»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What exactly IS marriage anyway?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What exactly IS marriage anyway? |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
The Dangers of Redefining Gay Marriage Author unknown (A scene at City Hall in San Francisco) "Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license." "Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest?" No, we are not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next." "Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next." "Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return." "That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!" I wanted to post something I read. It's fictitious and uses hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum to make it's point. But it does contain a valid question. If same sex marriages are legalized upon the basis of "intrinsic rights" of people to marry anyone they want, thus not merely extending the rights to marry (because gays already have the right to "marry" according to the traditional and present cultural definition) but redefining marriage itself, then what's to keep us from a perpetual redefining that will lead to progressive dissolution and absurdity? What exactly will marriage end up as? Is the unwillingness to define, out of political fear of stepping on someone's toes, the same thing as the unwitting will to destroy? If some say not ... How are the grounds for homosexual marriage different than those of some of the above suggestions? Stephen. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I want to restate a question Ron asked when [all this] started here in the forums, that few if any, have addressed: Why does a married couple have different civil rights than a non-married couple? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Stephen, thanks for sharing that piece. It made me laugh and it brings out a good point about the dangers of tampering with the definiton of marriage. Christopher, I think that the legal benefits that are found within marriage are there because it was recognized that it was in society's best interest to encourage people in a lifelong commitment of fidelity, of mutual caretaking of each other and of any children that they might produce together. I also agree with the statement in one of the articles that Stephen gave that it was designed in part to protect the women and children of a society in light of the greater tendency in the male of the species to tend toward promiscuity and wandering (not that women haven't or don't, but the tendency toward it is higher in males, statistically), a way to hold them accountable to their responsibilities to their partner and children so that they would not eventually become a burden on society to have to support. Society simply doesn't have a vested interest in encouraging non-marital cohabitation, in my opinion, and therefore doesn't offer any benefits to encourage it. I believe, and I think all the research bears it out, that in homes where there is this sense of 'till death do us part' in the mother/father relationship, the couple benefits, the children benefit and society benefits, as contrasted with the mindset of semi-commited non-marital cohabitation, keeping all options open, which makes it easier, psychologically and financially, to forsake one's partner and children when the going gets rough. I think one of the biggest problems in our society since the sexual revolution has been the fostering of the idea of sex and children outside of marriage, with families headed by single women who have no male support, and with children who have no male role model to bond with, which deprives them of an important ingredient to their sense of 'self', and many of those households are mired in poverty because of it. That life is hard on them and hard on society (who has to support them in the majority of the cases, and at a subsistance level compared to average income level homes). The men who have fathered all these children just aren't around physically, and are not supporting their children financially in most cases. So society has to pick up the tab. So everybody loses, including the fathers who never learn to accept their responsibilities, but continue from one woman to the next fathering even more chldren that they do not intend to take care of. And if you think I am exaggerating, come visit my neighborhood. Out of 22 houses on my block alone, there are only 3 households (mine being one) that are not single parent, welfare supported, households. Surely anyone can see the burden created for society in such situations. I think it is ironic that the movement spearheaded by NOW and the radical feminists in the late sixties and early seventies, purportedly to empower and liberate women, has had just the opposite effect and in many cases has given women an inferior quality of life than they could have had, had they waited for or insisted upon marriage before having children. When they bought into the concept of 'free love' they paid a very dear price, in my opinion. I think that everything that we do individually affects society in one way or another, eventually, for good or for ill, at least in my opinion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
"Sorry, Pops, but your application for a marriage license has been denied." "Excuse me?" "Denied. You know, like turned down. You and, uh, what's her name?" "Margaret. Her name is Margaret Hamlin." "Right. You and Margaret are too old to have children." "But we love each other." "So? I love my dad, but I'm not going to marry him." "We want to spend the rest of our days together." "Then go for it, Pops. You can't marry Margaret, but no one is saying you can't live with her." "We want to have sex, too." "You're gagging me here, old man. Just do it and, PLEASE, stop talking about it." "I guess I don't understand. You're saying we can do everything married people do, but we can't get married?" "Yep. Marriage is about having kids, raising kids, and not bringing about the immediate downfall of our whole society." "What if I get sick? I trust Margaret and want her to be able to care for me in my last days." "The State will do that." "I want Margaret to bury me." "The State will do that." "I want Margaret to get my house and what money I have left." "State, too." "This isn't at all fair. I WANT to get married." "Not a problem, Pops. See that blonde over there filling out her paper work?" "Yea?" "That's Alicia. Her husband died last month and the State is going to take away her three kids unless she gets married again. I can introduce you if you'd like?" "She's going to lose her kids? That's terrible!" "Hey, the alternative is the immediate downfall of our whole society. Without a father, all three kids will end up as serial killers. Or worse, on welfare." "My given name is John, please." "Pardon me?" "I wouldn't want you to introduce me to Alicia as Pops, you understand. My name is John." "Ahh. Gotcha, John. And I'm sure your Margaret will completely understand." "Of course she will. As soon as Alicia and I are married, I intend to adopt Margaret as our daughter. She'll get all the legal rights as my next-of-kin, and will naturally come to live with us." "You know, John, I think you're getting the hang of this marriage stuff, now."  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
(Forgive me if this seems to be meandering off-topic a bit--but...?) Denise? I'm curious here-- "Out of 22 houses on my block alone, there are only 3 households (mine being one) that are not single parent, welfare supported, households. Surely anyone can see the burden created for society in such situations." I'd like some more information before that statistic carries any weight for me. How many of these "single parent, welfare supported households" are the products of divorce? I'm curious because both of my sisters ended up needing assistance after failed marriages. It's been my experience that a marriage license is not an insurance policy for moral responsibility. (And just because I'm a little marriage-bitter right now--I'd like to know how many of those households are headed by men?) |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Households are headed by men?  Sorry. Couldn't help myself. Yes, "some" households are headed by men. But I think the majority of them are headed by women, nationally, geographically, and politically. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know what percentage of them have ever been married or not, Karen. I think the odds would dictate that some must have been married at one time. The only thing I can tell you is that they are mostly very young (I'd guess about in the 20 to 25 year old age bracket), with a couple of them maybe in their late 30's, early 40's, with an average of approximately 2 to 4 children, and they are all female, and no, none are headed by a male figure, at least not on my block. I would agree with Karilea that, overall, the majority are headed by women, although some are headed by men. Yep, I know a marriage license is not an insurance policy. I know that from my own personal experience, and I needed assistance for a short time after my divorce too. And even in the days when marriage was held in higher regard generally, and divorce was generally seen as an option of last resort, some marriages still broke up, true, but I think the trends that we are seeing today, in both the skyrocketing divorce rate and the incidence of single never-been-married parenthood, put a strain on the resources of society. And I think fostering marriage as the ideal again would benefit society in general as well as benefit children specifically. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I guess one of the things I'm most lost on (down this tangent) is how homosexual unions affect this purportedly drastic increase in single-parent families? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'If some say not ... How are the grounds for homosexual marriage different than those of some of the above suggestions?' Well Stephen, the first two, at least, provide some basis for law that isn't solely a moral issue. In the issue of incest, at least with males and females, if there is demonstrable evidence that their children will have higher incidences of congenital diseases, there's the welfare of children to worry about. My big problem with telling them they can't get married because of that is that if they want to, they're just gonna have kids anyway... and if those kids turn out to be sick in some way, and dad has insurance but mom doesn't... her kid isn't going to get medical care that it could have if they were married. I can't honestly justify not allowing to same-sex blood relatives to marry. I can't see a reason besides moral objection. In the case of the polygamists, there is definitely a financial objection. If one person has insurance coverage that gets extended to the spouse, having three spouses would make it significantly more expensive... they same with death benefits, tax benefits, etc. And easy remedy for this situation would be to make a law stating that only one partner can receive financial/legal benefits from the marriage. It might stop the proliferation of polygamist marriages. But that's the only good legal reason I can see- at least right now. And as for the person marrying himself? I can't see a good reason not to allow it... now do I see what harm it would do. It's not like you can have kids with yourself, extend additional financial benefits of yours to yourself, or really divorce yourself... so what's wrong with some nutjob doing so if it makes him happy? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Marriage is just another piece of meat for this wolfish age to tear to shreds. And that is exactly what it is doing. The same abuse is upon every other institution as well. That is what happens when humans raise them in the manners of greedy wolves. The only difference between the wolf and human is that wolves don't seem to have Reason and Government--their natures are bound; humans however are able to make a difference, and yet still end up behaving like the same beasts-- putting their Appetite over their Civilization. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: So according to you Mothers and sons should be able to marry? Please answer Yes or No, and tell me why or why not. quote: But then there is a "financial objection" to anyone getting married, if that is the sole criterion. Since when did concern about private sector insurance companies' financial well being determine "rights"? quote: Well so would having children ... Based on your standards, we should limit childbearing too? quote: Don't you think that would be challenged, as also discriminatory? Why is the magic number "One"? It will be argued that insurance companies are already covering large families with multiple members. Saying there can only be one spouse (they will say) poses discrimination against merely another "type" of family. Remember that the unfortunate trend of our society is to make such social arangements into anything we want them to be. Again, you might not see it now, but the slide into increasingly absurd unions called "marriage" will ensue in the years to come, because if traditional sense and definition is not retained, then all other attempts to control are stopgaps ... precisely because each prohibition will be challenged on the same grounds that traditional marriage is challenged upon now. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: As opposed to what you want them to be? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No, Ron, as opposed to what they should be. You're view only has gas when a post-modern assumption is accepted that no one is, or can be, right. But please remember that in addition to what is revealed in the Bible regarding God's mind on homosexuality and marriage, I'm also arguing from the weight of centuries of Marriage being ONE WAY when it comes to Gender. It's evidently then not just what I want to be, is it? And even the Liberal Judges who are challenging this aren't basing anything upon democratic principles (such as letting us decide). Most of America is still against homosexual "Marriage" ... if the polls are right. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Same thing, Stephen. Because what you really mean is "what you think they should be." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
This is childish Ron ... Doesn't it go with out saying that two sides of any debate is "how X thinks it should be versus how Y thinks it shoud be"? Okay, okay ... you're right about the obvious, but you're no different at all. The only way you can make headway is to say that "no one can be right", which is a whole other thread. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- 'So according to you Mothers and sons should be able to marry? Please answer Yes or No, and tell me why or why not.' First of all, you'll notice that I said same-sex blood relatives- they can't have children together. So rephrase your question: "Should mothers and daughters be able to marry?" And I have to say a hesitant yes. Yes because I can see no just legal reason to impose on it... an the hesitance is because I don't approve of it. But Stephen... that's the point... just because I don't approve of it doesn't mean that I can say nobody else is allowed to do it. In the case of male and female relative marrying... like I said, there is the ethical/medical consideration that their production of offspring would result in children who have serious congenital defects. What should be done in that case, I can't tell you... but I'm not a congresswoman, I'm a voter. I don't have all the answers... I just have a lot of opinions on them. 'But then there is a "financial objection" to anyone getting married, if that is the sole criterion. Since when did concern about private sector insurance companies' financial well being determine "rights"?' Good point. I guess that would become more an issue of supply and demand than legislation, huh? But regarding children... we're currently talking insurance coverage for one person's dependent children. But if the legitimate children they produced could multiply by how many wives? This has nothing to do with abrogating rights, it's just not practical, and it would harm others, because insurance preiums would go up across the board. Stephen, I see the point that you're making, but I'm going to be quite frank with you. It doesn't sound like a sound argument against these things... it just sounds like you're scared they will happen. Let's be real here. I think that polygamist marriages are silly and incestuous relationships are quite frankly disturbing and... just wrong. You think that, and I'm sure most poeple on this board, even the most liberal of us, would agree in personal morals, if not legislation, that these are wrong. If there is such a small percenage of our nation who would engage in these acts... why should it be that threatening? Those who still want a traditional marriage will still get one. It's as simple as that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why are we still confusing marriage with sex? The two are entirely separate issues. A mother and son have little need of marriage, because our laws and society already recognize the commitment of each to the other. When I signed over a car to my mom, no one questioned it and no one expected her to pay sales tax. When she lay near death and was unable to make basic decisions for herself, I made them for her. She was always committed to my well being, as was I to hers, and the laws of our land only rarely proved to be an obstruction to that commitment. We were family and society recognized our RIGHT to care for each other. People willing to make life-long commitments to each other, regardless of their circumstances, deserve the same recognition. Not just some of them. Not just the ones who make us feel comfortable. Not just the ones who agree with us. All of them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Wisely spoken. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
yeppers. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hush: quote: And I think men having anal sex with one another is quite frankly disturbing and ... just wrong. I personally don't find it any less disturbing than incestuous relationships. That said, I don't see how government sanctioned civil unions really changes anything. Homosexuals want their behavior to be accepted as normal, and right now a few activist courts and municipalities are the vehicle they're using to try to drive their agenda home. Even if they are successful, however, they are no closer to having gay marriage being "holy matrimony" than they were before. The problem I have with the whole affair is the presumption of normalcy homosexuals have foisted on popular opinion. There is another interpretation to the genetic or developmental factors that seem to be involved in the emergence of homosexual behavior - namely that homosexual behavior is a sort of developmental disability that usually manifests during adolescence (one of the most active periods of brain development). As I mentioned in the other thread, if we want to keep our minds open, we should also be open to the idea that homosexuality is something that can be cured or remediated - and those homosexuals who choose that route should be able to do so with the blessings of the homosexual community and their sympathizers. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"And I think men having anal sex with one another is quite frankly disturbing and ... just wrong. I personally don't find it any less disturbing than incestuous relationships." ~ So... what about men who have anal sex with women. Do you beleive that act to be "disturbing" and "just wrong?" Is there really a difference or is a man's anus different than a woman's? "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I thought we already established that sex does not equal marriage. Proposing an acceptance of homosexuality is like suggesting we initiate equality for minors; it's already there in most places, though predjudice still holds in some places. Homosexual unions are far from the "despicable" thing it used to be. The idea that homosexual marriages will perpetuate a more general acceptance of same seems kind of funny to me. Disallowing homosexual marriages at this point will not hinder these relationships, just as allowing them will not perpetuate them. What we're looking at, at the base, is an allowance of civil rights. It's mired with much personal and religious (which can certainly be the same) feelings on the matter that shove the "big picture" out of the way... let's let those who are committed to another (whether gay, straight, related by blood, or just really good friends) be allowed the same rights and we can focus on homsexual unions as an entirely separate subject. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Christopher: You may have established that sex does not equal marriage but that doesn't mean the law doesn't presume sex to be "benefit" of marriage, and a benefit that has value. "Loss of consortium" is recognized as a very real damage by the law in many jurisdictions. What I think Stephan has pointed out is that feelings like yours are no less "religious" (in the way you are using the term - as almost a perjorative subjectivism) than those that disagree with you. What I would prefer we do is look at the facts and discuss the different interpretations of those facts, rather than continuing to confuse the liberal interpretation of the facts with the facts themselves. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
When I was teenager, there was a gay dog that lived down the block from me... I always wondered if he knew he was sinning when he humped other male dogs. "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 |
"What exactly IS marriage anyway?" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Marriage: *To subject (a person or an animal) to torture. *To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict. *To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case. oops sorry that's torture, my bad 'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
LOL. Ironically, if one wants to reduce the incidences of gay sex, perhaps one ought to be supportive of gay marriage.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, Trying to play catch up? I said that two weeks ago. For obvious reasons, I have no religious objections to gay marriage, I just think that if two people want to commit to each other, we should recognize that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Concern about what will happen ... likelihood of social / legal consequences, does not constitute sound argumentation? If your morals aren't up to having a place in the public square (a concept I deeply question), then let your sheer pragmatism take over. So you think they won't happen? As deeply against polygamy as you are, what makes you think that the refusal to define something, won't let it many many variations in? This whole debate is the refusal to define marriage ... or more accurately the rejection of the traditional definition. But there IS no definition offered in it's place. At least no definition that will provide any lasting framework for marriage that makes sense. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Any kind of life-long commitment? What is the nature of this life-long commitment? Commit to do what? Give me a minimum of what marriage would require. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What commitment did your parents make to each other? I see no reason why the commitment between any two people, regardless of circumstance, need be any more or any less to qualify for the same rights. Considering today's divorce rate, it doesn't seem a minimum is going to be too hard to meet or beat. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'As deeply against polygamy as you are, what makes you think that the refusal to define something, won't let it many many variations in?' I don't understand what you're asking. I already answered your questions about the variations- as long as they don't hurt anyone, why not let them in? It doesn't matter if I don't like it, because I shouldn't have veto power over someone else's life. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Adults who agree to care for each other. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
two adults who care for each other ... then two heterosexual elderly sisters who help each other can "get married"? I can get married to my elderly grandfather whom I keep in my home to care for his medical needs? It's got to be a more "discriminatory" definition than "a commitment to care for one another" or it will be sunk to the level of a state benefit clause between two "parties". What parties? Any. For what purpose? Any. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: But you said polygamy was "wrong" earlier didn't you? ... not that you merely don't like it. Is it a matter of aesthetics to you, or do you think it's wrong for definite reasons? If there are definite reasons, then saying "it doesn't hurt anyone" cannot be true. I can think of many ill effects of polygamy, on individuals and larger society, and I'll bet you can too. I never said you should have "veto" power over someone's life. We're talking about laws anyway, and the authorities behind those laws. And civil legislators DO have power over someone else's life. That can't be intrinsically wrong, or you would have to be against all laws for that same reason. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I really don't see the problem. A hunting license is not restricted to one type of animal alone, it entitles you to capture different species. There are, however, restrictions against capturing species out of season or on the endangered list. It's an open license but with reasonable guidelines and boundaries. A marriage license is no different unless homosexuality is deemed a crime. Since it is not, and marriage is the union of two loving partners, a man can marry a woman, a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman. All within reason and most important, legality. The restrictions would/do still exist, again within reason. For example, marrying within the family(incest), marrying a minor(as statutory rape or because minor entering a contract), your pet. There you go, there are your guidelines and restrictions. All based on legalities. Is that so difficult? There's no free for all or anarchy. The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue. I find it incredibly silly arguing against gay unions. In my opinion it's not an argument based on reason or logic, but more often than not, simple prejudice and conservative 'morality'. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-04-2004 04:52 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: To care for each other. Certainly two elderly spinsters who live together may want to consider such an arrangement. I've said it before. But, I doubt there would be any real benefit to marrying any blood relative. I thought Ron sorted that out earlier. Your marriage wouldn't change in meaning a bit. Why would it? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Aenimal: quote: Marriage is not currently "the union of two loving partners". Currently it is the union of two loving partners who are male and female. By saying "all within reason", you are implying that certain things are reasonable about marriage ... in other words, certain things are obviously basic to the institution. Having rejected heterosexuality as basic, you've naturally chosen to retain some other traditional view as basic, namely love and commitment. Of course these aren't ascertained by reason alone. These concepts will also be challenged as to whether they are fundamental to the definition of marriage. Once the slippery slope of arbitrary reinvention is taken, marriage will eventually become a bland social contract to ensure financial perks, that won't be denied anyone who wants it ... or any number who want it. Of course since such an arrangement would be senseless and impractical, what would become of the institution itself is doubtful. Rivers with no banks become marshes. quote: Yes, but you're forgetting something. Whenever law becomes suspect as "discriminatory", it too will become challenged and overturned. Marrying within the family does not necessarily mean incest, if we take Ron's view that marriage is not in the least about sex. (Of course I don't agree with him there, as the bulk of history refutes that suggestion) Nor will marriage between adult and child mean pedophilia. Nor will marriage between humans and animals mean bestiality. These laws were based upon the sexual aspect which, as Ron nicely illustrates, some are wanting to (excuse the pun) divorce from the meaning of marriage. quote: But you just attempted to mitigate the free-for-all, and define marriage using present laws that are based precisely upon sex and sexual preference ... incest, pedophilia, bestiality. quote: But your above arguments aren't reasonable or logical are they? You're still limiting the loss of marital boundaries, by sex and sexuality ... the very thing you said shouldn't be a factor anymore. Understand I agree with you that such things should limit what Marriage is. It's just that I have a foundation for believing so ... sexuality has always been a great portion of what defines marriage. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue." "But you just attempted to mitigate the free-for-all, and define marriage using present laws that are based precisely upon sex and sexual preference ... incest, pedophilia, bestiality." ~ Based on sex and sexual preference... alone... between 2 consenting adults and within the legal boundaries of our country's laws. Incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are outside of those boundaries and are not based on sex and sexual preference... alone. ~ I think it is quite obvious that those who have a religious "take" on this matter, can't hide that fact, although they have tried to reason through other means. In other words, the marriage between 2 people of the same sex should not be allowed simply because God and the Bible say so [insert period here] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
