are harmonious. What is not harmonious is admitting sin as a reality, and yet denying that any actions can enbody it. And worse, denying that specific examples which the apostle identified as exemplary of sin, should be thought of as sin. That kind of moral relativism and the Biblical view of sin are hopelessly irreconcilable. quote: Even so, homosexuality would be exemplary of that lust. Lust is simply desire in the wrong context ... a legitimate need, met in an illegitimate way. Desiring sex is a good thing. Desiring sex with someone other than your wife is not. What you can cogently do is to say that sexual sin is much wider than homosexuality, and therefore there are other sexual sins as well. What you cannot do is cite examples of either adultery, fornication or homosexuality where this lust is not operative. Why? Because they ALL lie outside of God's parameters for human sexuality ... which is a man and woman joined by Covenant relationship. quote: I'm really not sure where you get "debaters" from, unless you are inferring it from what the NIV calls "insolent, arrogant, and boastful" in Romans 1:30. But if that is the case, this passage would describe a certain type of debater, not debating in general. I guess by "inventors" you are referring to the phrase "inventors of evil things"? If so, you've taken the word "inventors" (ephuretes in the Greek) right out of its context, to make your point... which is the only way you can make your point. Paul qualified the term with another term, "kakos" in the Greek which means: 1. of a bad nature; not such as it ought to be 2. of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; base, wrong, wicked 3. troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful So yes, I think that all inventors of "ways to do evil", with that intent of heart as implied in the text, do risk their immortal soul. quote: You make it an "either/ or" choice, when it is clearly a "both/ and". Paul would be pretty ineffective in his warning about a spiritual "exchange", if his described results were not necessarily contiguous with that exchange. Also the view that homosexuality is sin, is consistent with every other reference to it in the Bible. I challenge you to cite one reference to homosexuality in scripture which would support your interpretation that it is "neutral", and may or may not involve sin. quote: Pulling someone out of a ditch always involves the risk of sending them to the ditch on the other side of the road. This scripture definitely speaks against judgmentalism and self-righteousness. But it does not, therefore, speak FOR libertinism. There is just as much of a danger of abusing and misapplying the scripture you quoted, as there is a danger of not heeding it’s main point. It’s demonstrated by the fact that “Judge not lest you be judged” is about the only scripture which many who live in sin, know how to quote. The rest of the above passage of scripture (which you didn't quote) goes on to say that we should first deal with our own sins, before being morbidly concerned with those of others. “First remove the plank in your own eye ...”. But this was given to spur us onward to moral purity, so that we CAN be used in the area of moral reform, not so that we should abandon it for a bland tolerance of everything with everybody. Consider whether the following scriptures can be meaningful at all as instruction, if your interpretation of Matthew 7:3 is correct . . . “. . . the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him, he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24-26) “All Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:2-3) I am against hypocrisy as much as you are. But I don’t think the stern Biblical teachings against it should be misused to say that we should never speak the moral truth, unless it directly concerns our own personal behavior. That may be how you take it, but it doesn’t square with the rest of the Bible. What you’re going to have a hard time doing is showing that teachings on hypocrisy, are not compatible with saints making moral judgements ... especially when the standard of scripture (being a high one) calls us to both avoid hypocrisy AND to uphold moral truth as it is revealed. quote: As I’ve already mentioned, adultery is sin because it lay outside of God’s parameters for human sexuality, as does homosexuality “married” or not. Paul does not describe homosexuality as simply a variation of adultery. If he had done so, he might have urged those who practice it to marry to avoid the sin ... (as he did toward heterosexual “singles” in 1 Corinthians chapter 7). quote: The correct interpretation of Romans 1 (and other passages dealing with homosexuality) is not contradictory with the Spirit of Christianity ... unless it’s spirit is “I’m OK. You’re OK.” I think rather than foisting the spirit of contemporary “tolerance” upon Christianity, we should derive the spirit of Christianity from Christ himself, who when dealing with the woman caught in adultery, showed great and unusual mercy, and yet did not fail to say “Go and sin no more.”. quote: In context of this discussion, the public preservation of traditional marriage should not be thought as “punishment”. Some actions are punishment. Some consequences are natural outworkings of actions/ choices/ lifestyles. I cannot easily get a paycheck by refusing to work. It wouldn’t make sense to accuse this example of public policy as “punishment”. The absurdity of this position is the idea that society all along has been “punishing” homosexuals by recognizing only heterosexual marriages. So all of history is cruelly and backwardly wrong, and we are obviously and arrogantly right. Casting a stone at an individual, and preserving a stone already placed as a foundation and boundary are two very different things. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-14-2004 03:02 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Then you're confirming exactly what I was trying to say ... You're really not going to fight communism as an idea or even a personal practice. It's when it becomes implemented as public policy that you will become active to oppose. That's exactly my stand with the homosexual agenda. The whole question of altering the very definition of marriage, is a significant launch of someone's agenda into the realm of public and governmental policy. quote: No, not gay love ... but there is a marked forcing of their view of what marriage should be. This is something that will be "forced" upon us all. And you don't think the homosexual agenda has definitive political overtones, or that it represents a certain ultra-liberalism politically? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Love your neighbor. quote: And you have done that, Stephen? As I recall, right after that feat comes walking on water. quote: Okay, more seriously this time. Each of the passages you cite, Stephen, as well as everything else in the Bible, only supports exactly what I've been saying all along. Christians should teach, not coerce with civil law. quote: … but did NOT call on civil authority to enforce His condemnation of her sin. You and any other Christian convinced your interpretation of Scripture is without fault are perfectly free to say so, just as Catholics are perfectly free to condemn divorce. No one, however, is free to legislate their interpretations on others. It's called free will for a reason. quote: Marriage isn't anything like receiving a paycheck, Stephen, because you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that entitles you to marry. You can, of course, do many things that will temporarily remove the option of marriage from your life, such as joining the Marines or going to prison, but there is nothing in our system short of death that will permanently preclude you from marrying the person of your choice. What you are really supporting is the denial of that paycheck to people who haven't refused to work. Unless, of course, they're willing to choose the paycheck you have all picked out for them. You want to punish them for not making the choices you have made. The question remains, as always, why you feel so threatened. Who do they hurt? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