sigh... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Opeth, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey in the above. But I'm saying that using sexual issues are "out of court" in defining what marriage is, if marriage has nothing to do with sexuality. Therefore, there can be no limitations of marriage based on pedophelia, bestiality, or incest. Therefore I'll ask again, what WILL define marriage? What will determine it's boundaries? quote: Opeth, I have never tried to "hide" anything regarding my religious views. But since the "moral" views of the Bible were never given in a vacuum, there is usually much that can be said regarding social policy without referring directly to the Bible. If you're trying to say that there are no reasons (besides the Judeo-Christian ethic) why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage, then why mention my religious views at all? Just respond to what I've said. Show my "extra-religious" reasoning to be fallacious by pointing out why exactly it is. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey in the above. But I'm saying that using sexual issues are "out of court" in defining what marriage is, if marriage has nothing to do with sexuality. Therefore, there can be no limitations of marriage based on pedophelia, bestiality, or incest. Therefore I'll ask again, what WILL define marriage?" ~ I completely understood what Raph stated and merely put it in another way, which you don't understand what either of have stated. Marriage will be defined as two legal aged adults who as a pair, are not in violation of other laws, and are in a loving relationship. "What will determine it's boundaries? ~ The laws of the land. If one does not like the laws, attempt to change them through legal methods. "I think it is quite obvious that those who have a religious "take" on this matter, can't hide that fact, although they have tried to reason through other means." "Opeth, I have never tried to "hide" anything regarding my religious views." ~ Did I name you, specifically? No. I was makeing a general declaration. If you felt that I was directing that declaration to you, Stephanos, then I would ask you, why did you think so? The declaration was not a part of the statement above. It was a separate remark. "If you're trying to say that there are no reasons (besides the Judeo-Christian ethic) why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage, then why mention my religious views at all?" ~ I don't get this. All I typed was that there are people who believe homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed based soley on, "Because God and Bible say so." "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Good. You do understand what Raph was saying. So did I. Notice the number "two", the word "pair", and the phrase "loving relationship". These all are examples of how marriage is currently defined, they are not guaranteed as foundational are they? If the limitation of two people is found to be discriminatory, then it will also be declared unconstitutional at some point. The constitution says nothing at all about limiting marriage to two people. Insisting that marriage be defined by love and fidelity could be discriminatory as well, by today's standards. Thus marriage could be entered into for (eventually) any reason whatsoever. There is nothing in the constitution about forbidding blood relatives to marry. There is nothing in the constitution about forbidding people and their pets from marrying. Though some of those sound extreme (but so did gay marriage 50 years ago), my question still stands unanswered. What will keep marriage within reasonable boundaries, so that it doesn't become a simple contract to obtain economic benefit? If the anthropological, biological, and cultural consensus of the past is utterly rejected ... what safeguards are there that will prevent its dissolution? And please don't just keep saying "laws". The laws themselves are being questioned as to their adherence to the Constitution. There are already state laws against homosexual marriage. If the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid something, and any group deems it "discriminatory", here we go. This whole debate is already about Judges disregarding current laws. Law is not a valid answer to this question since the question is about what laws should be. Another thing we forget is, heterosexuality as the standard of marriage was overwhelmingly taken for granted by the framers of the constitution. They never would have never dreamed of putting such a defining clause in there. They innocently didn't have the foresight to restate the obvious, in anticipation of an increasingly relativistic culture. quote: Why did I think so? Because I have a religious "take" on homosexuality. And I have tried to "reason through other means", as in this thread. Whether or not you were talking about me specifically, you were making a stereotypical remark. Sorry if I misinterpreted. But I thought you were implying that there are no good reasons other than because the Bible says. My response was to say that though the Bible does speak about such things, it's mandates are not given in a vacuum. quote: It's not inherently bad to take things on authority, if the authority is the right one. However, I think he had (has) definite reasons for certain prescriptions. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why shouldn't marriage be a contract wherein two people benefit as long as that benefit is at no one else's expense? Marriage is about taking care of each other. quote: No, it's not. What's bad is trying to force others to accept your definition of authority. Because at that point it's no longer authority. It's cohesion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I didn't say it shouldn't be that... I said it shouldn't be merely that. quote: Until even that notion is challenged. It doesn't have to be about that at all. That's just one more traditional view of marriage, albeit one which you've chosen to retain. Heterosexuality just happens to be one that you've chosen not to retain. quote: I'm sure you meant "coercion". Freudian slip? But how am I trying to "force" anyone? I don't make the laws. Nor do I enforce them. But someone has to. And therefore any legality can be called coercive, as it is invariably based upon someone's values or ideology. Do you really think the nearly unbroken heterosexual definition of marriage for these thousands of years has been based on "coercion"? Though I think there are many good lesser reasons to be against Homosexual marriage than just because "God says so", I was just defending that very position as not so bad, if God happens to know what he's talking about. Though it might mean very little to those who don't accept God's authority, other reasons might mean more. And yes there are other reasons. One of which I am addressing in this thread. When "heterosexuality" is rejected as foudational to marriage, there will be nothing (in principle) to stop the eventual challenge and demise of virtually every other traditional view of marriage. Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
In what state is it legal for a dog, cat, barnyard animal, wild animal, fish, bird, or mongoose to enter into any kind of a legal contract? Well, maybe I missed some -- every kind of creature on the Ark? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And my point, Stephen, is that there should be nothing, either in principle or practice, to stop the challenge of any and all traditional views of marriage. If they can withstand the challenge, they will be maintained. If they cannot withstand the challenge, they must be abandoned. Tradition isn't an authority. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: I don't mean to be the pessimist, but give it a few more years. Ron: quote: Yes, you've restated your opinion yet again. quote: You mean without law? Surely you aren't implying that such espoused principles by you, as "do no harm to your neighbor", should also be expected to flourish without the protection of law? That's way too easy to get anything you don't agree with, out of public policy ... Just say if it's worth anything at all, it'll prosper without any help. But it's a different story when it comes to public policy you happen to agree with. Stephen |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephanos, There is more to law than the constitution. There are state laws, among others, too. Keeping issues separate and simple, and taking each issue on in order would serve people well. It is a fallacy to add beastiality, incest, polygamy, etc., to this issue. KISS Minus all of the other issues... the only change to a state's marriage "clause" would be same sex partners allowed [period] Nothing more, nothing less. All other issues regarding this matter are separate and non-sequitar regarding this, yes this, one issue. "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 |
Well said. Even God's judgement about something, may not be bound forever to stay the same. If He came to realizations and thereby his judgement changed about homosexuality, it may be here reflected, in some of our own changes. I don't know, but I trust it is possible. We don't know what is between two people for sure, or what is between them and God or not. When two people wish to get married therefore, how can we not give them the benefit of any possible doubt they are following their heart and a sincere will for something good? We don't know for sure. Only they and God know best what is in them.. Therefore I don't see how we may deny or treat two [mature] people as unworthy of the rite of marriage and enjoyment and security thereof, especially if we will continue to edify the governings we call "democracy". [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2004 03:39 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
The elimination of sex in the instance of voting did not create anarchy or undermine the law. There was no free for all that ensued where people argued the limits as discrimantory to minors or non US citizens who work,vacation, by product and pay taxes to the US government. Reasonable limits were set, the only change to the law was..sex. We now deem a culture backwords for not recognizing women's rights or judging a child's worth on it's gender. As societies evolve so then must their laws. Reasonable boundaries are discussed and settled upon the way they always have. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, Stephen, I was talking about tradition being maintained within the law. And abandoned from within the law when they prove to be nothing but tradition and without merit. In other words, "that's the way it's always been" is a damn poor reason to do anything. quote: Which can and often will be superceded by the Constitution. For example, many states currently have statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages, and there is excellent reason to believe those will eventually be struck down as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Stephen makes the *very* relevant point that other state laws, like bestiality and incest, could be similarly struck down. And if they are found to discriminate, they should be struck down. That is unlikely to happen, however, because bestiality, incest and polygamy are generally regarded as choices. No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination. quote: Then he isn't God. The inherent paradox of a God that knows everything and can do everything is that He can't change His mind. The very implication would constrain such a deity to the limits of Time. However, there is absolutely no question at all but what WE are constrained by time and haven't yet been told all there is to be told. When you tell a child not to leave the yard, after all, that directive isn't meant to last their entire life. In truth, though, I see no reason to think that is the case here. I think, instead, the child has been told to not leave the yard and so sits on the porch, afraid to even enter the yard for fear of disobeying. The child never understood the directive and probably won't until he gets a little older. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If God knows and can do everything, why should that mean he may not change? Knowing everything and doing everything, does not necessarily mean knowing and doing everything the same way all the time. I don't know if God is allperfect as men and books say, but even being perfect he may, I trust, change his way or manner of doing something, if he wishes. Indeed, God is not mistaken; but humans are not always either! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: This is where you are wrong. There is no "growing body of evidence" that Homosexuality is comparable to being born black. The "Genetics" are more than dubious as evidence for deterministic homosexuality. Ya know Ron, It's really hard to justify the belief that someone just wakes up one day and "chooses" to be an axe-murderer. And yet, by your over-simplified definition and categories, incarceration of them would be just as "discriminatory". If you can say all my problems with gay marriage are based upon morals, I can just as easily say that your whole defense of it is based upon the "They were born that way" urban legend. Stephen |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: There is evidence of homosexual activity in many species of birds(seagulls for instance) and mammals(including our closest genetic relative the Bonobo) which would indicate that homosexuality is a natural occurance not simply a human 'social disorder.' |
||
|
aujussy wolf
since 2003-08-09
Posts 1215Michigan |
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return." "That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!" lol |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Who taught you to be heterosexual, Stephen? And lacking that or any other instruction, would you have then become gender neutral? Even without the scientific evidence, which is strong but admittedly isn't (and probably never will be) certain, it is illogical to assume one sexual preference is genetic and another is not. But it doesn't really matter, either. My personal history seems to suggest I have a slight preference for brunettes over blondes. Should I be denied that choice, whether it is genetic or learned, simply because you like redheads? quote: There aren't too many choices that aren't preceded by just waking up one day. That doesn't stop them from being choices. Can you remember the day you woke up and decided to be heterosexual? The difference, of course, is that the label axe-murderer is defined by the action, not by a state of being. You chose to be a Christian, even if that choice was the accumulation of a whole lot of little choices and a whole lot of waking up one day. You never chose your gender or, I believe, your sexual preference. More importantly, I think, of the three things mentioned in this paragraph only one of them necessarily harms another human being. The others may or may not bring such harm, depending on future choices. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
well said |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Wait a minute, hold the phones. 'No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination.' Ron, I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to discriminate gainst people because they choose a way of life? What about gay men who cross-dress? They may not choose to be gay... but they sure as hell do choose to put on some fake boobies and layer on the makeup. Is it okay to say "Hey, that's wrong" because they chose to do it? I'm still also not entirely buying the whole genetics determine sexual behavior thing. Maybe it plays a part, maybe it doesn't.... that really doesn't matter to me, because EITHER WAY, I think it's wrong to discriminate. But I consider myself straight, but I'm not going to pretend that I haven't tested the waters on the other side, nor am I going to deny that the ossibility is still there that I will someday be attracted to a female. Ro put this more concretely... When I was in high school one day I just said "screw it" and I shaved my head. Now, like I said, I consider myself heterosexual... but not a whole lot of heterosexual 18 year old girls shave their heads. Since I chose to wear my hair in a way that reminds people of lesbians, did I deserve to be told that I "looked like a dyke?" The unspoken assumption in the 'they were born that way' argument is that if there was a choice... they are making the wrong one. In a perfect world without genetic flaws, we'd all choose to be straight.... but since their genetics dictate this behavior and they can't change it... we'll just have to live with it. I don't buy that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Amy, I'm suggesting people should always be held accountable for their choices. Many will certainly consider that discrimination. Usually the ones who only believe in personal responsibility for everyone except themselves. quote: If you put on a gown and diamond-laden tiara, would you deserve to be told you looked like a princess? I don't know what a dyke looks like, but if you chose to assume the guise of one, either intentionally or by mistake, it's your responsibility. People generally change their appearance to get a reaction, and they certainly should be free to do so. The people reacting should be no less free. Verbalizing that reaction might not be polite, but I wouldn't consider it discriminatory. If there was any discrimination in that scenario, I would have to say it was against lesbians. The label might well be inaccurate, but I fail to see why it should be offensive? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
So, because someone associates with a discriminated against group, discrimination against them isn't really against them, only the original group? What about Atticus Finch? Should he be held accountable for the racism in his town? Is it his fault for doing what he thought was right? And when his children suffered, was it really only black people who were being discriminated against? If I CHOSE to date a woman, is it okay to discriminate against me, knowing full-well I've always dated men before and have the capacity (admittedly) to do so again? Should bisexual people be held accountable for their choice since, really, they can go either way... shouldn't they just make the "right" choice of hetero relationships? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If one doesn't accept full responsibility for doing what they think is right, even when it turns out to be wrong, how can they ever accept credit for doing what *is* right? Yes, it was his fault. quote: If I happen to be married to the woman you're dating, you bet your assumptions I have a right to "discriminate" against you. You made a choice and every choice carries consequences. If you were demonstrably gay and chose to date my wife, it would still be a choice and not a life-style. There is a difference between dating women and dating a woman. I think you are using the word discrimination a bit, uh, indiscriminately. Discrimination, at least in my mind, isn't about what a person does, but rather is applied to what a person is. It is the difference between hurting someone for a valid reason and hurting them for no reason. It is the difference between punishing someone justly and punishing them just because we feel like it. It comes down to what I've said over and over and over in this forum over the past month. No harm, no foul. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I really don't understand, Ron. What does being bisexual have to do with being bisexual with your wife? I think you're confusing the issues. Why should you care about some single woman choosing to date some other single woman... why is it any of your business just because it's chosen rather than biologically predestined? Your 'who does it hurt' argument holds a lot more water than the genetics one... I fail to see, if it's determined that homosexuality is a choice, how it all of a sudden becomes harmful, and how all of a sudden they don't have a right to make that choice, unharrassed. 'Discrimination, at least in my mind, isn't about what a person does, but rather is applied to what a person is.' Isn't what we do part of who we are... and doesn't who we are help determine what we do? I don't think they're inseperable... Stephen is a devoted Christian. Therefore, it's safe to say it's a long shot before we see him hopping into bed (or a marriage aisle) with another guy. As an agnostic, I see no great moral qualm with homosexuality, so I'm much more likely to act on a whim.... or attend a gay or lesbian marriage proudly. My boyfriend was once a devoted Christian, but can't really bring himself to follow the faith as devoutly since he disagrees with Christianity's staunch anti-gay stance. 'It is the difference between hurting someone for a valid reason and hurting them for no reason. It is the difference between punishing someone justly and punishing them just because we feel like it.' So if gays and lesbians choose to be gays and lesbians, it's just to prevent them from getting married? I really don't understand... either way, it's still a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman... why is it discrimination in one instance and not discrimination in another? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Sorry, had to add one more point. So, when people started caling Atticus a nigger-lover, and when Bob Ewell tried to kill scout... really, what your saying is Atticus brought this all down upon himself and his family? You don't think the blame lies with, oh, I don't know... the people who were doing the discriminating? There's a difference between being willing to accept the consequences of an action, and being willing to accept them blame. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: On the contrary, Amy, I've said several times that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a product of nature or nurture. Personally, I'm convinced it's nature for many, nurture for some, and a conscience choice for a brave few. Look just a little ways up this page and you'll see me say, "But it doesn't really matter, either. My personal history seems to suggest I have a slight preference for brunettes over blondes. Should I be denied that choice, whether it is genetic or learned, simply because you like redheads?" It's a very fine semantic line, Amy, and you're certainly free to disagree. I am a heterosexual through design, not choice. If you punish me for being a heterosexual, you are punishing me for being who I am. That, to me, is discrimination, because no matter what I do or what choices I make, I will still be punished. On the other hand, if you punish me for loving a woman you are doing so based on an action and a choice. You felt I did something wrong. To me, that isn't discrimination, but rather is persecution. There are times when persecution is just. There are times when it's not (in which case, I will continue to ask over and over, "Who is being hurt?"). At no time that I can imagine, however, is discrimination EVER just. The distinction between discrimination and persecution, I think, is an important one, though I know to many it will seem like picking nits. It's important because it helps define the opposition. If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, I will argue from now 'til hell freezes over in hopes of convincing them sexual preference, in and of itself, harms no one. However, if someone believes homosexuals are wrong, I know of no argument that will ever convince them otherwise. Persecution can be fought. Discrimination can only be squashed. In summary, those who discriminate against gays are unjust, and same-sex marriage is just the tip of their iceberg. I can't imagine anything they could say that would convince me otherwise. Those who persecute gays and would stop them from marrying are equally unjust, in my opinion, but I'm willing to listen to their reasons. If they can demonstrate a harm comparable to the punishment they advocate, I'm not above changing my position. Persecution is a social tool that will continue to hold value as long as there are people who hurt other people. quote: This is sliding a bit off-topic, but I don't believe there is a difference, Amy. Poor Atticus certainly wasn't the *only* person culpable for their own actions, but nothing that influenced his decisions did anything to make his decisions any less his. If he was influenced, he allowed himself to be influenced. Should someone happen to hold a gun to your head and tell you to drink a fast acting poison, you might well find your choices limited and unattractive. But in the end, the person holding the gun is only responsible for their own actions, not for the choice you make. Whether the person with the gun pulls the trigger is up to him. Whether you drink the poison is up to you. Each of you can influence the other only to the extent the other permits it. You cannot ever absolve yourself of the blame (or credit) for your own actions, any more than you can ever accept the blame (or credit) for someone else's actions. That is the whole crux of personal responsibility. We are no less responsible for difficult choices than we are for easy ones. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't have a problem with the concept Ron but a little with the wordsmithing. The former application of persecution I'd find aprop -- sliding into 'just persecution' however I find a little unsettling. If it's justified -- it's regulation, or governance, supervision, superintendance -- persecution in abstract contains an element of torture and abuse. We don't persecute a child molestor -- we prosecute him! ok.. back to work with me |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I understand, Reb, and I don't disagree. There were several places in my previous post where I wanted to use a noun and prosecutor came to mind, and I didn't use the a noun because that one wasn't quite right. There wasn't one that was quite right. The problem is that I think the difference between persecution and prosecution is a subjective one, not necessarily a legal one. There are instances, I think, where someone is cruel but never breaks the law, and the social persecution they can face when their cruelty is uncovered is a just one. And there are other instance, far too many of them, when someone is prosecuted for little more than meeting a profile. Yes, there is a difference between persecution and prosecution. I'm just not all that certain I always know what it is. Separate or together, persecution and prosecution are both the result of actions. Discrimination, I still think, is against a state of being. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you are intimate and more than friends with someone of the same sex, but not sexually attracted to the same sex, are you still homosexual? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
What exactly do you mean by intimate? If intimacy=sex then I suppose under it's definition: adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual] a person isn't a homosexual but experimental, however, as a defined in it's noun form (n : someone who practices homosexuality) the act itself is an 'homosexual' act. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No I mean no sexual engagement; but still much closer than friend; Someone of the same sex, but he or she is only sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. Is that still homosexual? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Not that I know of? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There is something closer than a friend? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Hush, I think you're seeing real discrepancies within Ron's argumentation. Here are his main lines of argument ... 1) Discrimination equals limiting anyone based on something they can't help ... something that they don't choose, therefore being against Gay Marriage equals discrimination. 2) Discrimination does not equal limiting someone for doing something which "hurts" someone else. 3) Any Legal limitations on anything should not be based upon moral priniciples. #1 is by no means proven. #2 I agree with, though "hurting someone" can mean much more than immediate physical injury. #3 cancels out # 2, since "not hurting someone" is, without question, a moral principle. Though you also see contradictions in Ron's stance, I'm aware that you haven't come to the same conclusion as I have about the Gay Marriage issue. But I want to question your overarching view of "discrimination" ... Would you call refusing to give a pay check to a slothful person who refuses to work, discrimination? It is, after all, limiting someone based on a chosen lifestyle. It seems we have to "discriminate" against some actions or choices. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I am convinced that homosexuality is based on genetics. Of course, not all homosexuals are born that way. Some choose to dabble in same-sex relationships. I ask any forum member these questions: Do you remember the point in time when you looked at a member of the opposite sex and felt a natural sexual attraction? Before that event occured, did you make a mental note to be attracted only to members of the opposite sex? I was 5 years old when I noticed a female classmate of mine (kindergarten) and had my first (my first recollection, at least) feelings of a sexual attraction. A homosexual man explained to me once that the same thing happened to him when he was a little boy, about the same age as I at the time of my first sexual attraction, except in his case, he felt sexually attracted to another boy. He didn't ask for that attraction to happen, he told me. It just did. It was natural for him. One could call him a liar, but after listening to and watching him tell his story... he had no reason to lie. Now, should we blame satan? His parents? Society? Or should he blame himself for having a natural attraction to and desiring a person of his own sex? As much as I or any one else may be disgusted about what goes on behind closed doors between two men, and it does disgust me - that feeling of disgust should bear no weight in accepting into society what is natural for others when it does not harm society and if a majority helps it to become law. It must be hypocritical of me to feel disgusted about two men because the thought of two women does not disgust me, but it is natural for me to think that way. Now, about the biblical argument. Hogwash. There are numerous sexual "sins" described in the bible that are all eqaully lumped together. To deny the rights of one type of sexual sinner - the homosexual - would be to deny the rights of heterosexuals too. "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: To the extent that heterosexual sexual sins are no less sinful than homosexual sexual sins, I actually agree with you entirely. For example, if someone asked me whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military, I'd probably ask whether adulterers are allowed in the military - in this I see no appreciable distinction beyond one being a breach of the marriage covenant and the other a breach of nature. Both are sin and, as you know, sin is sin. But Opeth, why should we be forced to assume that because something has a genetic basis it ought to be regarded as "normal." With the same facts before us, one could just as easily argue that homosexuality is a sexual developmental disability. Perhaps we ought to explore the ramifications of that possibility before assigning homosexuals the additional right to marry someone of the same sex. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I've questioned it several times, Stephen. Never got an answer, either. Go kick a dog. If the dog yelps, does that mean it has a moral code? Agreeing to not hurt someone is a simple social contact. I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me. When that seems to work pretty well, we just carry it to the next step. I won't let anyone hurt you if you won't let anyone hurt me. The step after that is called civilization. Recognition of this principle is important, I think, because there's a very interesting corollary that seems to be universal. Any time you intentionally let someone else be hurt, regardless of who it is or why you do it, you inevitably open yourself to the same possibilities. BTW, if you actually kicked that poor dog, ya got no morals, buddy. quote: When and where I was raised, Opeth, they said pretty much the same thing about a black man marrying a white woman. It was disgusting and perfectly natural to think that way. quote: When you get to my age, Jim, and start looking back at all the really stupid things you did because of hormones, I guess you start to think of ALL sexual development as a disability. I don't, however, see any reason why homosexuality should be any more of a disability than heterosexuality. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: For one, we both know of neurobiological conditions that impair a person's ability to engage in meaningful, appropriate social interaction. We know that such impairments typically manifest during the most rapid periods of brain development (toddler years and early adolescence). One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship. I personally see no more reason to regard the behavior as normal than to regard it as a social impairment. Such a judgement as yours belies the utility of the homosexual relationship. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Nope. But a moral awareness, or moral conclusion of some kind, is necessary to decide whether or not it was a good thing to do. "Yelping" is naked data, nothing more. The morality becomes necessary in the interpretation. quote: Indeed ... it has also become law. And it is also firmly based upon a moral principle. quote: It's never worked out quite so neatly as that. It's never been quite so pragmatically compelling as that either ... or else laws would be unnecessary. The innocent often get hurt. The jerks often live in comfort and apparant security. The moral principle I'll agree IS universal. The corollary isn't so universal ... or we wouldn't have to compell people to behave in certain ways, at all ... through teaching or legislation. Your self evident principle "Do no harm to your neighbor", which is the only thing you seem to allow prohibitive law to be based on, is firmly planted in the field of morality. Though that field may yield some practical fruits. If you allow one moral principle into the arena of law, your forbidding of others is arbitrary. Also your argument against others fail, when it is only upon the basis that they are "moral" laws. Can you tell that I really want you to retract your generality that laws are never based on morals? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Without the word "procreative" in that sentence, Jim, do you really feel it would be true? Are human relationships only or even primarily about procreation? quote: Nope. It's just a social contract that has been employed by even the most amoral people and societies in history. That it doesn't always work is irrelevant. Think of it this way, Stephen. The law has no other purpose except to control actions. Do you really think morality can be forced upon someone? Do that and it stops being morality. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Homosexuality is not a neurobiological impairment, a human social disorder or disease. It is a natural occurence,(while rarer in other species) within the animal kingdom. As I mentioned earlier, humans closest relative(98.4% identical DNA) is the Bonobo monkey. More important than shared DNA, for the purpose of this conversation, is a shared attitude towards sexuality. Unlike most species, Bonobos, like their human relatives, enjoy a distinct seperation between social and reproductive sex. They enjoy non procreative sexual relationships that include face-to-face mating, oral sex, masturbation, and homosexuality. This challenges the assertion that homesexuality and other 'sinful' acts are 'unnatural' and may also offer proof to a 'genetic' predisposition rather than a socially learned trait in human beings. All I know is after reading some of the things I've read I'd like to, (on behalf of heterosexuals comfortable enough in their sexuality to not feel a need to cling to outdated morals, through fear or religious propaganda) apologize to all homesexual/bisexual members and friends on PIP. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-16-2004 11:47 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"It must be hypocritical of me to feel disgusted about two men because the thought of two women does not disgust me, but it is natural for me to think that way." "When and where I was raised, Opeth, they said pretty much the same thing about a black man marrying a white woman. It was disgusting and perfectly natural to think that way." ~ But the difference, Ron, (and I can't believe you didn't realize this) is this... I wasn't raised "when and where" it was acceptable to not feel disgusted about two women "being together." No person, whether it be parent, teacher, etc., ever told me that it was okay for two women to be together... therefore it must of been natural for me to think that way. Unlike "when and where" you were raised, it was acceptable, it was taught, it was a way of life - parents, family members, teachers, etc., passed on to generations the disgust by the thought of a black man and white woman marrying. [Of course we all know that white slave owners had no problem having sex with black women]. So, what one may have considered to be "natural" was merely a conditioning of the society and culture of which one was raised. Jim, I'll get back with your questions later. "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
From “THE CULTURE OF AUTISM: FROM THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING TO EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE” by Dr. Gary B. Mesibov http://www.teacch.com/teacch_i.htm quote: Aenimal: While Mesibov’s article is about autism and not homosexuality, I think Mesibov illustrates well enough the modern tendency to lay aside attempts at remediation in deference to the more politically correct practice of changing cultural norms. I happen to disagree strongly with his approach because of the low expectations it engenders, but I disagree just as strongly with the notion that the focus ought to be myopically on remediation. So what do I think? I think we ought to consider developing therapeutic technologies aimed at remediating homosexual behavior when it begins to develop as an alternative to PC "acceptance" WHILE encouraging cultural compassion for the struggles homosexuals face. Interestingly, behaviorally-based therapeutic alternatives to Mesibov’s approach that have a high rate of success in removing the future need to adapt environments to accommodate the debilitating effects of the neurological dysfunction. Incidentally, because Mesibov’s approach is roughly 1/3rd the cost of behavioral therapy, it is the most commonly used. While on its face, Mesibov’s approach in touting “acceptance” may appear compassionate, I believe it is unnecessarily forcing people to live with the dysfunction’s debilitating effects. In the same way, your apology, while seemingly compassionate, actually contributes toward a culture that would force people to live with the debilitating social and sexual effects of homosexuality without any other alternatives. You can say all you want that I'm clinging to outdated morals as the result of fear, but that doesn't make it true. Why can’t a discussion regarding remediation of homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction be driven by compassion just as much so as your position? Don't you think such an option to homosexuals would be conducive to choice? Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
From what I understand humans are omnivores. And yet some people choose to be vegetarians. Does that mean those are only herbivores or converted into herbivores when they are vegetarians? My own thoughts are not towards that. I think if they didn't have reason and mind to differ, the most basic and most initial "interests" would probably move the human to eating as an omnivore. Therefore I also feel when humans choose to be homosexual, it probably doesn't "convert" the native sexuality of human. It seems to be a cultivated and reasoned choice to make a difference, what seems natural to humans; and where it is more natural in the higher nature of things , is that turns like these shall not come and increase if there's not flexibility in nature to afford and continue to afford them. Shall there be such flexibility in nature, if there is not for it some flexibility in God's Will? If we were all supposed to do the same why do we have this ability to do differently at all? "For ever it was and ever it shal bifalle That love is he that alle may binde; For may no man for-do the law of kind" --Chaucer [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-16-2004 03:02 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Jim, "But Opeth, why should we be forced to assume that because something has a genetic basis it ought to be regarded as "normal." ~ I don't think we should be forced to assume the normality of homosexuality. I personally don't think it is a normal trait, but a natural one. "With the same facts before us, one could just as easily argue that homosexuality is a sexual developmental disability." ~ Perhaps "Perhaps we ought to explore the ramifications of that possibility before assigning homosexuals the additional right to marry someone of the same sex." ~ Here is where I disagree with you. Should a disabled heterosexual person be denied the right to marry? "You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark." [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-16-2004 06:16 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Because Jim, I disagree with a line of thinking that works on the assumption that homosexuality is a neurological dysfunction, a malady to be cured and treated. Is a heterosexual male, whose sexual attraction is limited to say, skinny redheads, neurologically impaired? Should this behaviour be remediated so that his preferences expand to include all types of women regardless of hair colour or body type? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If people didn't think about and indulge in sex so much today, I don't think so many of these sexual complexities and differences should come about. Instinct without such excesses upon it is usually not so full of doubt and question. People are excessively and dangerously sexual today, and so casual that it always needs to dilate and convert to new things. Sexuality is treated like an amusement park, people go there too often, so of course they get tired of tradition. they always need new rides to try to keep them impressed because they become very cloyed with the old ones. That's another chapter to all sexualites, part of the tale. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, your apology assumes that those who hold a different view point than yours about the issue are somehow uncomfortable in their own sexuality, that their religious and/or moral convictions are outdated and/or they are the victims of fear and propoganda. That's an awful lot of assuming, in my opinion. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship' Jim... so what? First of all, I'm in a very nice non-procreative relationship right now... and it's actually my opinion that adolescents would be significantly better off without that procreation drive- we wopuldn't have too many teen moms if they wer all fooling around with other girls. Second of all, I have to echo Opeth's point... would you support limiting the marriage rights of people with other developmental diabilities, like autism or fetal alcohol syndrome?Does it matter so much why people are homosexual? I (sort of) see where you're coming from with the rehabilitation point of view.... except that the only (supposed) handicaps put on homosexuals are related to their sexual orientation. To me, the only obvious one is social ostracization, but I understand that some people might consider religious ramifications and inherent wrong damaging to the homosexual as well. The thing is, you could only rehabilitate those who wanted... there's no way to say they are incompetent or unable to make their own decisions unless other preoblems are present. I don't have a problem with a voluntary rehab program for gays.... if they really want to change that's fine. But somehow I doubt that a whole lot of them will. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush, Yes, I think it is very important to determine the why of homosexuality. Those who see it as being a matter of genetics build their case of "discrimination" in the current law based on that belief. Those who see it either as a developmental disorder and/or as one of the symptoms of man's sin-prone nature see it as a behavior that can be dealt with therapeutically and/or spiritually. And I can think of plenty of activities that young girls could be involved in, other than mutual masterbation, that could prevent teen pregnancy. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Being left-handed is technically more of a dysfunction than is homosexuality. Especially for those who find themselves frequently forced to use a right-hand mouse. There's no evidence suggesting sexual orientation, in and of itself, debilitates a person's life or makes them less satisfied with said life. There's even less evidence that sexual orientation adversely affects a person's contributions to society. In short, homosexuality does not in any possible way meet the criteria for a dysfunction. It doesn't hurt the individual, or any other individual. It simply is. Personally, I think our resources could be better utilized by curing freckles. Then I wouldn't experience this overpowering urge to count them every time I meet someone "afflicted" by this horrid disorder. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[deleted] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise let me reword the initial statement, regarding safety with sexuality, it wasn't directed at anybody in this particular conversation but the common instance of hatred/fear fueling people's beliefs. It should be a seperate statement from the second piece. My opinion that religious beliefs and morals are, when dealing with anything sexual, incredibly archaic and sometimes outright insane. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You are entitled to your opinion, Raph, regarding religion and morals as it relates to things of a sexual nature, but I still think you are making assumptions...the common instance of hatred/fear fueling people's beliefs? How does one actually tell what fuels another's beliefs? The way I see it a disagreement with something can exist without hatred and fear entering into the equation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: 60 years ago in these United States, your views on sexuality were considered to be insane. Such a short time does not warrant the desciption "archaic". However, the origins of this view, that there are real "rights" and "wrongs" in the areas of personal conduct (including sexuality), are very ancient. Because a particular view has endured, does not mean that it is wrong, unreasonable, or foolish. My wager is on the reverse view. If you believe that there are no binding morals in the area of sexuality, then your views are much closer to insane. This is evidenced by the fact that the "sexual revolution" has lead to insane outcomes. STDs ... Divorce ... Children born out of wedlock ... rape ... pedophilia ... All of these have increased since the national moral view has moved away from the idea of a real right and wrong in the area of sexuality. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise again, not all beliefs, not YOUR beliefs, but some beliefs are fueled by hatred and fear. Seperate statements from my opinion on archaism. quote: STD's have existed throughtout history and part of their spread can easily be attributed to catholicism's/christian's frowning upon condoms in third world countries where those christian views on sexuality are most strongly held. Not to mention soaring birthrates for the same reason. I'd attribute divorce more to the changing roles of men and women in society, than on sexuality. I think it's based on the fact that marriage, as it exists, is on of the most outdated institutions in society. An instituion which, like many aspects of religious society holds women below men. Children born out of wedlock and rape? Do you read history and enjoy literature? Do you honestly think they are more prevalent now than anytime in history? Do you honestly think that even at the apex of any secular/moral power these do not occur? Not just by the subjects of those societies but by it's leaders. Read some of the bios on the early Popes or the Crusaders conquests. Pedophilia? I don't mean to be mean but honestly, should we really go there considering the scandals involving priests and church, the very adherents and enforcers of the morals you speak of? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, "some beliefs" is a world of difference away in meaning from "the common instance" that you earlier stated. I'd certainly grant that "some beliefs" are fueled by hatred and/or fear, but I have a big problem with it being considered a "common instance", that's all. I guess the folks that you mentioned who had a problem using condoms because of the Catholic Church's teachings didn't have as much of a problem engaging in the sexual activities that it teaches against that brought about the STDs in the first place? Remember, the church also teaches abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards, so where did all these folks come from who were contracting and spreading STDs for lack of condom use, supposedly in obedience to the teachings of the church? I find it hard to believe that these folks felt compelled to obey the church regarding condom use and not obey it in the areas regarding fornication and adultery. In other words, if someone is that devoted to the teachings of their church that they would refrain from using condoms, they would certainly also be refraining from pre-marital and extra-marital relations and wouldn't be contracting and spreading STDs, with or without a condom. I rather think it makes more sense that the lack of condom use, in most cases, is merely a dislike of condoms, plain and simple, and not something done to obey a church's teaching. Just a note, pedophilia is sex with a pre-pubescent child. That's not what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the most part. In most instances it has been happening to adolescent boys, post puberty, which still makes it sexual abuse by the homosexual priests, but it can't truly be called pedophilia. But no matter what it is called though it is tragic and it never should have happened and never should have been swept under the rug. That there were those who perpetrated such abuse and those who covered it up does not diminish in any way the moral ideals taught by the church, it just means that there were people in leadership in the church who didn't live up to those ideals. I think it is fair to say that the majority of them do try live what they teach, and I don't think that an entire church or its teachings can be dismissed because of the failings of the few. I think one reason divorce is on the rise is because of the change in thinking regarding life-long commitment and a decrease in selflessness, with an increased focus on meeting one's own present needs and desires at the expense of the needs and desires of one's partner and a lack of vision of the potential benefits of a life-long commitment. I think more people today are more "me" focused and want instant gratification of their needs and desires and are more apt to not want to do the "work" required to make a relationship last. People doing their own thing sexually and the results of that have been around forever, it's true, but I agree with Stephen that things have accelerated in those areas since the sexual revolution, not that they never happened before that, even in the best of times. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Sodomy is a sin. Sodomy includes oral sex, which millions of people(even the devout) partake in. What do you think an ultra religious person would react to or scorn more, a man/women who claimed to have oral sex with their partner or the admission of homosexual acts? It is not on par with other sins, and therein lies the hypocricy of religious or moral beliefs against homsexuality which in many cases is driven by a deeply ingrained fear, hatred and disgust. No Denise I wasn't claiming that STD spread is solely the result of the catholic church, simply flipping Stephanos' claim. To simply point at the sexual revolution as the cause,which Stephanos has done is ludicrous. The widespread of STDs and other diseases can just as easily be blamed on soldier movement and sailors moving port long before the revolution occured. My point is that the spread of STD's is rampant in third world countries and the church's stance on condoms and contraception is making things worse. quote: First of all those last four words, for the most part, means some cases of pedophilia, as you've defined, have occured. Now look, I don't for a second believe its ALL members of the church acting in this manner, but if you're going to blame the sexual revolution for pedophilia, as Stephanos seems to be claiming, then one should a long hard look at the actions of the church, the antithesis of the sexual revolution. I've also never agreed that the line between children and adolescents defines pedophilia, I think there are more important factors than using the onset of puberty as a marker. quote: I don't disagree, but that means societies focus, for better or worse, has shifted which makes marriage, outdated. Also, consider how many people are forced into marriage due to mistakes,arrangements and unforeseen circumstances. Should those people continue in loveless marriages? There are many reasons the divorce rate has risen I simply argued against it being a matter of open sexuality. I'm not completely dismissing the teachings of the church, only there stance on sex and sexuality which is archaic. I'd also argue against that acceleration, we're simply more open and informed about the existence of these matters than ever before. I think that's lead to a false perception that things are worse than ever. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-19-2004 12:14 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know the views of the ultra religious regarding oral sex within marriage. If they consider it sodomy then I would think they would be as much against that as against homosexuality. But I really don't know, I never asked for anyone's thoughts on it. The clinical definition of pedophilia is that of a man or woman, at least 16 years of age, fantasizing about and/or engaging in sexual activity with a child under the age of 13 and who is at least 5 years their junior and can include same-sex and opposite-sex attractions. Activity involving post-pubescents, whatever it could be considered, is not clincially considered pedophilia. And that society's focus has shifted doesn't indicate to me that marriage is outdated, it just indicates to me that society's focus has shifted. I don't think that Stephen was suggesting that the sexual revolution caused any of these things, but only contributed to their increase. Each generation seems to think it is more open minded and informed than the previous one. I think I was around 40 or so before I realized that what my parents had taught me was wise counsel, and that my thinking that I knew better than they did was just my immature arrogance. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron (and Aenimal): quote: It doesn't? I'm surprised that someone who's struck me as a "cause and effect" kind of guy would so readily declare something as "simply is." I remember watching a television news magazine story some time ago regarding a married man who "discovered" he's gay and divorced his wife. This caused harm on many levels, and I believe the physical urges (or lack thereof) that cause such an upheaval in a marriage could very well fall under the definition of dysfunction. At the risk of sounding like the broken record, asserting the "normalcy" of homosexual urges on facts with multiple possible interpretations unnecessarily limits the choices available to those who find themselves in similar situations. I'm not advocating compulsary treatment - at the individual level I'm advocating options. I think it is far easier to express disagreement with my interpretation of the facts than to argue that my interpretation of them is not a valid one. Regarding the procreative/non-procreative counterpoints, assuming all the parts are working correctly and contraception isn't being used, heterosexual sexual activity has the potential for being procreative. Homosexual sex doesn't. I think that alone is a sharp distinction between the two. If one places a value on parenthood and family, exclusively homosexual preferences present as a significant barrier. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: First, I think there is a difference between being gay and expressing gay behavior, though I suspect the difference is only important to the individual. Obviously, I have no idea which is the case in your anecdote, nor does it matter except in passing. Second, the physical urges are no more responsible for an upheaval in the marriage than if the same man suddenly discovered he liked younger women. The man clearly made choices he shouldn't have made, commitments he couldn't keep, andwhohe preferred over his wife plays very little role in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, Jim, the dysfunction plays no favorites. quote: Me, too. Including ALL of the options that you and I enjoy. quote: Your point might be stronger, Jim, with a few less provisions attached. But of course the provisions are necessary to account for all those millions of marriages where procreation isn't at issue. Would you have refused to marry your wife had she told you she could never have kids? Would you divorce her tomorrow if her reproductive equipment stopped working? Marriage, for most if not all, is a bit more than opening a baby factory. Your sharp distinction, I think, is a badly blurred one, but mostly it's just not a determining one. With or without the possibility of procreation, people who want to commit to each other should be allowed to do so without any more hurdles placed in their path than any other two people face. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[edited] I can't think anymore. This issue is too much of a mess. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-19-2004 01:54 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Unless you're aware of some law or policy I've never heard of, I believe homosexuals have the same right I do to be wed to somebody of the opposite sex. As far as the need for provisions, they seem to be a necessary evil in countering your persistence in arguing that there is no difference between non-procreative heterosexual sex and non-procreative homosexual sex. To me, the facts are self-interpreting. I don't understand why others find them so confusing. Jim |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: I honestly can't swallow drawing a line between a 12 year old and a 13 year old as where pubescence is the only marker. Regardless, I'm not going to argue the semantics, the issue is that members of the church church are responsible for reprehensible behaviour. Whether defined as sex with children or with an adolescents, the church has been guilty of both. Society focus's have shifted many times before and with them their morals and traditions. Taking into account the recent shift, one could argue that marriage as it exists is outdated. I was simply flipping Stephanos argument. He argued that the sexual revolution is evidence that a lack of morals lead to/accelerated the insane outcomes we've been speaking of, and I argued that even these problems exist in even the most 'Moral' parts of society. I don't think it's immature arrogance to suggest there's something wrong with hindering homosexual rights or the claiming homosexuality is an illness. Discrimination against women was once commonplace. Would you argue that it's elimination(for the most part) was a bad thing? Or were those open-minded female pioneers justified? How about racial discrimination? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Raph, some of my family thinks I procrastinate. I keep telling them I'm patient. Very similar words, describing exactly the same thing, with the choice of word being determined largely by attitude. I see much the same thing when I hear one person use the word traditional and another uses archaic. "That's the way it's always been done" is a lousy reason to maintain a practice. It's an equally lousy reason, however, to eliminate a practice. Calling sexual attitudes archaic or insane tells us more about your conclusions than your line of reasoning. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread, rather than take this one into new directions, and explain to us why prevailing sexual attitudes makes so little sense to you? quote: LOL. Don't confuse rights with choices, Jim. When you married the person you love, you lost the legal right to wed anyone else, opposite gender or not. Do you really want to limit everyone else's choices to the one you made? Or even the ones you made? quote: First, I'm not arguing there are no differences, Jim, only that there should be no distinctions. The way you love your son, for example, is surely different than the way I love mine. That doesn't make one love better than the other. Differences should be celebrated, not twisted into a reason to call each other names. Second, I've found very little in life that is self-interpreting. It is only our presumptions and prejudices that sometimes make it seem that way. If you find yourself unable to articulate a justification for the way you feel, perhaps that just means there is no justification? History would suggest that is often the meaning of "self-interpreting." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, Semantics is important when discussing issues to ensure that people are on the same page, and not blurring issues and working from different definitions in their discussions. But you're right, the church members are guilty of both, pedophilia to a lesser degree and homosexual abuse to a greater degree, and I would imagine that you could even thow in some heterosexual abuse as well. I would disagree, though, that the church is guilty. The majority of the church leaders did not participate in the abuse or participate in covering up the abuse. That guilt falls only on the individual members who did participate. Yes, one could argue that marriage is outdated and one could also argue that every societal change in focus or whim does not necessarily make a time-tested institution outdated. The pendulum could just as easily swing the other way in another generation or so. And change is not always necessarily change for the better. Sometimes it can be change for the worse. I agree with Stephen that the sexual revolution is evidence that a lack of morals does lead to/accelerate what we now have today, and I agree with you that they do exist even in the most 'moral' of societies. And I don't think that Stephen would disagree with that either. It's the prevalence that we are seeing today to which he was alluding, I think. No, I wouldn't argue that any discrimination is ever justified. But I, like Jim and Stephen, don't agree that it is discrimination in not changing the definition of marriage. Marriage isn't a right given to "couples", it is a right given to "individuals", available equally to all individuals within the legal parameters that define it. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Marriage isn't a right given to "couples", it is a right given to "individuals", available equally to all individuals within the legal parameters that define it." ~ And here is where we can agree, Denise. So, if the legal parameters change to allow homosexuals to marry... enough said. So be it. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nope, I wouldn't say so be it, Opeth. I'd work within the system to attempt to have marriage changed back to what I believe is its correct definition. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
For sure, just as others would do the opposite. afterall, that is what a democracy is all about, isn't it? "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: quote: Whom are you disagreeing with? I was pretty clear in stating earlier quote: nor is the generation growing out of the sexual revolution responsible for some of the things mentioned Ron: quote: I don't think I was the only one changing the conversation's direction. For my part I thought it was neccessary to offer a counterpoint to the kind of thinking that deems that homosexuality is a sin,unnatural and my favourite a neurological impairment that requires treatment. And I apologize, but I think thinking that claim children being born out of wedlock is a problem (as if being wed makes better parents), thoughts that condemn sex before marriage, or condemn contraception seem a little archaic. I'll withdraw so that this thread can get back on course because it is an important issue, but it's one that requires an open mind and a restructured thinking. 'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?' ~Gluteus Maximus |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Aenimal: quote: STDs are virtually elimated when and if the Judeo-Christian model of marriage/ sexuality is followed in practice and not just in dogma. Regardless of what the RC Church has said about condoms, the fact remains that the primary cause of STDs is sexual promiscuity and a failure to adhere to the pattern of committed monogamy. quote: Maybe so (that's a whole other issue) ... but "looser" views about what's okay sexually contributes to the problem too. It's so much easier (to the fleshly side of us) to dabble in the feel good of sexual immorality, than to remain committed and work on a stormy marital relationship. And these breaches of trust tend to erode trust and relationships, until divorce looks like the only way out of a bad situation. quote: Outdated?? lol. I guess then, instead of the homosexuals being "progressive", they are really trying to venture into a backward and oppressive social institution that should've been done away with? What are they doing trying to follow us dusty old traditionalists into stagnation, if marriage is so counter-intuitive and undesirable? quote: No. I wasn't talking about comparing this time with History in general. Societies, like individual fruits, tend to rot within their own skins. I was comparing this time with earlier American history, pre-sixties, when the Judeo-Christian ethic was more widely held. I'm not so naive to think that Ancient Rome and other societies were not also sexually decadent. quote: We can go there. The corruption of authority doesn't invalidate the standard they teach. Actually it confirms it. The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word. Hypocrisy is a serious problem. But it can't validly be used to cast doubt upon a standard of ethics. For any accusation of hypocrisy, has to adopt that very standard (to some degree) just to make the action seem despicable. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
As Nell Carter once said, "Give me a break." "STDs are virtually elimated when and if the Judeo-Christian model of marriage/ sexuality is followed in practice and not just in dogma." ~ Please do tell me when that has ever occured? I'll answer it for you. It has never occured. Even the most dedicated and faithul "christians" have not been able to be the "model of marriage." Basically, those who are born without the physical prowess or sexuality, if you will, hold to this "virtue" much more than those who are "blessed" with a sexual endowment. Of course, this has nothing to do with homosexuality by itself and is merely a moot point. "Regardless of what the RC Church has said about condoms, the fact remains that the primary cause of STDs is sexual promiscuity and a failure to adhere to the pattern of committed monogamy." ~ My above response answers this... again, this could be applied to either heterosexuality or homosexuality. "Maybe so (that's a whole other issue) ... but "looser" views about what's okay sexually contributes to the problem too." ~ Once again, this applies across the board of sexuality. "It's so much easier (to the fleshly side of us) to dabble in the feel good of sexual immorality, than to remain committed and work on a stormy marital relationship." ~ Yep. When the husband beats the **** out of his wife, she should stay... when the husband abuses the kids, she should stay... I could go on and on... What does that have to do with gay marriages? Nothing. "And these breaches of trust tend to erode trust and relationships, until divorce looks like the only way out of a bad situation." ~ Especially when that "bad situation" is a punch in the mouth. "We can go there." ~ Of course you can... but then how much contempt do the so-called "born again" christians have for the catholic church anyway? "The corruption of authority doesn't invalidate the standard they teach. Actually it confirms it. The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word." ~ Just priests? I beg to differ. Many preachers do the same... it is just not popular news, that is all. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I was responding to Raph's challenge of the Biblical view of sex in general. He obviously thought it was related enough that, if he could cast doubt on the traditional views, then the exclusively heterosexual position on marriage would be shown as doubtful too. You're really questioning his judgement as well as mine, in making that connection. I just so happen to agree with him in seeing the relation. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: What does that have to do with anything? I don't agree with all of their doctrines (especially some of the extrabiblical ones), but I hold no contempt for the catholic church. Some of my favorite Christian writers are / were Catholic. Peter Kreeft, G.K. Chesterton, John Michael Talbot. I respect many of them, and would be apt to say that their Christian fruit often exceeds my own. quote: Who said "Just"? I'm afraid you imagined that part. Of course moral failure isn't limited to the RCs. But whether Protestants or Catholics or both are guilty of these things, my point to Raph is the same. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What kind of democracy would we have today if we didn't change on the basis that some religious beliefs and definitions didn't change? Would we be in a democracy at all? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Who knows Stephanos, I'm simply arguing for their RIGHT to be as outdated and regressive as the rest of society. Ok so THIS one is my last deviation from the topic, I promise My problem with your argument Stephanos is that you've linked excess with openness when you attack the sexual revolution. I'm not an advocate of promiscuity, or the things you assume are a result of the sexual revolution, I'm simply for openess in matters of human sexuality. My counterpoint to yours was that excesses will occur regardlesswhat model of society is used. The problem with the sexual revolution is obvious, give an inch take a mile. In other words some humans will not excercise the restraint or recognize the consequences. This is what you were arguing and I don't disagree with. Except that not ALL humans are incapable or irresponsible. That flaw in the ideology, however, was recognized and with that understanding came sexual education, awareness and promotion of contraception and condom use. The problems with the moral and bible views on sex are equally evident. They restrict human impulse to procreation and anything beyond that boundary is taboo and sin. The more you chain human impulse the more it will rebel. Where the sexual revolution recognized it's flaw with regards to human behaviour, the church has not. That's where my argument on archaic views came in. If we locked humans in a room, limited all access to temptations and interaction with other humans, the occurence of STD,violence etc would be drastically reduced. But is that living? Ok AS PROMISED that's my last on this subject, feel free to start the new thread if you feel a need, as for this thread let's get back on topic: Homosexual couples deserve the right to be as miserable and suffocated as their heterosexual counterparts..also known as the right to get married  'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?' ~Gluteus Maximus |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Let's put your reply into context, shall we? "The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word." ~ Ross Perot once made a similiar fupaux [sp?]. Becareful when defining a group as "these..." You left out protestant ministers and other "men of the cloth," not I. "Some of my favorite Christian writers are / were Catholic." LOL... Archie Bunker once said the same thing about black people being his friend. ~ So, Stephaons... are Catholics saved? I mean, they are not "born again" are they? "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If the people's will and ways change so much, it seems there is no choice, but the democracy must change too. How can it continue to deny people their will if they become greater and louder as individuals, societies, and movements? The extremists on both sides shall increase. The government must change to keep a mean that is respectable for everybody, to keep those extremes away. I would rather have that mean that tries to appease as many as possible within reason and equality, than see those extremes that come from such obstinancy on one side and feelings of disparities on the other. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-20-2004 05:23 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Interesting observation, Essorant... indeed. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Yep, I know what you had said earlier, Raph, but this later statement of yours didn't make that distinction, and I just wanted to make mention that I disagree with that statement as it stands without that distinction, that's all. I used to work for lawyers, what can I say?! I'm very conscious of missing words and how it can change the understanding of what is conveyed, intentional or not. Similar to semantics. Opeth, Stephen was replying to a statement by Raph wherein Raph mentioned the Catholic Church and the priest scandals. Preachers and Protestants weren't brought into the subject by Raph simply because he was talking about a specific topic, the recent scandals in the Catholic Church, so Stephen certainly wasn't leaving them out. They just weren't part of the current discussion. What exactly IS the topic of this thread anyway? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise, I think I remember that the topic was ... "What will become of Marriage, after an arbitrary redefinition is forced upon popular society by activist judges who legislate at will?" or "What will be the consequences when something with such deep anthropological, cultural, and religious roots as marriage, is arrogantly changed around by an "enlightened" post modern society, which presumably doesn't need to count such a tradition as anything of value, because it is, after all, just a tradition, and therefore surely can't have any real reasons, other than ignorant bigotry, behind it's long history of prevalence." or something like that. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Instead of being a manner of definition for a Monarchy or Aristocracy, it shall be one for a Democracy. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant ... Only most Americans feel homosexual marriage is wrong, and are against it. Judges, in a tyrannical and arbitrary way have overturned laws, calling them "unconstitutional". We didn't appoint Judges to legislate, but to enforce law. Where is the "democracy" in this? Or maybe (hopefully) that's what you were getting at? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, I know they no longer teach Civics in high school, but the information is still available for those who want to learn it. The judges are doing exactly what they have been mandated to do -- insure legislators can't create bad laws and the majority can't usurp the rights of the minorities. That you dislike a specific ruling doesn't obviate the checks and balances that have worked well for several hundred years. On the contrary. You are the reason those checks and balances are necessary. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree with Ron |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Ron, maybe you could use a remedial in "Civics". The passing years have clouded your memory. This trend of Judicial abuse, has not been going on for "several hundred years". If the Judicial branch is given such power, who holds them accountable? These "checks and balances" you speak of are seemingly absent when it comes to those in black robes. Are we to deem that a law is unjust just because some liberal judges SAY it is? Who functions as a check or balance for the judges? No one. Not even the people. That's why you can conveniently say that their role is to protect the "minorities" from the usurpation of the majority. What a convenient way around democratic ideals. And with no one to hold judges accountable, this amounts to oligarchy.quote: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030809-110415-3918r.htm Essorant, I'm curious why do you agree with Ron that our judges should have the right to overturn laws at will, regardless of the majority of Americans think about it, independent of any other branch of Government that might hold them accountable? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-10-2004 08:39 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is Judges' craft to know better than they, so they should have hand over making and bettering law. If the majority's will is not even, the Judge must yet be even, If the Majority's will is not constitutional, the Judge must still be constitution, lawful, right, reasonable, equal, just. That is why I believe a judge should be able to judge different than other heads of Government, and the Majority. The Judge judges best (or at least is supposed to) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: If it's the judges "craft" to know better concerning legislation, then why don't judges comprise the legislative branch of our Government? quote: You assume that a Judge's "judgement" is always right? How idealistic. If a judge should be vested with the power to judge different than other "heads of Government & the majority", then who is able to judge over the judge if he is wrong or unfair? quote: Yeah, or at least is supposed to. Would you change your tune, if a judge established something you considered to be fundamentally unfair? For example, if homosexual "marriage" were legal, and more conservative judges refused to allow state recognition of such marriages, would you still agree that judges know best? That kind of argumentation only jives when the dictating powers enforce something you happen to like. Where are the checks and balances? How do we determine whether or not exclusively heterosexual marriage is "unconstitutional"? Such weighty questions should not be soley determined by a few with gavels, who want to impose their own ideologies upon the whole nation. Remember, for example, that there are many who feel very strongly that abortion violates a constitutional right of the unborn ... yet judicial tyranny (again) determined the opposite, and rendered the unborn without protection. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Wish I had a time machine. I'd let you use it, Stephen, to return to the Sixties when our high schools actually taught people how our government works. Failing that, maybe this link will provide a brief (and incomplete) summary of our system of checks and balances. One thing not mentioned in the summary that you might like is that Federal judges, like Presidents, can be impeached. And if a law should be held to be unconstitutional, the legislative branch even has the power to amend the Constitution. (They just don't get to choose to ignore it.) The framers of our Constitution were as paranoid about giving anyone absolute power as … well, as I am. BTW, I was just kidding. If I had a time machine I suspect I could find better uses for it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yep, the legislature has the power to 'check' the judges decisions, just as we saw on the state level with the Florida legislature in the Terry Scaivo case in response to the public outcry at the court's mandated starvation decree. They even have the authority, given to them in the Constitution, to decide what types of issues can or cannot be addressed by the court. So if renegade judges are ruling the day, the legislature is ultimately to blame for not dealing with it, as they are the only ones who can do something about it...if they really want to. The question is, why aren't they dealing with it? Why do they sit on their hands and blame the judiciary instead of exercising their Constitutional authority? I can only guess that they either do not find the court's rulings outrageous, despite what they tell their constituency, or they are being influenced not to use their authority, probably for the advancement of their own political careers. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I just feel if the judge is working utmost in the substance of democracy and the constitution, that he or should not be forced to make a judgement about something only according to some other head of the government, or the Majority, he or she should be able to judge by his or her own Expertness, within reasonable discretion of course, and due process, but still give a ruling that his or her own ruling. Otherwise, if Judges simply must do what is always the way the majority will or another branch of government demands, then there is no point in having Judges. Judges should do for the democracy of all people, not just the majority. But ultimatly, the system still seems -inevitablly- to go by the Majority in our Democracies. Most people like unruralization, therefore there is ever the more urbanization, and minimization of natural landscape. Most people like greasy McDonald, therefore there is a McDonalds on every avenue, they like cars, therefore there half the city is acres of car dealerships. Most people don't care that pornography is being sold in their community, so it is in the phonebook, in stores, on certain TV, on the Internet, influencing the mainstream. So it seems it doesn't really matter whether it is good or bad for you. If the Majority will make din and have it, they will eventually get it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Probably, Denise, it's because they don't have the votes. Passing legislation is easy enough, with quorums and mutual back scratching, but real cooperation is in short supply in Washington, especially on controversial issues. Changing the Constitution can only happen when a whole lot of people agree it should, which is exactly as it should be. Besides, at the end of the day, the lack of cooperation in Congress isn't the fault of Congress. It's the fault of the voters. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Essorant, hi, don't wolves mate for life?  Guess my age is showing again Some of the most wonderful & inspiring people in my life were gay men... What they do in the privocy of their homes is their business...but gay marriages in my mind carries things beyond the norm. When did sex and personal affairs become so free and airy...when did airing dirty laundry become acceptable behavior? Oh I don't know...we opened a great big can of worms over 30 years ago, and liberal thinking became absurd and way to far to the other end of the spectrum? I'm old fashioned, deem myself a child of God...and I do not attend church or am a working member of a religion, but am a believer. I feel, there are way to many things out in the open that should be kept privet and between the two people involved, a sacred union. Just b/c I think one way, doesn't mean I get to cram my beliefs and habits down anyone else's throat. Just b/c I think one way about an issue, and the gays think another, doesn't make them right and me wrong. Its a matter of personal belief. My God, how far will we go, or is the concept...how far can we go? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ess, I'll take ruralization any day over urbanization! Ron, I agree. The voters bear responsibility. But I also think the greater fault lies with the non-voters. LeeJ, quote:I don't know. quote:Sometimes it seems to be. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
How far have we come? |
||
|
Errandghost Junior Member
since 2003-09-10
Posts 17Thoroughly Abroad |
"When a match has equal partners then I fear not. " - Æschylus |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
The union of a man and a woman under HOLY matrimony....cut and dry...Anything else is a farce |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
two people The union of |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Okay, "the union of two people under "matrimony"...there's nothing holy about same sex marriage... Don't take me wrong Ess....everyone should be able to do in their own privacy what they want to...I have no ill feelings towards anyone for something like this...personally, I have a brother in law that is gay, and, he's one of my best friends..he's a very talented person, musician, Master's degree in psychotherapy, treats many gays, he, and many of his patients suffer from depression, he will be the first to admit his lifestyle is perverted, and has no want of marriage though does live with a partner. Does that make it any less of a sin?..NO...does the "sin" as defined biblically any worse than any other sin?..NOpe...sin is sin and heaven knows I'm one hell of a sinner...worse than most..LOL...I do not try to justify my sins, nor do I think anyone else should....then again, I would never ask God to "bless" my sin either.... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Humans show manifold personalities, differences and similarities, masculine or feminine, whether they are male or female, which proves the argument against "homosexuality" in marriage basically physical. The only difference shows--basically --the physical state of being in the same sex, and having sex unnormally. And that should be put over the state of loving each other above all and wishing to get married? What right do you and others have to treat a group of people based on imagination of the way they have sex in the bedroom? The first mistake is treating them as sexuals; you don't know if they even have sex. Of course, in common sense, you know they probably have sex, but you don't have any proof, so you don't even know that they are having sex in that manner that you seem to judge them by so harshly. The second mistake is that you and others, now treat them, as if their relationship, if sexual, is sexual based--based on having sex, and being sexual. Basically the ideal man and woman get away with being treated as true lovers without a doubt (whether they are or not) when they wish to get married, but when two people are man and man, woman and woman, now they are treated as "how those people have unnormal sex in the bedroom" people; and people that keep calling it sin still have yet to show why homosexuality is a sin. If it is said in the bible, That is not enough; we don't live in a bibliocracy. Show me why it is a sin, and what makes them unable to do anything that a man and a woman may together other than have sex so invariablly normal as men and women. And then tell me how this or that justifies society making other peoples sexuality and sex lives its business and problem, if it is not that couple's problem, and if it is mature and lawful. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-17-2004 08:42 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Then all 'sinners' should be barred from Holy matrimony. Name one person on the planet who could be married? Cast the first stone. Let's forget the HOLY and focus on just matrimony. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
During the years I was learning to become an adult, I heard much the same from many people. "Some of my best friends are blacks," they would say, all the while pushing them to the back of the bus. The laws given by God in the OT would appear to have little to do with what is being questioned here. There is no passage that cites who can and can't sign a DNR order in the hospital. The scriptures are silent on current tax and inheritance laws. The question of health insurance isn't even mentioned in the Bible. These and other rights of a person to choose whom they love and trust with their life aren't being denied in the name of God, but rather in the name of bigotry. There are no laws currently on the books that would force a priest, minister, or rabbi to bless the union of two people, be they same gender, different races, or opposing creeds. Nor has anyone suggested such a law. What you advocate and practice in your church or synagogue is between you and God. What the State does, however, concerns all civilized men and women. Discrimination is illegal. |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
The marriage i have experienced,,,,was a deep pit of depression, teamed with an emotional and financial vampire that took all I had, and left nothing of, or for me,,,,,the marriage I dream of is one of sharing, caring, respect and harmony when it comes to bathroom time,,i feel I have found the best man for the job, my Mike,,,,,I mean,,,I adore Ringo,,but, we'd make an awful couple,,,lmao....luv ya Ringo! I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Perfect response Ron. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: It's too easy to confuse corruption with "progress", and to praise one as the other. That was the fundamental mistake with the building project in "Babel", and the same is true now, I suspect. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
(unless the definition of marriage is retained) any number of The union of Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: In other words, religious ideas should remain irrelevant to any form of public policy ... privatization. And the state is called to higher ethic than the Church. In other words, the church can teach something as fundamentally wrong or right or whatever. But Ron apparantly believes that the "tolerance" of the state reflects a more sublime ethic than the disagreeable tenets of scripture. And discrimination is not illegal ... discrimination may also be used with a positive connotation. Whether such "discrimination" is proper or not is the question. Any time we pose limitations, we discriminate against something. And no, homosexual marriage remains illegal in many states, so legality cannot be used as an argument for homosexual marriage. The fallacy is to claim that forbidding homosexual marriage is the same as something like segregation. Upholding one argument with the merits of a very different one. Stephen |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I realize all have different opinions...I think Perversion is sin, no sin is worse than any other but by law have different consequences, but don't believe either should be "blessed" under HOLY matrimony...maybe it's just definition, got me...don't care....I live my life within the realms of what's morally correct for me, and others do the same I'm sure, if they have morals at all... [This message has been edited by Toerag (05-18-2004 12:15 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The union of two people under HOLY matrimony. Where is the religious definition of marriage not retained in the above? Two people includes "a man and a woman". |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I guess then, it should be "okay" for brother to marry sister, brother to marry brother, son to marry mother, son have many wives, sister marry sister, son marry anyone that is of age or not of age, do we ever draw a line?..Does it matter?...I guess if we're to throw the bible out all together, (which in most cases we are doing so or trying to do so), and, if nothing is sacred anymore, and if morals don't mean diddly anymore, and if everyone wants to marry same sex partners, it will mean the end of civilization...hell, we can go on and on and throw it all out?....Of course this is ludricous, but why can't two "buddies" just get together, get married in Sodom Mass. and collect the bennies from insurance and taxes etc?....Who needs marriage otherwise?...Is it for those bennies?...How about if your mother is widowed, why not just okay marriage to her son for the benefits?...Then put her on your insurance policy?...What are the ramifications?....None I guess, anything goes these days?...What's the harm?...What's the difference?....How about a sister? She needs medical care?...She's ugly and fat and can't find a husband?....Why should she be "discriminated" against?..Just cuz she's a sister?....How about my neighbor?...Can't get out and find a girl..a guy?...Should I just marry him?...Don't have to have sex, just help him out?...Is there anything sacred anymore?...Do morals only come from Thou shalt not steal, kill, etc.?......Is no definition needed anymore?...I'm just confused I guess.. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Have you read the thread through? People have already offered answers for those questions. Besides if you're going to indulge in sarcasm and silly scenarios than at least mention people with multiple personality disorders marrying themselves. Now that's the stuff. Also, nobody is saying throw the bible out, if you believe in the book by all means. Our society is diverse and encompasses all sorts of beliefs and practices, that have nothing to do with state. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Aenimal....I have multiple personalities...and I didn't really see a reasonable answer to this?...What is your answer?...Furthermore....yes, incest can create disorders in off spring...as can two fathers, two mothers...etc., truly not physical, but mentally....in fact, just the ramifications from peers can be mentally destructive....yanno aenimal, I like you too, love your poetry, love your pic too..reminds me of me..and you and I will always disagree on this, but that's what's great about this country and this site and generally decent folks, I know we won't go to war over this...LOL....I've been raised differently than some others...do have some moral issues, (though I'm a very immoral person in alot of ways).....have no problem with what anyone does in the privacy of their own lives, my biggest and only argument with this is not even really with the couple, but with anyone with an alledged "sanctified" religious background, let's say, "ordained" minister that would perform this ceremony I guess....it's like The American Cancer Society" selling Marlboros....It's hypocrisy...you can't believe in God, Christ, the Bible, any of the above and condone this without being a hypocrit...I honestly have no problem with gays and what they want to do or how they live their lives..I just don't like to see God's blessings being a part of blessing it....I am probably the most "non religious" person you've ever met, I've done things even I'm ashamed of, have no excuses, and, some regrets ....anyway, my opinions are based on my upbringing I reckon...no disrespect to you or your opinions....I usually stay away from these boards but was getting bored at the others...and I know now to just stay away from here...take care bro...hope I haven't offended you or anyone else....I'm outta here for my own good..... [This message has been edited by Ron (05-18-2004 04:46 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you read through previous posts and threads, Toe, you should discover those objections already addressed (if perhaps not answered). Indeed, those are halls walked at the earliest beginnings of this discussion. Of course, if you have something new to add, we can certainly revisit the halls. quote: And under which would you consider human rights to fall, Stephen? quote: You can "teach something as fundamentally wrong or right" all you wish, Stephen. But teaching doesn't seem to be your goal. For several thousand years, mathematicians have managed to teach that two plus two equals four with no apparent need to pass State laws to enforce it. What you propose isn't teaching, Stephen. It's forcing others to accept what you have accepted simply because you have accepted it. That's not only contrary to human law, it's antithetical to God's will. quote: The laws of which you speak are, themselves, illegal, Stephen. Just as were all the state laws stricken in the Fifties and Sixties that discriminated against blacks. State law cannot contradict the Constitution. quote: Whose law, Toe? God's or man's? Your personal view of perversion and sin is between you and God. Unless you believe God is too weak to enforce His consequences, or too foolish to set them wisely, that is exactly where your personal view should remain. If you wish to believe that dancing is a sin, as some certainly do, that is your right. You can even teach others that dancing is a sin and use all the many tools of persuasion to promote your view. But until and unless dancing brings harm to another human being, you have no right to force your religious views on others. When the world is united under a single religion, led by God, there will be no need for a State to exist. Until then, however, state governments must remain a religious-free buffer zone, because history has shown over and over that when the State becomes a mere tool of religion the result is always abhorrent. Homosexual marriage is not a religious issue. It's a secular one and needs to be addressed as such. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I guess depending on your "morals"..would decide whether it's a moral issue or not....and like I said above, I'm finished with this issue....with what's on TV now, with what's being done with God in schools and elsewhere, and with morals being thrown to the wayside now-a-days...almost "anything goes" is the way of the times...I'm just amazed at how many people are taking such things with a grain of salt?...Didn't Lot's wife do that?..LOL |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, you can do better than that. They are only illegal according to ultra-liberal judges and their relativistic ideologies. You haven't shown in the least how Gay Marriage (which is the imposing of an arbitrary change of something foundational for millenia) is the same as segregation. You can repeat that assertion all you want to ... but that is always your argument. Your conclusion IS your argument. The Constitution? LOL. You know as well as I that the constitution does not speak into the issue of changing the definition of marriage. Why not? The framers never dreamed of a day when homosexual marriage would be sought as public policy. They simply did not anticipate the moral corruption that we are now seeing. This Constitutional "support" of yours is inferred by your own interpretation of the Constitution and that is all ... At any rate, the issue is foreign to the document itself. Others use the same interpretive reasoning to say the constitution also protects the human rights of the unborn, yet you deftly (and inconsistently) deny that. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Again, Ron, you are in the uncomfortable position of having to say that the scriptural warnings against homosexuality (both individual AND societal) are moral directives given arbitrarily, and in a vacuum of sorts. That God does not deem something immoral because it IS harmful, but just does it to impose a rule. Can you sustain that argument? If Sodom is not a concrete example of how such a thing is harmful to society and the individuals who make up that society, I don't know what is. Interestingly enough, widespread public acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the Roman empire was considered one of the death throes of that society, by the historian Edward Gibbon. Your definition of harm, as being only immediate bodily harm, would render multitudes of laws unjust ... because your view lacks any foresight or long range considerations Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
By the way, Where in the the bible does it condemn a romantic and spiritual relationship with one of your own sex? It condemns homosexual lechery, as it condemns any kind of lechery; but I don't know of a part that expresses against seeking a healthy and monogamous relationship with one of your own sex... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. And they are only ultra-liberal and relativistic because they don't agree with you. They are the law of the land, my friend. Live with it. quote: You're mixing terminology, Stephen, because I never mentioned segregation, but I'm guessing I know what you meant. Discrimination against gays by legally preventing them from marrying who they want is no different than discrimination against blacks by not allowing them to be landowners in the neighborhood they choose. When a privilege is allotted to a few and not to everyone, based solely on which group you belong to, it is discrimination. Segregation is a different issue, though obviously linked. quote: And you've heard me say that where? Not that it would matter how either I or others interpret the Constitution. Ultimately, it only matters what say the ultra-liberal judges of the land. quote: Stephen, I have absolutely no problem at all should God choose to impose His will on the people of Earth, and I consider it very significant that He hasn't. I have a big problem, however, when you choose to impose your will on us. Your morality is conjecture, and your faith that you are right is no stronger than is mine or the guy who believes dancing is a sin. You have every right to live your life according to your own conjectures. You have no right to tell me how to live mine. God gave me and everyone else choices to make. Who are you, Stephen, to make those choices for us? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: The difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, biblically speaking, lies in this ... heterosexual union is mentioned in many biblical passages, in positive even spiritual terms. The only time heterosexual union is condemned is when it is practiced outside of the Marriage covenant. This of course is known as adultery or fornication. But homosexual behavior is never mentioned in a positive light. There is absolutely no distinction made between lecherous homosexuality and "acceptable" homosexuality. Some might reply that there was not as much homosexuality during that era, but that is untrue. Homosexuality was very prevalent in the Roman Empire. And Paul's letter to the Roman Church is the one that addresses homosexuality the strongest. As adamant as biblical writers were about never calling what is good evil, and what is evil good, it is hardly a plausible interpretation to say that they just failed to mention monogamous homosexuality as "Okay". Every reference to homosexuality is about the behavior and tendency itself ... it has no qualifiers attached. Adultery has qualifiers ... it is heterosexual behavior, WITH another woman, WITH my neighbors wife, WITH ... etc... When homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible there are no qualifiers whatsoever to make any distinction between "right" homosexuality and "wrong" homosexuality. If you're interested I could refer you to all the places in the Bible where homosexuality is addressed and you can see for yourself. Also a great book on the subject ... http://www.amazon.com/exec /obidos/tg/detail/-/0764225243/qid=1085013024/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-6554122-0215262?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Toe you haven't offended me at all and i know the feeling of wanting to get out of here but it's hard to keep, what many here no doubt think is a big mouth, shut. shrugs My problem with morality especially biblical morality is that it's selective. Where people can accept certain changes but rail against others. For example we accept and recognize women and their contributions to society more then scripture ever allowed and more than any previous society. As a race and society we evolve and realize certain modes of thinking are outdated. Years ago a woman showing more than her ankle was a harlot. We evolve. Of course, the thinking in here is, we push things too far and lose control. But the same applies the other, we push 'moral' or 'religious' thought to the point where we're too rigid and controlled. The main point is that laws are made and governed by State not Church. This isn't impossible, nore will it lead to a free for all of all the scenarios being thrown around in here. Just like allowing women and blacks to vote didn't destroy western civilization. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Finally ... your attempts at reason and justification abandoned, and your position stated clearly and concisely. Thank you. But I wonder if you would feel the same way if those Judges making decisions, were ones which you vehemently disagreed with. Would you like someone else to just say "live with it"? quote: So you are saying that the Bible is ambiguous about what is sin, and therefore any arguments for or against the propriety of anything are on equal footing? Sorry ... when's the last time you tried to defend dancing as sin, using biblical exegesis? Pedantic legalism is hard to bolster. Emphatic unambiguous biblical statements are not. quote: I recalled it from our lengthy debate on abortion ... you said that, in not so many words. At least I didn't get the impression that you felt unborn children were protected under "human rights". Sorry if I misinterpreted. If that's not your position, maybe you need to learn to argue your position instead of someone else's. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The Bible is ambiguous about many things, of course all arguments are on equal footing until proof is offered and accepted, and absolutely none of that has anything to do with the laws that govern a free society. Theocracy doesn't work. Legislating morality doesn't work. And, ultimately, treating others as less deserving than yourself doesn't work, either. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Perhaps ... But whether homosexuality is sin surely isn't one of them. Neither is the question of whether widespread public endorsement of homosexual behavior is good for a society. The former has been established doctrinally, by the apostles of your faith. The latter has been established historically ... both within the pages of scripture and otherwise. quote: Okay, if we're talking about whether homosexuality is sin or not ... If you accept the Bible as authoritative, then there's the proof. Can you reasonably say it's not, using the biblical texts, without contorting them to fit a pro-homosexual position? Could you convince a court of law, if the Bible was the proof of what the apostles taught as truth? I don't feel that you could. If were're talking about whether or not such a widespread sanctioning of sinful unions would be good and beneficial for societies, there has been proof, historically, albeit proof which you deny or refuse to talk about. Otherwise what kind of "proof" are you looking for? quote: That's always your song and dance ... "If you advocate a law that lines up with the Biblical view of things, you MUST be an absolute theonomist". Only one problem with that approach ... it just isn't true. I am not for a man established Theocracy. quote: What do you mean by "work"? It sure helps, as you no doubt are glad there are laws on the books which say "Do no harm to your neighbor", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" etc ... These are legislations firmly based upon moral priniciples, as I've already shown before. No they don't make people inwardly moral. But they do restrict certain abuses in a fallen and sinful world. And Biblically, that's all they were ever supposed to do. (read 1 Timothy 1:9-11) Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're starting to repeat yourself again, Stephen. Every point made in your last post has been covered already. Your Biblical proof is both ambiguous and irrelevant in a civil court, your historical evidence is completely nonexistent, and murder or theft is no more a moral issue than is running a red light or breaking a contract. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: No, you're right, I'm not saying anything essentially different than I already have. Neither are you. So why the complaint? quote: I wrote the above in response to whether or not homosexuality was sin, assuming biblical authority, and using the apostolic writings as the sole criteria ... If that were the question in a court of law, using legal/ historical methods, you would not be able to convince any judge that homosexuality was not at least TAUGHT as sinful. Keep it in context. It's only fair. If you don't squirm out, we could take a look at all of the biblical texts themselves, and invite Jim with his legal knowledge and everyone else to give their views as to whether or not the writings are ambiguous. Whether or not they believe or even respect the texts, most concede that the Bible teaches homosexuality is sin. It's usually only the liberal theologians (and Christians) who want to have their cake and eat it too ... and try to say the Bible says something else. quote: You think Sodom and Gommorah was a fictional account? Liberal theology again? I'll wait until you answer this before we speak of Rome. quote: Explain ... don't just state it over and over. Most people know that running a red light is careless or a blatant disregard for others (a moral issue), that breaking a contract is a devious thing to do which hurts others (a moral issue). And theft and murder... not moral issues? Ask anyone on the street. You're literally the only human being I've ever met who doesn't think so. Convince me ... In what other context should I think of these, that would exclude moral responsibility? Be verbose. Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron and Stephen: Well, I can’t say I entirely agree or disagree with either of you. I’m not sure either of you will like my opinion. Ron, your position that “you can’t legislate morality” is propaganda and untenable at best. The questions I believe you need to ask yourself are (1) what is “morality” and (2) when is it appropriate for government to enact law that promotes moral living? You may have tried to do this by asking repeatedly, “Who does it hurt?” but I’m not sure you’ve demonstrated that it hurts nobody. Stephen (and Denise), while the Constitution establishes concepts of freedom and inalienable rights which are thoroughly biblical, it also expressly disavows the establishment of religion. I think the popular right-wing view that the founding documents essentially make Christianity the faith of the land does more harm to Christianity than it does good (consider the examples of the Church of England and the Lutheran Church in Germany where Christianity has become more of a civic duty than individuals free choice to worship of the one true God). I believe I can identify with Ron’s argument if he is really trying to say that we should avoid legislating non-revelational morality in the name of revelation, or to legislate even genuinely scriptural moral teachings that are not socially necessary. But while I believe Christians ought to expressly avoid doing this, I think we should aim to legislate all biblical standards that have demonstrable value to our society and argue vigorously when we believe new law threatens to erode our freedoms. For example, Roe v. Wade redefined the definition of life to non-biblical terms that alienated the unborn from their inalienable Constitutional right to life. Regardless of where we decide (secularly) when life begins, it should be self-evident that if a child is capable of being born alive and surviving outside the mother’s womb at virtually any time during the third trimester, it is a body unto itself, and the killing of the unborn anytime during the third trimester ought to be regarded as murder. In order to argue successfully for mandating biblical moral standards, we must be prepared to make a strong case on scientific, social, and ethical grounds meaningful to non-Christians. Failing at this, as we have in Massachusetts if indeed the issue of gay marriage is of societal importance, we should do all in our power to shape public opinion in the marketplace with the goal of eventually making our views acceptable (as they were in the 1800’s where the issue of gay marriage would not have been considered in any way except, perhaps, theory). If gay marriage does not erode our Constitutional freedoms or stability as a society, then a gay-marriage ban hurts Christianity by falsely portraying the Church’s mandate. Our job is not to mandate social mores so as to conform the world to the future Kingdom of God on Earth, but rather to evangelize, preaching and teaching the Good News that Christ has won us a freedom that exceeds any Earthly freedom (i.e., freedom from the prison of our own making) and that one day, those who believe will have eternal life with Him as evidenced by His resurrection. Jim |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I couldn't agree more, Jim. I think a lot of Christians lose sight of our real mission in this world. Getting non-Christians to conform to Christian values is pointless. It isn't conforming to Christian morals or values that brings salvation to the non-Christian, nor maintains it for the Christian. Faith in the finished work of the crucified and risen Saviour is our message. And any behavior on our part that flows not from resting in that knowledge, no matter how moral or noble, is still only a deed of the flesh, and does not bring glory to God. |
||
|
sweet_cute_palestinian04 Member
since 2004-04-11
Posts 418Earth |
hi,,,,i found this poem kinda weird but good,,,i dont actually agree with gay marriges ,,,,i mean guyz say " guyz are better and they understand better ,,and girlz say the same thing , but how?,,,,cant you just be friends ,why sleep with each other? because it feels good??,,its not about feeling good believe me ,,,,,its about understand each other i dont think its good to sleep with the same kind ,,would'nt you like to meet new people?,,,,, i strongly disagree god made us for a reason and he had choose for us ,but your messing with mother nature and thats not right,,well thats my opinion ..but good write keep it upp.. I will cover you with my blood,not only because |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: and ... Denise: quote: I also agree, despite my insistence that legalizing gay "marriage" would be a bad thing. Such desire for laws to conform to what is right, is not meant to be a replacement of the gospel message. As I'm fond of saying, it's not an "either/ or" kind of thing ... but a "both/ and". To Jim I would say that the historical evidence is there, which would indicate that a public sanctioning of the homosexual lifestyle is not good for society at all. (Sodom, Gommorah, Rome, more recently Scandinavia) Perhaps socially speaking, the proof in research findings is not immediately forthcoming (but neither is evidence in the other direction). There is also the folly of rashly altering a socially pervasive custom, just because of the agenda of a few. Then there is the arrogance of assuming that the nearly unbroken unanimity of past civilizations was because they were obviously backward and bigotted. There is also the false confidence in comparing this issue with the civil rights issues of the past ... as if homosexuality has been proven to be no different than a physical trait. There is the danger of a constant redefining that will eventually usher marriage into a state of meaninglessness. On and on. I've touched on these before. But my point is, there is enough reasons (even secularly speaking) to not actively change a foundational institution, merely because of political pressure. And that's exactly what's happening. The Christian, or anyone else, is justified in being against Gay "marriage" for those reasons alone. As to a Biblical view of Civil law, the Christian is justified to view the Government as "the instrument of God" to uphold what is right and what will protect society from harm. Therefore it is no replacement for preaching the Gospel, but it is certainly scripturally condoned to be a proponent of just legislation. In fact it is the Church's responsibility to warn the State when erring in such a way that will bring the judgement of God. Oscar Cullman put it this way in his book "The State in the New Testament": "The Church's task with regard to the State, which is posed for all time ... First it must loyally give the State everything necessary to its existence. It has to oppose anarchy and all Zealotism within its own ranks. Second it has to fulfill the office of Watchman over the State. That means: it must remain in principle critical toward every State and be ready to warn it against transgression of it's legitimate limits. Third it must deny to the State which exceeds its limits whatever such a State demands that lies within the province of religio-ideological excess; and in its preaching the Church must courageously describe this excess as opposition to God" And certainly, the arbitrary redefinition of marriage (as given by God to humanity ... not merely defined and constructed by human society) by the State is a "transgression of legitimate limits" and "religio-ideological excess". Far from the Church advocating legislation of all moral prinicples down to the smallest jots and tittles, and espousing Theonomic reconstructionism (as Ron accuses me of doing), being against homosexual "marriage" is the duty of Christians to the State. It's no trifle to pervert something so foundational as marriage ... and from the Church's standpoint something important enough to symbolize "The Mystery of Christ and the Church". I think there is a danger involved for Christians to compromise their own revelatory worldview and buy into the "secularization" argument ... as if there were really such thing as a secular state, not under God's judgements, not responsible to him, and not in need of counsel and warning. As Kierkegaard divorced God from reason ... "Secularization thinking" in the Church divorces God from public life. I'm not ignorant of the fact that the whole question of Church and Governent poses problems in both tendencies (Secularization and Theonomy) ... But it's my opinion that ditches aren't desirable no matter which side of the road they're on. And why do ditches hold attraction? Because they each represent the clearest articulation of the errors of the other side. Having read Luther, do you think he would be apt to agree with your view of the Church and law, or mine? From everything I've read of Luther, I feel certain that he would be vehemently opposed to legalizing such a travesty of holy matrimony. And Denise ... why would God choose the instrument of the State to "reward those who do good, and to punish evil doers", (Romans 13) if he didn't want to impose his values on non-Christians? It appears that the apostles at least (though never equating the State with the Kingdom of God) had a somewhat different view of the function of Government than you are expressing. Just some things to think about ... Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: quote: In those cultures (past and present), I think the social harm resulted/results from rampant Epicureanism – the gratification of self at the expense of others. I’m seeing potential danger of a post hoc ergo proctor hoc in your line of reasoning here. Sexual immorality, I think, is a symptom of a society in moral decline. When preaching the Law and Gospel, I think the onus of the Christian is to demonstrate that, while certain actions may be legal, they are displeasing with the God of revelation and history and require repentance. quote: In 1972, nine families in Pennsylvania rashly altered the socially pervasive custom of arbitrarily excluding children with mental retardation from the public schools. In hindsight, anyone reading the old legal briefs of school districts would regard categorical exclusion on the basis of disability draconian and a violation of Constitutional due process protections on its face. Which leads me to … quote: Only when Christians allow a redefining of God-pleasing marriage, will marriage be thrown into a state of meaninglessness. Christians today have the challenge … or perhaps the privilege … of living in a world that is becoming increasingly akin to the world Paul traveled. It is worth noting that Paul’s defense of Government as bearing God’s sword of justice was set against a very, very pagan Roman backdrop. Our failure as Christians has been to allow the State to supplant the Church as civilization’s moral conscience. As much I as believe homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, because the United States Constitution expressly distances itself from establishing a Christian theonomy, pagans have the same civil rights as Christians in this country. Sadly, marriage in the United States (at least in the last century and a half) has become little more than a civil right in the eyes of its citizens. That is a failure of the church, not a failure of government. quote: But is it really changing a “foundational institution” or is it providing for a pagan definition of marriage by which those with pagan-worldviews can be married? You might compare this to the issue of no-fault divorce – in the past, divorce laws reflected Christian mores and it was very difficult for someone to obtain a divorce sans adultery or abandonment. Creating a new standard – a pagan one – that is inconsistent with biblical teaching in regards to how a Christian is to conduct his or her self does not prevent Christians from upholding the revelatory standard. quote: And when gay marriage is made legal across this nation, Christians ought to oppose its encroachment into Christian doctrine regarding marriage. To deny a Constitutional basis for homosexual marriage, however, requires one to build a factual record demonstrating either the harm caused by or the absurdity of recognizing its legitimacy. I’ll gladly go on the record as saying that I believe homosexual behavior is abhorrent and sinful, but at this point I’d have to say I cannot find a compelling Constitutional basis for preventing pagan-Americans from marrying under pagan standards. I was with Cullman through the first two points. His third point (and his second less so) seems dangerously subjective. I would not see legal recognition of homosexual unions as a “transgression of legitimate [State] limits.” The foundational Constitutional principles protecting our inalienable rights, and right to due process of law whenever the State encroaches on those rights unjustly, protect the American Christian and American Pagan alike. Using the law to force-feed Christian mores on citizens is harmful to Christians and pagans. Until the State makes it illegal for me to voice my disapproval of homosexual marriage on revelational and moral grounds, I wouldn’t say it has transgressed its legitimate limits. Christians ought to take seriously the biblical institution of marriage. I agree with you that the Church’s abdicating its legitimate role as civilization’s moral conscience on this issue would be error – but this culture war must be fought in the marketplace of ideas, not in the courts. I would challenge you, however, if you are characterizing my worldview has having been secularized – actually, I think my political views are closer to being Pauline than yours seem to be. When injustice is done, and the Christian finds his/her Constitutional rights violated, the Christian ought to pursue whatever action, including legal action, necessary to right the wrong. By example, Paul often did this when invoking his rights as a Roman citizen as he did when he was illegally imprisoned and beaten in Philippi (Acts 16ff). The issue of abortion is one in which I believe Christians ought to be vigorously working to reshape public policy to restore the inalienable right to life to the unborn. I find it impossible, however, to sustain a Constitutional argument against recognition of homosexual marriage by the State without finding myself on the edge of a precipice. Without more facts, I can’t say I’m willing to make that leap of faith with you on this one. The biblical record is unambiguous enough, but the Constitution is not an extension of the biblical record. quote: You might forget (or perhaps didn’t know) that Luther would also have recommended to the German Princes that my son be thrown in a river and drowned for being an abominable “body without a soul.” While I have great respect and admiration for Luther’s theology, particularly his soteriology, some of his least shining moments occurred when he intervened in State affairs. These failings of Luther are a good indication of the wisdom behind separating church from state. Clergy shouldn't do the work of statesmen and statesmen shouldn't do the work of the clergy. If the issue was church recognition of the legitimacy of homosexual marriages, I have no doubt I’d be standing next to both you and Luther on this issue. But we are not talking about whether homosexual marriage is “holy matrimony” … no legal proclamation can do that – only biblical revisionism. Yet I still cannot see how my view of government runs contrary to Paul’s when, in the same letter in which he strongly denounced homosexual behavior as unnatural, he counseled the Roman Christians to obey the Roman government as you pointed out. I think this is illustrative of how the Church can honor God by preaching Law and Gospel AND obey government. I think Augustine captured the Pauline concept very well in "City of God." Jim |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Deleted by me....(Hey, that's new, it's usually a moderator?) [This message has been edited by Toerag (05-25-2004 07:15 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephen, " But homosexual behavior is never mentioned in a positive light." Was a positive path, such as Marriage, ever offered to "homosexuals" in former ages? There are more negative things in the news about Natives where I live, for a great part of the natives where I live deal with poverties, racisms, inequalities, troubles; it is unbalanced; and those in ill conditions are made ill by them and continue to make conditions ill again; those that find a way out of them and are offered the help in our society that is especially there for people like them, are no more like any of the natives on the street the news, or any other people that face those problems. If people are given a cleaner and securer passage to living, many shall take it. Many shall not. But denying them that passage, shall do NO ONE good. And when people get out of jail and are still treated like criminals, they are most likely to behave like criminals if those conditions continue; many again may act like criminals for lack of learning much better; but if they find a cleaner manner of life, and are offered some sense, and are able to acknowledge that they still have honour and may be honoured in this life, they shall most likely I believe behave better, in believing better, feeling and being treated better. "There is absolutely no distinction made between lecherous homosexuality and "acceptable" homosexuality. " The bible puts everything into one heap; it doesn't really seem to distinguish any postive kind of lust in life either. Do you think all lust is evil as well, just because the bible seems to say or suggest it? It doesn't seem to say anything good about the world and wordliness either; in the dispositions of biblelore, those are evil and only evil. I think Life itself tells the truer tale about that. "Homosexuality was very prevalent in the Roman Empire." It was as wrong and indecent and lecherous as any other sexualness fell in that age. "Homosexuality" inevitablly falls into any kind of wrong that people take sexuality to. But you are suggesting it may not rise to any right and right choices that people may make regarding such things, which I think is a wrong. If you don't believe in "homosexuality", so be it. But we shouldn't treat people that are "homosexuals" as if they are not able or not interested in pursing and meeting dignity and righteousness in this life. "Adultery has qualifiers ... it is heterosexual behavior, WITH another woman..." So an act like adultery is less wrong because it is "heterosexual"? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, as a general principle I agree. But you misunderstand the Biblical view of homosexuality. It is not poverty, but perversion. Helping homosexuals is not the issue ... The Bible upholds all efforts to help others, regardless of their lifestyles. That is loving your neighbor as yourself. But to elevate homosexual relationships to a place of public honor (like marriage), would only enforce the delusion and self-deception that it's "okay" behavior. That doesn't mean that the Biblical mandate is to hate and maltreat homosexuals. But it does mean that in love, we are to call what is wrong, wrong. IF homosexuality is truely sinful and harmful, then any approving provisional efforts would not be doing anyone good. Notice I did say, "IF". The Bible plainly says it is ... You may not agree, but that is the position. quote: But it doesn't. The bible doesn't fail to include positive kinds of desire in it's descriptions ... Even sexual. Ever read "The Song of Solomon"? Quite a romance it is. To think that the Bible teaches Stoicism is to misread the Bible. When the Bible speaks of "lust", it is a good desire met in a wrong way. But if there is a wrong, there must a right that was wronged. If there is a counterfeit, there must be an original. And the Bible is very balanced to bring forth the positive and the negative. quote: Again this is a misrepresentation of the Bible, and tells me you might need to return to your study. Even the key scripture of Christian believe, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world ...". There are different senses of the Greek words used for our English "World". 1) There is a world of people and activities, 2) there is the natural world that God created, and then there is 3) the present system of things which is in opposition to God. As Satan in this sense is called the "god of this world". It's important to make these contextual distinctions in your understanding of scripture, or your interpretation may be off.quote: Again you are maintaining that there can be a "good" kind of homosexuality, which the Bible denies. Your original argument was that the Bible made distinction between acceptable and non-acceptable homosexuality. My goal has been to show that this is not so. That the Bible only speaks of homosex in negative terms ... as if it were inherently wrong. It speaks of heterosexuality in a different way ... wrong when it is outside of Holy Covenant relationship. That's why adultery is wrong, and fornication is wrong, even though the heterosexual aspect of it is not wrong in and of itself. quote: No I never said that. It is wrong, period. But heterosexuality is not wrong, period. I said that heterosexuality was only wrong when it was qualified with things like, "with another man's wife". Why? Because heterosexuality is God's design. That doesn't make adultery "less wrong". I can hear someone protest that we don't therefore make it illegal for adulterers to marry. No, we don't. But that's not the issue. Adultery is not given a public place of recognition and honor in marriage ... that would be bigamy. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos I think you are right the bible speaks against what it refers to. But what it names doesn't seem to encompass what we name "homosexuality" today, other than being same-sex. What the bible refers to, that we will also call "homosexuality," seems something that is not truly relationship at all. It is sexual perversion. Sexual and perverse for being sexual and perverse, not for people being of the same sex and intimate. Where in scripture is it condemned that two of samesex pursue monogomous relationship, such as may evolve marriage? I don't know any passages. But homosexuals today wish to get married. So it is different. And to me seems proof that there are homosexuals that are monogomously inclined, and wish for a marital lifestyle, not a perverse lifestyle. Marriage is a postive thing. When two people wish to get married I trust they seek a positive, not a negative. People know what marriage is. Every one know it is historically between a man and a woman ; but I think most know as well that it is not most, or especially, about being a man and a woman that makes marriage. It is the relationship and the personality and trueness of two people,which one word may encompass, and I still trust makes marriage. When people pursue marriage, I trust that they pursue something in similar goodness. If they don't; I can't know. I think only they know for sure if they are honest, And God knows. But any people that think to judge a couple yet don't know the couples truth for all their thoughts, but as marriage is meant to be a goodness, it seems the couple should be given at least the benefit of the doubt that they are pursuing a good lifestyle when they wish to get married, not a bad one! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"IF homosexuality is truely sinful and harmful, then any approving provisional efforts would not be doing anyone good. " If is a good sign, Stephenos It doesn't need to have anything to do with gender, but encouraging and fastening a healthy/holy estate by two/true lovers. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Have you actually examined all of the scriptures in the Bible which deal with homosexuality? I believe if you had, and if you're honest (and I believe you are), you would concede that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior wholesale ... Not a certain "kind" of it. quote: But Essorant, I challenge you to show me one scripture about homosexuality where multiplicity of partners is primarily condemned, rather than the improper sexual orientation. I have examined all of them ... and this is true of none of them. Again, you are free to disagree with the Bible. But it is faulty argumentation to say that it says something other than it does. Then there are all of the passages which define Marriage as God ordained / designed union between a man and woman. And the absence of any passages which would allow otherwise. The exclusively defined nature of marriage in scripture, coupled with it's clearly negative view of homosexuality, would make it impossible to cogently interpret the Bible as allowing or encouraging homosexual "marriage". Again, anyone is free to disagree with the Bible. But saying that it declares something other than it does (regarding this issue), is a hopeless endeavor. Regardless of the fact that many portray the bible as ambiguous and endlessly pliable in it's message, those who actually read it rather than hear it second-hand, find out otherwise. quote: I agree. But what is marriage? The Bible clearly states that it is a defined thing ... a gift given to humanity by God. Others think it is whatever we say it is. I hold to the Biblical view. Anything else is not true marriage at all. That's not to say that homosexuals cannot enjoy good things like friendship and companionship and even tender loving feelings. God's sunlight falls on us all. But those things alone don't justify homsexuality. quote: There may be a difference in "pursuing a good lifestyle", and demanding the public recognition and honor of a bad one. There are many homosexual activists who really also mock the concept of monogamy as oppressive, who also want homosexual marriage legalized. Not for the purpose of settling down in the traditional securities of marriage, but for elevating their lifestyle to the place of public acceptance and political "equality". Desiring to overturn a pervasive moral disapproval by challenging and changing public policy, is only pursing a "good lifestyle", if the moral view is really wrong. If it is not, it is the elevation of an immoral lifestyle into a widespread acceptance. But popularity doesn't necessarily change whether something is right or wrong. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If there is a decently or reasonabally complete description of "homosexuality" in the bible then bring it forth, Stephenos. I don't know any, but I will change my opinion about the bible if you prove to me there is a part that may be well perceived as a complete, or at least from a complete acknowledging of "homosexuality" or "homosexuals". Otherewise, I remain convinced the bible doesn't speak for what "homosexuality" completly is, and what it is today. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I'm not trying to warp the position expressed in the bible, Stephenos. The biblical view is negative, but my point is, that view in the bible doesn't seem to speak in everything that "homosexuality" is. You acknowledge that "homosexuals" may have decent relationships and decent feelings towards each other; but the bible doesn't seem to give a hint of acknowledging something like that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The Bible clearly states that it is a defined thing ... a gift given to humanity by God. Others think it is whatever we say it is. I hold to the Biblical view. Anything else is not true marriage at all. There is nothing wrong with holding fast to the biblical definition; but it doesn't change the truth that there are already "homosexuals" that are united by true love and true ceremonies in this world that are living together and doing all the most important things that "heterosexuals" do in marriage. "There may be a difference in "pursuing a good lifestyle", and demanding the public recognition and honor of a bad one. There are many homosexual activists who really also mock the concept of monogamy as oppressive, who also want homosexual marriage legalized. Not for the purpose of settling down in the traditional securities of marriage, but for elevating their lifestyle to the place of public acceptance and political "equality". I don't agree with making anybody's sexuality a public event, "hetero" or "homo" sexual. Sexuality is not a show; nor is marriage! [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-26-2004 05:29 PM).] |
||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: I don't see the problem with men loving other men. The bible doesn't, either. If you'd ever read it, you'd see that there's a very large instance of men loving each other very affectionately without taking it to the level of sexual intercourse. For example: quote: One of the worst mistakes homosexuals (and left-wing activists who are too busy picketing to read a book) have made in their campaign for "equal rights" is to assume that Christians are against anything other than the "sex" aspect of homosexuality. I see the catch phrase "marriage is love" everywhere, implying that if two men "love" each other they should be able to get married... but I'd say it's absurd to so strictly divide marriage and sex. Even the law doesn't make so many distinctions... at least in Canada, where "inability to perform sexually" is still grounds for an annulment. Also, from a traditional point of view, marriage is the precursor to sex (and family, which comes with only one kind of sex, after all...) I have to compliment Stephanos on his choice of subject line for this thread... it's a really good question to ask people, because everyone thinks they've got it figured out. "God becomes as we are that we may be as he is." ~William Blake |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I don't see the problem with men loving other men. The bible doesn't, either. If you'd ever read it, you'd see that there's a very large instance of men loving each other very affectionately without taking it to the level of sexual intercourse." Truly; but I don't know any where in the bible "homosexuals" are held as having such affections. It condemns people of the same sex having immoral sex. But it doesn't say anything about two people of the same sex seeking monogomy. A monogomously inclined homosexuality is NOT condemned for it is not even mentioned in the bible! I'm not trying to throw darts at the bible. I'm just saying the biblical view doesn't seem to have the same "concept" as our modern where we translate "homosexual" We know we are talking about much more with the word "homosexual" than what the bible refers to; the bible doesn't for sure have the same concept in the way we do at all, but we still translate that as "homosexual" because it sexually involves people of the same sex. It is difficult when there is such a stretch between cultures, times, languages etc, to know where our interpretations are chiming with what is really being said. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I have come to the conclusion that a marriage is something that cannot be legislated. It is not a stamp that can bend hot wax to being something "identifiable". It's not an injection of loyalty--and it won't be negated by a constitutional amendment, nor will a profession of vows before a legislator of our government make such a union more solid. But what we can do, as a people, is give that decision back to the people to whom it belongs--the people who decide to pledge to live their lives together. I agree, too, let's quit penalizing the people who decide to live their lives alone. So therefore, I propose, we abolish the political idealization of marriage altogether--civil union contracts should be the only legal way to go in order to ensure parity. We'll talk taxes later.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant .... I want to respond to you at some length. Give me some time to throw it together. I've got to work the weekend. I'll be back. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I will wait for you. Have a good weekend, Stephenos |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant I will list for you all of the Biblical passages that have to do with homosexuality, but first I want to address something. There is something you are assuming which I question ... and it is basically this: That homosexuality today is significantly different than it was in Biblical times. An example of this is when you wrote: quote: In order to hold your position, you have to assume one of several things here. 1) In Biblical times Homosexuality was different in practice, in that homosexuals never sought monogamy or commitment and never had genuine emotional love, in their homosexual relationships. or ... 2) These “more acceptable practices” existed, but the Biblical writers were simply ignorant of them, and were aware of only the debaucherous practices of polyamorous homosexuality. or 3) The Biblical writers were aware of the more committed and monogamous type of homosexuality, but chose to deny that it existed, and to portray homosexuality as a completely immoral practice in contrary to the evidence that there existed a more virtuous form of it. Assumption # 1) is simply untrue. Historically, homosexuality was mostly practiced by those who indulged in more than one sexual partner (and also often had associations with pederasty and temple prostitution). But there was still a marginal segment of that poplulation which valued monogamy and exclusive commitment in their homosexuality. That’s NO different than today, in the sense that homosexuals typically have multiple sexual partners (much more so than heterosexuals). But the fact is, Paul in Romans Chapter 1 when addressing homosexuality, doesn’t refer to anything other than the impropriety of homosexuality itself. Greg Bahnsen says it well in an article called “Homosexuality as sin”: ”In ancient culture homosexuality was commonplace, with certain distinctions customarily drawn between homosexuality as an ideal expression of love (e.g., in Plato's Symposium) or an aid to military prowess (e.g., in Spartan propaganda) and homosexuality in the form of prostitution and indiscriminate infatuation. The one was encouraged, the other discouraged. By contrast, Paul, who was well versed in the culture of his day, drew no such distinctions but categorically condemned homosexuality without exception. Scripture cannot be interpretively shaped to fit the contours of sin, and homosexuality cannot be cleverly domesticated within a divinely approved lifestyle. There is no more a Christian form of homosexuality than there is a Christian form of adultery or bestiality or rape, etc. Romans 1 makes no room for any kind of homosexuality whatsoever, for it is plainly and simply error, a wrong lifestyle (Romans 1:27). If Paul's words can be twisted to allow for homosexuality under certain conditions, the same line of thought can be taken with all of the sins elaborated in verses 28-31-indeed, with any sin whatsoever!” Assumption #2) is very doubtful. As rampant as promiscuous polyamory was in the Roman world ... Paul did not fail to point out that heterosexuality was not inherently wrong, but that there existed a God-ordained proper context for it ... monogamous marriage. If such a context could exist in which homosexuality would be justified and acceptable to God, it would have doubtless been presented by Paul. The error involves thinking that Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality was due to peripheral practices or attitudes surrounding it. If it were, couldn’t he logically separate the homosexuality from the “perverse” things which usually accompanied it? Though he wrote some things which are obscure, he was typically precise in his moral teachings, and not apt to condemn one thing on the basis of something completely separate. More accurately, Paul believed, as a devout Jew, that homosexuality is sinful because it is contrary to the creative order of God, as expressed in Genesis, not because it was commonly associated with other sins. That’s what he meant in Romans 1, where he wrote that homosexuality is “against nature”. But more on that later, when we get into the Biblical exegesis ... Assumption #3) ... though it has the most going for it, out of the three ... is really to say nothing more than that you don’t agree with the Bible, or the judgement of the apostles, or that you don’t believe they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is at least the more intellectually respectable argument (though I disagree with it), since it doesn’t require scriptural gymnastics to make it’s point. It recognizes that the bible condemns homosexuality, and therefore seeks to defend it’s own conclusions on other grounds completely. quote: Why would the Bible need to state something so obvious? Decent feelings and relationships are not synonymous with homosexuality, though they may coexist. Homosexuals can have genuine concern and friendship with their “partner(s)”. When the Bible condemns something like adultery, are we to assume therefore that there can be no “decent feelings” or real concern or even what we would call “love” for an extramarital lover? Of course not. In most cases there are such feelings, else it wouldn’t be so easy to rationalize and excuse adulteristic behavior. Satan never tempts us with bad things, but with perverted good things, things out of order and out of place. But in the case of adultery passages, it would be out of context to mention the obvious ... especially when those very obvious facts cannot justify what is condemned or forbidden. So the Bible doesn’t “acknowledge” these things, because they, quite frankly, don’t need it. On your premise, I could also argue for a more respectable theivery and adultery. quote: Monogomously inclined homosexuality IS included in the scripture, because it is included under the general heading “Homosexual”. Let me ask you a hypothetical question ... If the writers of the Bible DID condemn all homosexual practice, then why would they include such a distinction? ... Why would they even mention monogomously inclined homosexuality, if in their mind there were no moral distinction? They wouldn’t. You’ve at least got to look at that as a textual possibility. It’s much more cogent to say that they didn’t mention it for this moral reason, than to say that they didn’t know such a thing even existed. Historically and sociologically it doesn’t make sense to say that a monogamous approach to homosexuality wasn’t known. The majority of Biblical scholarship (both believing and unbelieving) supports this also. quote: That’s not exactly true. I will introduce you to the words behind the biblical texts on my next post. And you’ll see that exegesis of these passages really isn’t all that obscure or difficult. Thanks for your patience Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"There is something you are assuming which I question ... and it is basically this: That homosexuality today is significantly different than it was in Biblical times" Stephenos, Indeed; but I also question how they referred to people, and if they had a reference that equates to our modern "homosexual" and "homosexuality" Do you know the original words and meanings in the bible that we are translating as referring to what we do with "homosexual" in our interpretations. Just because something refers to something involving people of the same sex, doesn't mean it refers to anything involving people of the same sex! There is no denying that what is being referred to is people of the same sex acting wrongly, but that the bible is referring to homosexuality individually, aside from being in wrongs that sexuality in general is taken to, is questionable. "Heterosexuals" commit indecencies that are "homosexual" acts as well. Why should people that are "homosexuals" because they are maturally and monogomously in love with one of the same sex be blamed and treated as sinners for such things? I could argue that people staying in a city shouldn't be allowed to marry; there are thousands of arguments I may bring up as to why it is healthier that only people in ruralnesses should be allowed to get married; would you have some complaints to raise? The city may be less healthy overall, but most of us agree that the basic structure, or plan of living such a lifestyle, Nature and God have the "room" for, And that we are not locked into the bad behaviors that make our cities more and more unhealthy. We rightly believe that we may behave differently and that the city may be a balanced and civilized structure that doesn't corrupt nature so much. There seems a similarity with homosexuality. Perhaps there were many wrong are many wrong choices, but that doesn't mean being homosexual is wrong itself, and in being homosexual people are locked into wrong choices; not all people living in the city are making wrong choices; nor are all "homosexuals" making wrong choices. "But the fact is, Paul in Romans Chapter 1 when addressing homosexuality, doesn’t refer to anything other than the impropriety of homosexuality itself." Paul seems to refer to usage not love in his references. There is not a word about monogamy that I recall. "Monogomously inclined homosexuality IS included in the scripture, because it is included under the general heading “Homosexual”. Let me ask you a hypothetical question ... If the writers of the Bible DID condemn all homosexual practice, then why would they include such a distinction? ... Why would they even mention monogomously inclined homosexuality, if in their mind there were no moral distinction? They wouldn’t. You’ve at least got to look at that as a textual possibility. But "homosexuality" is our heading, not the bible's. Just like where we translate "world", that you showed certainly has different signifigances and meanings in the bible. We translate it as "homosexual" but I don't think "homosexual" was even word back then, and I'm not sure if there was exactly a certainly parallell reference in word or worth in that times and culture. I'm openminded and will consider the possibility that the bible may refer to a mongomously inclined homosexuality as well. But that remains conjecture, not scripture. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-31-2004 01:47 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Yes, I do. Below I will take scriptural references to homosexuality one by one, and we'll look at those words, and why proper exegesis would conclude that these verses refer to homosexuality per se. quote: So then, you're saying that only what's wrong in the context of a heterosexual relationship (ie, betrayal, adultery, etc...) is what is also wrong in the context of a homosexual relationship? Then why doesn't the bible just condemn adultery and be done with it? If this is true, the Biblical writers totally failed because they made it look overwhelmingly like they were referring to homosexuality itself. (You'll see in further detail when we begin to look at the scriptures). Abundant condemnation of betral and adultery and sexual unfaithfulness is given elsewhere in scripture. To cloud the issue with homosexuality (which you are saying might be good in and of itself) would make no sense. So here's my point ... Should we derive the meaning from the actual text and what we know of the particular culture surrounding that text, or should we rather derive it from a contemporary theory that they really meant the same sexual sins condemned in adultery passages? What are you basing that upon? quote: You're right, Paul does not really mention love. But then again the passage is not dealing directly with love ... it is dealing with righteousness and sin, and a right relationship with God. Paul actually wrote the following: "... For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27) You seem to be taking the word "use" out of context. Paul is contrasting the "natural use" with that which is "against nature". He's not condemning "using" someone, as if he meant the same thing as the word we use with a negative connotation, as in: "You're only using me". That's not the sense at all that Paul is using this word. Do you know the importance of context? Paul goes on to define what he means by "against nature", when he wrote about men with men, having left the natural use of the woman. So two things are clear from looking at this passage: 1) Paul doesn't use the word "USE" as in the sense of taking advantage of someone. The passage wouldn't make sense if that were so. Just try plugging in "taking advantage of" every place "use" occurs, and see what happens. 2) He makes a distiction between a "natural usage" and one that is "against nature". quote: I disagree, it is the bible's heading even if the english word "homosexuality" didn't exist. You're right that the Roman/ pagan world did not make distinction in word. The only words used literally meant "penetrator" and "penetrated". But the Jews DID make distinction, and so did the Christians. There's only one thing better than a word to describe something ... and that's several words strung together. Some of the Biblical passages, though not containing a single "word" for homosexuality, give clear description of homosexual activity (like the Romans passage above). quote: Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." This is not my favorite English translation (New King James Version), but I use it because of convenience and familiarity ... But I wanted to call attention to the two words I have underlined. I will describe the words in the original Greek: The first is "malakos" which in a literal sense means "soft raiment". Metaphorically it was used to mean "effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness" The second is "arsenokoites" which is derived from two other greek words meaning literally "a man", and "a bed". And it means "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite. The first term really refers to a more passive role in the homosexual relationship, as one who allows himself to be taken advantage of. The second word (arsenokoites) is a more generic word that means exactly what we mean by homosexuality today. quote: I'm glad that you are openminded. But you must remember one thing ... If the Bible condemns homosexuality wholesale, there will be no moral distinction between "monogamous homosexuality" and another kind. In that case, the best that can be done is to show you that the bible condemns homosexuality in more universal terms ... in a way that applies to all humanity, and in a way that disregards whether or not there be one or twenty partners involved. And close textual scrutiny can do that, I think, quite easily. But you will find no reference to "monogamous homosexuality" since the Biblical writers made no moral distinction. Just like you will never find any mention of virtuous adultery. Now... I’m going to (in several posts) list and comment on scriptures that occur chronologically from the Old Testament to the New Testament, which deal with the issue of homosexuality. Some scriptures only condemn homosexuality in a secondary kind of way, as when other sins are being addressed primarily, and homosexuality happens to be addressed alongside them. I will not include such scriptures. I will exclude them not because homosexuality cannot be shown to be sin from these passages ... they’re just not as clear. But other scriptures exist abudantly enough which condemn the practice of homosexuality exclusively. So the apologetic defense of homosexuality as sin, doesn’t have to depend upon some of the more obscure passages. I will define underlined words in the original languages for clarity. The first mention of homosexuality is in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a women. It is an abomination.” *English “lie” comes from the Hebrew word “shakab”: To lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease, or any other purpose.) *English “abomination” comes from the Hebrew word “Towebah”: something disgusting, an abhorrence, especially idolatry or an idol. Though “lie” can be a general term that doesn’t necessarily describe sexual activity, the term is given it’s context when the text says “as with a woman”. In that culture, the idiom would have been clear that to “lie as with a woman” means sexual intercourse. Therefore the meaning of the scripture becomes clear. It is referring to men having sexual intercourse with men. The word for “abomination” is a qualitative description of the action. Some do try to say that the verse was referring to only to pagan homosexual temple prostitution, or some merely religious violation, not to the act of homosexuality itself. But there is nothing in the text which would suggest so. Sins being described by words which suggest idolatry are common in the scripture, and do not necessarily refer to the literal religious practices. For example, covetousness in the New Testament is described as “idolatry”, but it would be absurd to suggest that when the Bible condemns covetousness, it was referring to a first century religious “kind” of it. The most natural rendering of this text is that the words “male” and “woman” are universal terms ... They literally mean in the Hebrew “mankind” and “womankind”. Such universal terminology would not be used to describe a regional or cultural practice. And again, the text would be deceptive since it does not indicate religious practice, but rather refers soley to “men having sex with men” as I have already shown. So there is no cogent textal argument which would cast doubt on the fact that Leviticus 18:22 is referring to homosexual intercourse, regardless of circumstance. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"So then, you're saying that only what's wrong in the context of a heterosexual relationship (ie, betrayal, adultery, etc...) is what is also wrong in the context of a homosexual relationship? " Believe it or not, yes! "Then why doesn't the bible just condemn adultery and be done with it? " Why will we call a bruised plum or a bruised apple, a bruised plum or bruised apple, instead of just a bruise? "To cloud the issue with homosexuality (which you are saying might be good in and of itself) would make no sense. " I'm not sure why you consider it "clouding" the issue. When it seems to emphasize homosexual indecency, it means homosexual indecency to me, not "homosexuality" "So here's my point ... Should we derive the meaning from the actual text and what we know of the particular culture surrounding that text, or should we rather derive it from a contemporary theory that they really meant the same sexual sins condemned in adultery passages? What are you basing that upon?" Let's look at how well the two sides do or do not agree. "Paul doesn't use the word "USE" as in the sense of taking advantage of someone. The passage wouldn't make sense if that were so." "Use" seems like treating someone or something like an object, whether or not the connotation is added. That to me seems a distinction, not a generalization that may include a relationship that is respectfully willed. "Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10... "... nor homosexuals, nor sodomites... will inherit the kingdom of God." This is an example of how it oft refers to people like their acts rather than like people, not how the bible has a wholehearted view of homosexuality. "If the Bible condemns homosexuality wholesale, there will be no moral distinction between "monogamous homosexuality" and another kind" I'm still trying to figure out how no moral distinction is a good thing! Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a women. It is an abomination.” This doesn't suggest anything more than a physical approach to homosexuality; it may almost mean the same as Paul's "use" |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I didn't read all of the last page of this, but: 'That’s NO different than today, in the sense that homosexuals typically have multiple sexual partners (much more so than heterosexuals).' I found this interesting, because I've actually read that homosexual males tend to be the most promiscuous while in relationships, with heterosexual couples coming in second and homosexual females being the most monogamous- this would be attributed to the male's tendency to wander moreso than the homosexual aspect, wouldn't it? Granted, I read this in a book by Dan Savage- however, I don't really see why he would print a false statistic that admitted gay men as being promiscuous. That and the experience I've had with lesbian couples seems to back this up. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: If you go back and read what I was referring to ... I was saying that if the only thing immoral is "adultery" then the Bible has clouded the issue by saying things like "men with men", and "even the women exchanged the natural use". Not only does the Bible say such things (which would be clouding the issue), but it says such things to the exclusion of anything about adultery. So, though it may look like "homosexual indecency" to you, instead of homosexuality per se, there is nothing in the actual text to suggest it. The Bible text is at least written as if homosexuality were indecent in and of itself ... And so, if you were right, the writers of the Bible would be clouding the issue with great unclarity. But I think the unclarity may be in your interpretation here. You haven't shown anything textually that would indicate what you are saying is true. The Bible text seems clear enough. Your theory cannot be naturally derived from the texts. If you beg to differ, please use the texts to support what you are saying ... rather than just stating that they don't refer to mere homosexuality. quote: I think it's clear enough that the two sides do not agree. Let's look at which side is supported by the texts themselves (which I have been doing). quote: Essorant ... whether or not you like the word "use" in the Bible text doesn't have any bearing on the issue of what Paul meant in his own mind. Both positive and negative connotation is described by the word "use". It is given in a neutral way, and qualitatively defined by either being "natural" or "against nature". Let's look at it again: "... For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful ..." Whether or not you think the Biblical writer chose a fitting word by referring to use or usage ... he was judging one "use" to be proper, and another to be against what is natural. In that context, the meaning "taking advantage of" makes no sense. That's all I was trying to point out. Whether or not you think that a "respectfully willed" relationship should be described by the word "use" is irrelevant. The Biblical writer chose the word that he did to describe both a negative and positive circumstance ... You are projecting your idea about "taking advantage of" onto the text, not deriving it from the text. quote: The bible also refers to people who commit adultery as "adulterers" .... addressing them according to their deeds. Why? Because the unrighteousness of the deed is what the Bible is addressing at that moment. There are other passages which also refer to people in general, and even in personal terms. But when the bible is making a moral judgment about an action which is never right, it uses terms such as "murderers", "adulterers", "fornicators", "theives", etc... That's really no different that you referring to "football players" when talking about the superbowl, or "politicians" when talking about the elections. Just because the bible uses some terms in a negative context, you want to suggest it is improper. But I disagree. The bible also speaks of men in rewarding and praising ways, when they follow after him and learn righteousness. And why do you differentiate between adultery and homosexuality in regards to calling them by name? Why wouldn't you object so strong to calling an adulterer, an adulterer, but would object when the bible calls a homosexual, a homosexual? Again you have to assume that homosexuality is not really a sin to even make such a judgment. You're not going to the text to find out if it says it is, or not ... you are judging the text according to your decided standard. In which case, I'm getting you closer to where I wanted you to be ... to the place of acknowledging that the Bible condemns homosexuality categorically, in the same way as it does adultery. And though you sound as if you're beginning to disagree with the Bible's view (judging from your above quote), I think this is a more honest and respectable view than trying to manipulate the Bible to say what you believe. quote: I never said that the Bible makes no moral distinction. It definitely makes many moral distinctions, including one between homosexuality and heterosexuality ... one being proper and God ordained, and the other being sinful and "against nature". What I did say was that the Bible doesn't make a moral distiction between monogamous homosexuality, and polyamorous homosexuality. It absolutely does make moral distinctions ... it just doesn't make the SAME distinction that you are now making. quote: I already have shown that Paul's "use" is a neutral word ... one which is acceptable when applied in the God ordained way, and unacceptable when applied "against nature". Do you at least agree that that's how Paul must have meant it? The text just doesn't make sense any other way. And really, Essorant, this is getting to be too repetitive on this one point. I have already made my case using the text itself ... you have not. If you want to textually show me from Romans 1, how Paul meant "use" in the sense of "taking advantage of someone", then let's see it. The Leviticus Passage simply means what it says. The only thing we can derive from the text is EXACTLY what it says. There is nothing present which might make any distictions among "types" of homosexuality as you are suggesting. Give me something from the passage itself, and I'll consider what you say. Otherwise you are the one using conjecture ... even against the most natural rendering of the texts. It's quite okay to say "I disagree with the Bible", especially if you do. I only want to convince you of what it actually says ... at least for now. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Perhaps so ... But as to the discussion that Essorant and I are currently having, that would have little bearing on whether or not homosexuality is sinful according to Scripture. I was simply trying to point out to Essorant that homosexuality in the ancient Biblical world was essentially the same as homosexuality now. Your statement points out that adultery was very much the same back then too. As Solomon once said "There is nothing new under the sun". Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I find myself wishing we had the Internet a hundred years ago. You know, back when some few people were arguing that women were more than just property? Or maybe a 150 years ago, when others were arguing that slavery could no longer be tolerated? Of course, if we're going back that far, heck, I might just as well wish the Internet had been available in 1615 when Galileo Galilei faced the Inquisition and dutifully recanted his astronomical observations as contrary to Scripture and therefore scientifically false. I have no doubt, if forums had been available back then, we'd have a good record today of threads just like this one. I tend to believe the Bible is never wrong. Man's interpretation of it, however, has been wrong a whole heck of a lot. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos Remember that my argument was what scriptures do not show. They do not show a complete-like description, or at least some token of coming from a complete acknowledging of what homosexuality is and what it is today. When you show me what is in the scripture, I'm trying to show you what is not in the scripture: a showing moral awareness in or a judging of homosexuality as anything more than just a physical unnaturalness committed by heterosexuals. If you will prove the bible is written in wit of more, you are not showing scripture to suggest that. Otherwise how do we trust the bible's view of homosexuality, or what seems to be a view of homosexuality, is complete? Regarding more than just an unnatural, physical act, that heterosexuals commit? When something is more than an physical act, and willed by much more than for a physical act, don't you think it deserves at least recognition of more than just a physical act? Where is any description or suggestion in the biblical description or tenor that shows or even suggests judgement coming of mentality recognizing such? The more I look at the scripture, the more it seems it is treated like an act not a relationship. And that is relevant to homosexuals that believe in monogomy and marriage? I will take a closer look again at all things you said above; and examine the scripture more closely, but I fear I probably will still remain unconvinced that biblical mentality/manner of approaching homosexuality is whole. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-02-2004 01:54 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: I don't see that the interpretion in this case is as far off base as the application. Don't you think that is the real issue here? Jim |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay, once again I don't see why it matters what the Bible says on this subject. The Bible also says not to worship any god before God, and not to commit idolatry and so on, but there's no law saying I can't do those things. Personally, from a biblical point of view I think that Christianity is right in believing homosexuality to be prohibited by God, but the Bible doesn't- or shouldn't- run our society. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Regardless of what interpretation you think is right, Ron ... interpretations of the Bible must be defended from the Biblical texts. Personally I think you're making the error of assuming that concepts like geocentrism (or even slavery) are as easy to defend biblically as "homosexuality as sin". I personally don't think those interpretations had any more weight (scripturally speaking) back then than they do now. Presenting obscure poetic soliloquy as scientific treatises was an error that Galileo understood and yet one which the governing authorities of the Church (swayed by Aristotelian belief about Geocentrism) refused to see. Now your job is to present a textual / historical / polemic case that would persuade us to believe that the "homosexual" scriptures in the Bible fall under that some category of misinterpretation and unwarranted interpolation, instead of just making the comparison, and saying it is so. Biblical pro-homosexuality shouldn't be assumed correct on the merits of heliocentrism, or the vices of slavery, or anything else for that matter. You have to do your legwork. Hush: quote: Now this response acknowledges what the Bible says, and then goes on to disagree with it. Though not a safe position (in my opinion, it is openly treasonous), it is at least courageous and honest enough concerning the data we are given. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Jim, do you really think anyone ever thought their interpretation was off base? Were they somehow less sincere than those today? Less Christian, perhaps? quote: Really, Stephen? And what passage would you cite to support that rule? Scripture is a fire that can either comfort or consume, depending on its use. It was never meant to be read in isolation, apart and separate from its Creator. It is only with the Guiding Hand of God that the Word of God can have meaning. Or, for that matter, give meaning. Tearing the meat off the bones of a sparrow will never tell us what it feels like to soar over trees and roof tops. Look at the whole bird. And when you see something in the bird that proves it cannot fly, question your observations in light of its greater truth. I certainly don't pretend to understand the will of God, but condemnations of love, commitment and trust just don't jibe with the greater truths I have seen. I know too much to believe the bird can't fly. And far too little to ever feel justified in casting the first stone at it. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: By application I meant that Christians in the U.S. often seem to confuse Biblical mandates with Constitutional mandates. But I don't know of any serious biblical scholar - conservative or liberal - who has found justification for the homosexual lifestyle in the biblical texts. The point I was trying to make earlier (in the 170s?) was that a clear biblical mandate alone is not, nor should it be, the foundation on which American law ought to be built. As I read it, the Establishment Clause prohibits such a practice, just as the Free Exercise Clause protects churches from having to recognize a civilly-legal homosexual marriage as sacred. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We are in complete agreement, Jim. I am not prepared to have the majority dictate my religion, even when I feel my religion is the majority. Because I know it won't always be the majority. Stephen probably should have titled his thread, "What exactly IS the Christian viewpoint of marriage anyway?" since that is the only direction he seems prepared to address. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The "homosexuality" in the bible's eye is not for sure even perceived as form of sexuality at all or a form of relationship, but is a physical unnaturalness heterosexuals commit, and they are then "homosexuals" for commiting that act. There is no suggestion that the bible sees in a personality or spirit of a union to what it is referring to, as we do today; in the bible it seems physical act of deviance for physical gratification or outrage. There is legitimacy in what it regards, for it is regarding physical indecency of people, which is as legitmate to speak out against about homosexual acts as it is heterosexual. It is not the homosexual personality and relationship or a will to marry, nothing of such homosexuality is shown, therefore nothing of such homosexuality is condemned. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-02-2004 02:37 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: All along, I've only been trying to show that the Bible is clear in what it's position is on this matter. If you say that you disagree with it's position and don't consider it to be "whole", then I've at least accomplished part of what I was trying to do ... because you are acknowledging what it says, rather than trying to forward the idea that the scriptures are speaking of something other than homosexuality in these verses. But just when I thought I was making some progress ... you forward this ...quote: That's a contradiction in terms ... to say that the Bible only condemns "homosexuality" when it is an act committed by a heterosexual. There is no support from the text that would suggest such a thing. When Paul used the phrase "against nature" he was referring to the nature of men and women according to the created order of God. As a good Jew, Paul absolutely believed that God intended only men and women to have sexual union. It is supported from Genesis to Revelation. Any other explanation of what Paul meant by "against nature" doesn't fit the context in which Paul was speaking. The assertion that Paul was referring to a person's individual sexual nature, and therefore he only condemns those who act against their basic orientation, is without support. Why would heterosexuals act against their heterosexual desires? And if homosexuality per se were not wrong, why would a heterosexual be condemned for committing such otherwise acceptable behavior? Biblical Scholar James White calls this type of interpretation eisegetical rather than exegetical. eisegesis (eye' si gee' sis) n. an interpretation, esp. of scripture which expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. and in his book "The Same Sex Controversy", he writes about this very same idea: "Paul's argument does not allow this shift in meaning. The meaning of the words (the "natural use" of the male or female, the active choice to engage in homosexual behavior, the desire expressed in the mutuality of the activity) and the context of the argument (God has given them over to "degrading passions," and they remain degrading no matter who is engaging in them) militate strongly against this revisionist attempt." I have to agree with him here. The context just doesn't allow for such an interpretation. The references to "men with men committing indecent acts" and "leaving the natural use of the woman" don't make sense in the context you speak of. He would need to point out the sin of going against one's personal orientation (which there would hardly be a reason to have to do that). And the idea that it is a horrendous sin to act contrary to one's own personality or psychological makeup ... is a concept that is foreign to scripture. Remember that the context with Paul was mankind turning from God's revelation ... not self revelation. So this suggestion is textually bankrupt. quote: Essorant, adultery is often done for much more than a physical act. Yet the Bible still refers to it as a sin. Should the bible elaborate on the fact that many adulterous relationships have genuine feelings and commitments? What would be the purpose of doing so? It is a given that these acts are more than physical. Why state the obvious? And like adultery, homosexuality (even with commitment and bonafide emotions and care) cannot be justified. If you're going to defend homosexuality based upon the possibility of love and commitment, you would have to defend many cases of adultery as well. The Biblical writers weren't ignorant of basic human nature, so as to exclude such phenomena out of ignorance. They just believed some relations were wrong regardless of these things. A larger bank account is a good thing too, but it can never justify stealing. Don't you see that if the Biblical writers even thought homosexuality was wrong in and of itself, it would be out of place to include the kind of description you are looking for? You're either arguing that they were ignorant, or too austere and simply mistaken about their moral teaching. The ignorance argument isn't at all likely. And the charge of being wrong or too austere is simply to say that you disagree with the Biblical writers. In which case, at least you admit that they are saying "homosexuality is wrong". quote: Adultery is also treated like an act and not a relationship ... and yet we know that it is a relationship too. The question is, why should that alone matter with regard to the question of morality? Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Ron Look how far we've come? Yes, we've come far, but with our technology today we should be much further along... And we should Ron, not confuse progress with morals, respect for oneself and others. My goodness, it's a jungle out there...hehehehee What has stagnated our society is our promiscuious ability to define anything to our own way of thinking as moral and respectful belief...no matter the issue, in today's world we have regressed to anything goes, with anyone or anything. Honesty has been lost along with trust...and honor, Ron, in those values we have regressed along with promiscuos thinking. all I'm trying to say is this....I don't believe in homosexuality as normal... As someone said in a thread above, not one sin is worse then any other, and remember, it also states in the Bible that even thoughts of sin are as deviate as the sin itself. When I look around me, at nature, people, different societies, there has been an intent on the basis of some greater power, organizing everything and connecting everything and everyone. In that, rules/laws do not always seem fair, but are there for a reason otherwise, everything would be chaotic. I'm perhaps to cut and dry, but...by being so, I've learned that life has aided me on my journey. We can bend words to fit our own interritations..."Devil will sell you and entire lake of truth to disquise one pt. of poison". I gotta tell you I would be horrified to raise a child in this liberal world today. I oft time wonder, how I'd explain some TV shows and commercials to him if he were 6 - 17 years old today? I believe also, a lot of decissions are made in the context of the dollar bill only....and for those of you who have seen the way Philadelphia is campaigning to get tourists to come back to Philly, it's down right embarrassing. Used to love the show Will and Grace...now can't help but wonder, was what I was laughing at really immorral and corrupt? Could I be held accountable for as far as things have gone? I deem yes, I can and am. We've become a promiscuos being where anything goes, in the name of sex, sex, sex...which, should be a very sacred and privot union, "I think" between a man and a woman. Not for anyone elses eyes but theirs. Same with erotica and other forms of sexual behavior. Why does everything have to be so in the open today. Doesn't anyone wonder if that tempts the petifiles even more, the sex offenders? To me, it seems like no one is ever satified, they must take it a step further, and further still, until people actually become boared and need something else in their sex life to satisfy them? This is very very dangerous. If you want to be gay, then so be it, but I would indeed prefer it is not paraded in front of my child, just the same as I would not want to take my child to a nude beach. When he grows older, he can decide for himself, but while under my roof, I'm going to do the best I can to promote some form of confidence/moral/balance and respect within him and for him, without the confusion of same sex marriages and sexual exploitations. Worse part about it that alarms me is this, same sex marriages will breed same sex marriages in their children...just like welfare breeds welfare. Its a conditioning. Soon, we straight ones, will be outnumbered and perhaps even considered abnormal? Doesn't anyone ever ask, where are we going with this, what's next? It will be more difficult for our children to decifer what is normal and what is not. Can you imagine, having fingers pointed at them on the playground b/c they are NOT Gay? Think about it? Perhaps that day will come, who knows? Its not just about us here folks, and our insatiable and uncontrollable pleasures, it's about everyone else connected to us...whom we affect. what's next when we open a can of worms and are we ready for the consequences from it? Also, adding one more thing...fidelity also means, fidelity to oneself...and I truely believe if you compromise your beliefs for the sake of gaining material wealth, then one has also performed a sin of infidelity. And if one cannot be true to oneself, how can she/he be true to anyone else? You are, exactly what you accept, and the question is, are you thinking about the repercussions of your actions later on in life. Have you any idea, the profound and fine thread you may be weaving that others may suffer from for months, years, perhaps centuries? I don't think the concept of living for the moment is a healthy one for anyone nor do I deem a tax cut reason for homosexual marriage. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Worse part about it that alarms me is this, same sex marriages will breed same sex marriages in their children...just like welfare breeds welfare. Its a conditioning. Soon, we straight ones, will be outnumbered and perhaps even considered abnormal? Doesn't anyone ever ask, where are we going with this, what's next? It will be more difficult for our children to decifer what is normal and what is not. Can you imagine, having fingers pointed at them on the playground b/c they are NOT Gay?' Fisrt, I laughed, because I thought these comments sounded silly. Then, I realized how scary they are. They appear to be fear driven, much the same way the "Well, there goes the neighborhood!" comments about blacks moving in are fear driven. First of all... to compare homosexuality to poverty is ridiculous. People don't choose to be poor... it's not something they are picketing and protesting about- they don't put rainbow-color "poverty pride" bumper stickers on their cars. And one of the reasons welfare breeds welfare is that you have to be dirt poor to qualify for it. If I had the opportunity to make a little more money, but it meant that I would lose my healthcare for myself and my kids, and actually, once it evens out, be takin a paycut- hell no I wouldn't take a raise! I also don't believe that it will breed more homosexuality... it will, however, breed tolerance. And... the fear of being outnumbered? Yes, that's right, those dastardly gays are out even as we speak recruiting for their army in order to overthrow us norms! Seriously, you've got to be kidding... why not make the same argument about every other minority? I mean, it has been projected that within a certain amount of time (I don't remember the estimated year, my mom told me this quite some time ago) that people of color (all ethnicities combined) will outnumber us whites... egads, we might even be in for a black president, and kids of different ethnicities who pick on white kids for being white... Oh, hey, wait, I've had that happen to me before! And you know why? It's simply because I was in the minority of the group, and didn't fit in... but let me clue you in- ANY group of kids will pick on the outsider. You don't want to see straight kids getting picked on for being straight, but it's okay for gay kids (or kids the other kids just declare are gay) to get picked on? That's an extremely offensive viewpoint... it's not OKAY for any kid to get picked on simply for being different- the key is to teach tolerance, and to raise children with the coping tools they'll need, because I guarantee, no child grows up having never been picked on. Sorry, rant over. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
We're not talking about color here, and I'm not comparing sexual prefrence to the neighborhood...the point I tried to make is that we are parrots of our parents...we do, think and feel as they did... The other point I tried to convey which to me is not silly nor fear driven...I don't see color, but am very concerned about our children becoming not only tolerent to this issue, but also part of it... One never knows what opening a can of worms will spill over into, just look at 30 years ago, our generation, the 60's and what drastic changes were made, some very good changes, but...there is also the other side of the coin...it isn't ending here...this day, it will flower and it will influence, and I'm wondering how. No one seems to think about tomorrow...the connections we have to each other.... I don't deem my points, feelings on this subject anywhere near silly. Nor do I write of this in fear...it's everyone's individual choice when all said and done... I'm not silly my friend b/c I don't think and feel like you...any more then your comments, thoughts are. I believe we should consider everyone's opinion as relevent and then decide what is best for us in our hearts. I just don't know how to feel about these marriages, and what comes next? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hush, and oh by the way, I think you should know, I grew up very very poor. It was just my mom and me. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Lee: I think I get your point, but I believe it overly involves what is moral and pleasing to God with what should drive public policy. The laws of the land in a Country which, by its very Constitutional foundation, is morally diverse ought to protect the rights of all without impairing the rights of others to the greatest extent possible. Your indignation concerning homosexuality is certainly justifiable biblically, and resultantly ought to be a view which is vigorously argued and defended in the marketplace of ideas. But being a culture's moral conscience is the domain of the church, not the domain of the state. In order to justify civil discrimination, one must demonstrate by preponderence of evidence, why such discrimination is in the public interest and those discriminated against must have an opportunity to voice their grievances in a court of law. Homosexuals are as entitled to due process of law as Christians are and when homosexuals believe their rights are being violated, they ought to challenge what they perceive as inequitable to the utmost of their abilities. In a Constitutional system like ours, one must present factual arguments to counter these grievances, not allusions to Biblical revelation or ungrounded feelings of conscience. I disagree with Hush that tolerance ought to be the standard by which we make moral choices, but I do believe that the we must, as Christians, respect the rule of law even if we disagree with it on moral grounds. Everyone practices discrimination at some level by holding a certain moral position. I'd be interested in hearing from Hush whether her views on my moral position could be construed as "intolerant" and inconsistent with her "tolerance" standard. When homosexual marriage becomes more commonplace (which I have no doubt it will), the onus will be on the church to intelligently articulate why, though it may be legal, it is not a relationship recognized as sacred and pleasing to the God of revelation. I will teach my sons what I believe - namely that homosexuality is sin, but that homosexuals are human beings deserving of the same respect and dignity as any other sinful human being. And when I last checked, we all are sinful human beings. Jim |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Jim, I did not mean to imply that I have anything against homosexuals, some are very good friends of mine. I don't look at them as homosexuals, but as people...and yes, they do ahd have know my Biblical fidelity to the subject, but it doesn't change, to me who they are. I agree, they should have equal rights, and I'm not saying my thoughts and feelings are written in stone...they are not, and always open to an invitation to hear and learn from others...again...it is an individual choice...in the end...but I suppose due to my conditioning and upbringing, I'm sitting in the middle of the fence. I don't know what to think, and yet, I can't help but speak the truth, to see them kiss passionately and embrace repulses me....and I wish I didn't feel that way. I really do. Whose to say, I may be so totally wrong and they may be right? It's a difference of opinion...doesn't mean I harbor animosity or hate in any way for them or their life style. What worries me the most is are we growing much to liberal and lenient in a society where almost anything goes? Doesn't make me love someone any less, but in the same, I ask, that my opinion be respected as well? Have a great day |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, I disagree with your position, not the bible's! But I don't disagree completly. If one uses the word "homosexuality" looseliest for anything samesex, in naked literalness, this word has place as whereso you put it, and you may bend all conditions around something involving same-sexed folk, and the use still has some right. But I still don't think what the bible refers regarding ill doings of people same sex is anymore what we today refer to as "homosexuality" than either reference is parallel to meaning anything involving people of the same sex. It is a mistake to read what is being referred to in the bible as a parallel in meaning to what we refer to today as "homosexuality" which obviously includes personal connotations of union between people of the same sex. "That's a contradiction in terms ... to say that the Bible only condemns "homosexuality" when it is an act committed by a heterosexual" Why? what is referred to seems an act bible, not a sexuality. If that is supposed to be what we refer to when we say "homosexuality" instead of a sexuality, who are (by process of elimination) the -sexuals commiting that? "When Paul used the phrase "against nature" he was referring to the nature of men and women according to the created order of God." So you will force the idea that he meant love between two people of the same sex, as well? How is love against God's create order? "Why would heterosexuals act against their heterosexual desires?" Why not, if there are more meaningful desires e.g. personal, amourous, monogomous, intellectual, etc? "And if homosexuality per se were not wrong, why would a heterosexual be condemned for committing such otherwise acceptable behavior? If the behavior is wrong, why should the sexuality or sexual be treated as the wrong in a sense of being sexual, rather than abusive? I don't think behaving ("hetero"/"homo") sexually, is the wrong, behaving indecently, abusively, immorally is. "The context just doesn't allow for such an interpretation." And yet the context allows a shift in meaning to say he means (homosexual) love too? "Adultery is often done for much more than a physical act. Yet the Bible still refers to it as a sin. But it is wrong because deception and disloyalty are wrong, not because it is wrong to be loving or (hetero/homo)sexual. "If you're going to defend homosexuality based upon the possibility of love and commitment, you would have to defend many cases of adultery as well" Why? They are two different things. Homosexuality doesn't come about by being married and then having an affair with someone else. What is the condition such as already being married to someone else to adultery, may be brought about against a (hetero/homo) sexuality that makes love and monogomy its center? "Don't you see that if the Biblical writers even thought homosexuality was wrong in and of itself, it would be out of place to include the kind of description you are looking for?" I don't think so. Where is it out of place to condemn (hetero/homo) sexual acts if they are indecent, abusive, destructive? Suggesting that sexuality itself is the indecency, abusiveness, destructiveness, etc, itself is a contradiction, one which I am not willing to believe Nature or God makes. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-04-2004 10:36 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant, you keep saying this but you haven't been responding to my specific arguments at all. Answer this for me: Why are we to assume that homosexuality in the ancient world didn't have "personal connotations of union"? People are people whether ancient or modern. History and literature don't lend any support to what you are saying. Remember Bahnsen's quote? ... "In ancient culture homosexuality was commonplace, with certain distinctions customarily drawn between homosexuality as an ideal expression of love (e.g., in Plato's Symposium) or an aid to military prowess (e.g., in Spartan propaganda) and homosexuality in the form of prostitution and indiscriminate infatuation. The one was encouraged, the other discouraged." That sounds a whole lot like your own distinction doesn't it? So historically, textually, can you give me anything to back this up? It seems to me that you have just decided that it couldn't have been the same as it is now ... but upon what are you basing that assumption? quote: This was hard to decipher but I think I might know what you're trying to say. You're saying that the bible refers to mere actions rather than orientation. Again, textually you are going to have a hard time sustaining that. Paul referred, in Romans 1, to "vile passions", and to men "abandoning the natural use of the woman". These phrases are not describing a momentary lapse of reason, or reluctant indulgence ... they are referring to a deep identification with a sexual lifestyle contrary to that which is natural, which is described as "abandonment". It would make no sense to say that a heterosexual "abandoned" the natural way, if the sins described were merely temporary deviations and did not involve a change of sexual orientation ... a change of heart on the whole matter. Also Paul mentions that God "gave them over" indicating a deep and thorough identification with homosexuality on the part of the offender. And, as hard as I try, I cannot take seriously the assertion that Paul was referring to heterosexual "homosexual" behavior. Let your modern knowledge correct you here. For, heterosexuals do not practice habitual sexual intercourse with those of their own sex. So why would Paul be addressing such a non-issue as that? quote: Essorant ... certain kinds of love are improper in certain situations, don't you agree? The Bible refers to different kinds of Love, but the romantic/ sexual kind of love between lovers is called "Eros" in the Greek. It would be wrong for you to have Eros toward your biological Mother. But it is perfectly lawful for you to have "Phileo", which is a love more akin to friendship, for your Mother. It is also right for you to have "Agape" (the Greek word for the highest kind of love, an unwavering love which is most like God's) for your Mother. So briefly, to answer your question, yes "Eros" between men and men, and women and women is against God's created order. God made that to flourish only between male and female. My view is made to sound most villainous when it is suggested that God would be forbidding love between those of the same sex. That just isn't true. He never forbids what is proper. Love in it's proper context is not forbidden at all. quote: So tell me, how many professed heterosexuals have you ever met (or even heard of) who indulged in the homosexual experience because of either a lack of personal traits in their hetero mate (there are countless other heterosexual mates to choose from), or because of the mere charisma of someone of the same sex? I'll bet the answer is none. quote: I understand this is what you think. But we were discussing the Biblical view, not personal opinions right? And the Bible categorically condemns the sexual aspect of homosexuality, rather than anything coexistent with it. Again, if you want to argue this ... please refer me to the text. And I'll listen. quote: Yes the Bible condemns sexual love between those of the same sex. And the context does not allow a shift (or at least you haven't shown me how my view requires a twisting of meaning, and a manipulation of the text)... this conclusion doesn't require a shift. It is easily defensible from the Biblical texts and historical. Many non-Christians, and even homosexuals, concede that this is so. quote: You're right ... deception and disloyalty are wrong. It does not therefore follow that disloyalty to the will of God regarding sexuality is not also wrong. To put it simply, adultery is doing what is right, with the wrong person. Homosexuality is doing what is right, with the wrong sex. My whole point in bringing up adultery was to show that love and tender emotions alone do not justify something. It seemed that you were using these as the justification for homosexuality. I therefore showed you that they are present in adultery as well. Now you switch argumentation, and say that what makes adultery wrong is human disloyalty. But surely that's not the only ground for things to be wrong. Cruelty is wrong for it's own reasons ... Stealing for another ... Lying for another ... homosexuality for another. quote: It's not sexuality itself which is the indecency. It is a perversion of sexuality. As to nature, have you ever wondered why homosexuals cannot procreate? Nature at least makes some distinction about that which is proper I guess. As to God ... it is a certainty that the apostles of the Christian faith, and the patriarchs of the Jewish religion, thought otherwise and held a view which is quite different than your own. You can disagree with them. I'm trying first to convince you that you really do. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Reminds me of the typical reaction of an adolescent upon discovering his grandparents still have sex. Ewwww. Your entire argument, Stephen, seems to be based on the assumption that sexual orientation is always a choice, with your assumption inevitably leading to a skewed definition of homosexuality as anyone who engages in a same-sex relationship. That's why you can't seem to understand Essorant's arguments. Despite your apparent naivety about the real world, Stephen, heterosexuals often choose homosexual alternatives, for a variety of reasons, and such choices doesn't suddenly mean they're no longer heterosexual. It simply means they're unwilling to accept your rules. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are genetically and physically different. While they may choose to engage in heterosexual acts, they will never be heterosexuals. Any more than a lesbian who plays the role of a man can ever be a man. Gender is determined at the moment of conception, and there is every reason to believe sexual orientation follows very soon afterwards, obviously being driven by gender, but just as obviously not being solely determined by gender. Homosexuality isn't a choice, but an act of God. The opposite of natural isn't unnatural, it's supernatural. If something occurs in nature it is, by definition, natural. To call homosexuality perverse is to call God perverse. When Paul refers to men "abandoning the natural use of the woman," in Romans, it behooves us to ask if this is the same Paul who, in 1st Corinthians 11:14-15, instructs, "Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." One has to wonder, natural to whom? If God didn't want me to have long hair, it seems He could have arranged for it to not grow. Clearly, I think, Paul's descriptions of natural and unnatural reflect his society, his biases, his times, and not the will of God. Those who wish to condemn homosexuals on the basis of Paul's biases must also be willing to condemn women to a life of perpetual servitude. "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:11-15) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Why are we to assume that homosexuality in the ancient world didn't have "personal connotations of union"? People are people whether ancient or modern. History and literature don't lend any support to what you are saying. " We are not; but the biblesayings don't seem to speak therein. "Vile passions" "use" "commiting what is shameful" "in their lust" "lie with" speak in context of flesh not spirit. To say a personal and spiritual sense is tacitally given, is one's own superstition, not scripture! "Remember Bahnsen's quote? ... "In ancient culture homosexuality was commonplace, with certain distinctions customarily drawn between homosexuality as an ideal expression of love (e.g., in Plato's Symposium) or an aid to military prowess (e.g., in Spartan propaganda) and homosexuality in the form of prostitution and indiscriminate infatuation. The one was encouraged, the other discouraged" Truly; but again the bible doesn't make such distinctions. Suggesting that it tacitly refers to them is conjecture. "So historically, textually, can you give me anything to back this up? It seems to me that you have just decided that it couldn't have been the same as it is now ... but upon what are you basing that assumption?" My point is that what the bible refers to doesn't live up to what homosexuality is, so why should it be translated as if it refers thereto, as "homosexuality"? I could equally refer to heterosexual indecency without a reference to heterosexual decency; And then you shall note I am not speaking of the good things. Why do you think the biblesayings suggest good aspects as bad things too, when they seem to speak only of bad aspects? If I was convinced heterosexuality was a sin, and there are many instances of indecency that could support my belief, then I may equally suggest no good things change that about herterosexuality or justify it. Now will you still suggest "no good things" justify the sexuality when those good things are there instead of the bad, when obviously there are indecencies, and perversion of sexuality in heterosexual behavior, such as abuse, prostitution, exploitation, etc.? [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-05-2004 06:52 PM).] |
||
|
ESP Member Elite
since 2000-01-25
Posts 2556Floating gently on a cloud.... |
Interesting debate... Stephanos said: "There is the danger of a constant redefining that will eventually usher marriage into a state of meaninglessness." --That's the sort of 'armageddon argument' that makes people laugh. Proposing or opposing gay marriages shouldn't use doomsday as a reason. Personally I am in favour of gay marriages and found my thoughts often aligning with those of Ron and Hush. ~Liz PS when i am not about to go and revise for tomorrow's exam, I will come back and put forward some statements. But for now, adios! "Time has told me not to ask for more, one day our ocean will find its shore" ~Nick Drake |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Lee, I'm Sorry that I called your comments silly, it probably wasn't very respectful. However, that is my gut reaction when people express fears such as 'gays are going to out number us what will we do then????' Also- 'I did not mean to imply that I have anything against homosexuals, some are very good friends of mine. I don't look at them as homosexuals,' But you seem to look at homosexuals as a whole, as being homosexuals. If they are just people, and if you are able to be friends with them, why should it even matter if they someday outnumber straights?Jim- 'I disagree with Hush that tolerance ought to be the standard by which we make moral choices, but I do believe that the we must, as Christians, respect the rule of law even if we disagree with it on moral grounds. Everyone practices discrimination at some level by holding a certain moral position. I'd be interested in hearing from Hush whether her views on my moral position could be construed as "intolerant" and inconsistent with her "tolerance" standard.' Interesting that you say that, becausse it is something that I struggle with, having a pretty relativistic viewpoint. No, I don't find your position intolerant, simply because you don't seem to wish to infringe upon anyone's rights. Everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe, whether it be that gays are living in sin, blacks are dumber than whites, jews are penny pinchers, etc. Just don't infringe upon anyone else's rights, and it's fine. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Then you're actually confirming what I've been saying all along. You only have 2 arguments available to you, if you want to uphold your view: 1)The Biblical writers were ignorant of any personal aspect of homosexuality. or 2) The Biblical writers chose to ignore the personal aspect of homosexuality in order to condemn it. I've already shown that historically #1 is unlikely. Homosexuality was generally percieved in the ancient world in much the same way you proposing now ... sometimes virtuous, other times vile. And Paul was very aware of the Greco-Roman culture surrounding Israel. There are numerous places in the Bible where Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophers, which at least shows that he was not ignorant of Pagan culture and literature. He also lived in a nation that was controlled by Roman Government, and among "Hellenistic" Jews. They all spoke Greek as their primary language. What language do you think the New Testament is written in ... Hebrew!? Nope ... Greek. So what about #2? Well that's to say nothing more, in essence, than that you disagree with Paul. Which in my opinion, is where you must end up ... unless you want to hold on to the opinion of #1 without offering any basis, in history, the bible, or otherwise. And once more ... emotions, and loving feelings, and the rest, were obviously a part of homosexual relations. But in Paul's mind (if indeed he believed it to be immoral) what difference would that make as to whether it was right or wrong? Again, until you can justify any other thing based upon emotions and feelings ALONE, then this argument fails. And really, Essorant. Maybe we should close this particular disagreement ... at least until you give me something historical or biblical to back it up. You've done no exegesis at all ... but rather have commented concerning your own mind. There's nothing wrong with that, per se ... But it's not really sound argumentation about the original meaning of a text. If you are arguing about a text and it's meaning you have to reason from the text and/ or history and culture. quote: I've given three reasons as to why the Bible doesn't refer to such a distinction as "kosher homosexuality" & "unlawful homosexuality". 1) If the writers view is a condemnatory one about homosexuality, then it would be textually unnatural and incongruent to refer to such a distinction. 2) It was common in Greco-Roman culture to view homosexuality as sometimes okay, and sometimes not. Why should we assume Paul was ignorant of such a view? His own view came as a refutation of such a view, not out of ignorance of it. Heck, the epistle in which he wrote it was called "Epistle to the ROMANS". 3) That homosexuals experience emotions and even commitment in their relationships is simply obvious (either now, or in ancient times) to anyone. But if Paul’s premises about the Created order of God are true, such things are pretty irrelevant. Just as “true love” among adulterers and mistresses is irrelevant to the question of whether or not adultery is moral. But You haven’t given any reasons at all, as to why we should assume Paul was ignorant of the “relational” aspect of homosexuality. Until you provide some reasons for my consideration, our conversation is circular and pointless. quote: But the Bible also refers to “heterosexual indecency” ... but NOT without a reference to heterosexual decency. The Bible readily acknowledges the appropriateness of male/ female union and marriage ... based upon it’s presuppositions about the created order. So the Bible does not “seem to speak only of bad aspects”, as you suggest it does. There are however some things it only speaks of in a negative context. Why? Because according to the world-view, the presuppositional lens of the Jewish and Christian culture, there is no such thing as a positive context for certain things. Again ... there’s no positive context for adultery. It is categorically condemned throughout the Bible. There is also no positive context for homosexuality (either in desire or action). It is categorically condemned. But notice that I did not say that good things (feelings, emotions, commitments, and numerous others) cannot coexist with a sinful lifestyle. God rains on the just and the unjust alike. But according to the “Weltanschauung” of the Judaic heritage, the sexual union of men with men, or women with women could never have a positive context. For your view to be plausible, you would have to offer articulated reasons as to why Paul might have excluded a positive homosexuality, but included a positive heterosexuality. And it’s either a philosophical / ideological / theological reason ... or it’s ignorance. My aim is to help you see that the ignorance argument doesn’t hold water. The Pagan world that virtually engulfed the little Judaic community viewed homosexuality in much the same mood as you do. And Paul was quite familiar with the surrounding world of his day. I have given textual and historical data, and reasoning to back this up. Can you give any reasons as to why the “ignorance” argument would be more valid than the ideological one? You have to at least begin to try to support what you are saying. quote: You may, but you would be wrong. Paul had a foundational reason to reject and condemn homosexuality. He didn’t merely reason his way there from weighing societal or individual benefits, against the cons. If Paul were reasoning in this way, then you’re right, he should have at least mentioned something of homosexuality that was more acceptable. But this is what you must ask yourself ... why didn’t he? Was he just ignorant of all of the benefits and enjoyment that the Pagan world around him saw concerning homosexuality? Or was he basing his judgment upon something deeper than humanistic analysis ... something ideological, philosophical, theological? I’d say that the evidence points exclusively to the latter conclusion. Stephen |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I was rushed earlier, back to add some more. Stephen: 'And, as hard as I try, I cannot take seriously the assertion that Paul was referring to heterosexual "homosexual" behavior. Let your modern knowledge correct you here. For, heterosexuals do not practice habitual sexual intercourse with those of their own sex. So why would Paul be addressing such a non-issue as that?' What do you make, then of people who identify themselves as heterosexual but have had romantic or physical homosexual encounters? And what about bisexuals? Also, I need to correct you on something: 'As to nature, have you ever wondered why homosexuals cannot procreate? Nature at least makes some distinction about that which is proper I guess.' Uh... yeah they can. Same way they can (legally) get married- with someone of the opposite sex. And it just so happens that reproductive technologies make this feat possible without the man and woman even having to touch each other. Anyway, getting back to my earlier response to Jim... yes, everyone holds a certain moral position. My moral position is one that values tolerance, even to people who don't agree with me. Of course I'm going to disagree with certain things, and there are things that I will continue to think are just plain wrong. But if a bunch of white people want to sit around and call black people the N-word... or if a bunch of straight people want to sit around and call gays the F-word... it's really no skin off my back until somebody's got burning crosses in their yard, or until someone drags a poor gay guy to death by their pickup truck. Then, it's time to take action... but until then, all I can do is repeat to others the human dignity in us all, and express my opinion that we should be accepting of the actions of others until they become dangerous to people around them. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Here are a few of links of interest ... From a Christian and Jewish view of homosexuality and scripture. http://www.tuftsdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/30/4091eb1daf99c http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-2.htm Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos I'm not saying it is determined by whether or not the biblewriters were ignorant of things going on. I am just saying I don't BELIEVE the biblical passages (aside from what was known or not) refers to homosexuality. I believe it refers to indecency and deviation for flesh and for perverse sex. To me it is not in context of telling people how to live lifestyles or orient relationships, it is disgust at perverse behavior in context of flesh, and condemning that shamefulness. The passage "lie with" is so narrow and vague. But again I think that is an act in the context of perversion in the context of fleshlust, As any behavior should be condemned for indecencies and being based on flesh. I'm not trying to say this "this is the truth and that is all there is to it". I'm just saying that is the way it reads to me; it is what I sense and believe it speaks of from what I read. If the bible wished to condemn lovers that in the same gender for being romantically inclined, samesexness in context of relationships, personality, uniting, and the genderness (aside from sexual intercourse) why should it not speak directly, when it speaks directly about things like theft, adultery, etc? Why should it not see it important to clarify such a thing, if it is a sin? Yes it is important to understand where the writers are coming from. And I appreciate your emphasis and knowings that they were often aware of thing that we were. But I still have doubtfulness about what the biblesayings say themselves. "until you can justify any other thing based upon emotions and feelings ALONE, then this argument fails." I read what is written and tell you what I believe? what more may man do? "I've given three reasons as to why the Bible doesn't refer to such a distinction as "kosher homosexuality" & "unlawful homosexuality"." You again presume that homosexuality is inevitably being referred to. I don't agree with you. If the bible wanted to refer to homosexuality I think it shall have direct sayings regarding the genderness and relationships of two people of the same sex, rather than indecencies in lust and flesh. "If the writers view is a condemnatory one about homosexuality, then it would be textually unnatural and incongruent to refer to such a distinction." Again, I don't agree. I still fail to see how man may find anything superior view in Pauls way of reference to anything negative. Paul is harsh. Not just that he is unduly harsh; Ron's quotations was a good example of that. Just like other parts in the bible, where some aspect may be indeed in need of being spoken out against, and may be trusted up to a point, it may only be trusted until it goes to some undue oddity and harshness. How many of these instances of oddities and harshnesses do we have to overlook before we are allowed to admit the views in the bible have some undue oddities and harshnesses? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks for the links Stephenos. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Actually Ron there are many passages of scripture which speak about the authoritative nature of scripture, and the importance of determining truth from it, rather than from current cultural moods. I'll mention just a couple which should be of interest to you. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16) "...These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not recieve the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:12-14) I think letting "the Bible interpret the Bible" has been an understood principle of scriptural scholarship since the texts began to be studied. Any other approach is just poor exegesis. Now granted, understanding what scripture is actually saying often depends on a deeper look into the surrounding cultures and histories of the text in question. But I believe all of that too is on the side of "homosexuality as sin" as a scriptural view. There is a book which you should consider looking at called "Out of order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East" by Donald J. Wold, which seems to deal with many of the "revisionist" attempts to say scripture says that homosexuality is okay. But this is really where you and Essorant part ways in your argumentation. Essorant has been (perhaps out of some reverence or respect for the Bible obtained by cultural osmosis?) trying to revise what the Bible is actually stating, and referring to in it's condemnation ... not homosexuality per se, but to certain detestable types of it. Though sometimes it seems that you force yourself to try to do the same thing, when you say things like ... quote: then say things like: quote: But which is it? Is scripture refective of the will of God, or filled with cultural biases? And regardless of other examples of scripture such as the "Head Covering" scriptures of 1Corinthians ... or the teachings on the more submissive (but no less valuable or essential) role of women, you fail to show that these are identical. You never do any textual or exegetical analysis at all. And, by the way, these scriptures you mention are not disregarded by me as "culturally irrelevant" just because their foundational assumptions are not harmonious with relativistic contemporary culture. So don't assume that just because you reject them, or their governing principles wholesale, that I do. Of course I think that there are biblical, textual, and cultural reasons to think that the particular expressions of moral principles spoken of in these scriptures are different in some significant ways, than Paul's moral condemnation of homosexuality. And we could discuss those reasons. But to simply throw them out as some sort of smoke screen (like some have tried to do with slavery and the bible ... and geocentrism and the bible) doesn't amount to much. quote: What then would be your "unskewed" definition of homosexuality? I don't limit homosexuality to lengthy relationships, or any settled orientation. Bisexuals and what you erroneously call "heterosexual experimentors" are also guilty of this immorality. My definition of homosexuality is actually much wider than yours. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Actually it's the more popular view. I don't care if you call yourself heterosexual or not, if your neigbor found out that you "rejected my rules" by having sex with another male, I'll bet he would conclude that you were to some extent "homosexual". That's the common man's view of homosexuality, and that's pretty sound actually. You are in the minority if you call those who dabble in homosex "heterosexual" ... There's a more accurate word for that, "bisexual". But all of that is really irrelevant to the issue of the Biblical view of homosexuality. quote: They are no more genetically different than you and I are genetically different. They are at least not provenly different in an actual genetic sense. No "homosexual gene" has been found ... all scientific evidence that is used to suggest such a thing is inconclusive and unsatisfactory. "The most recent research suggesting that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors came out in 1991 with the publication of some preliminary findings of Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. His research consisted of studying the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. He found that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals." This study was seized upon by many as "irrefutable evidence" that homosexuals are born gay, something the homosexual community has been proclaiming for many years. However, "instead of resolving the debate," a Newsweek article suggests, "the studies may well have intensified it. Some scientists profess not to be surprised at all by LeVay's finding of brain differences. 'Of course it [sexual orientation] is in the brain,' says Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money, sometimes called the dean of American sexologists. 'The real question is, when did it get there? Was it prenatal, neonatal, during childhood, puberty? That we do not know.' Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the "heterosexual" men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor." (From "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction" by Joseph P. Gudel) Here's some other links of interest about the "genetic/ biological" argument ... http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html And also to say that someone who is homosexual will/ can never be heterosexual, is to deny the possibility of repentance and of the transforming power of God ... Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inheret the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11) quote: One definition of nature is "what occurs in nature". But if you considered context you'd know that Paul's usage of "against natural" is in the sense of "out of place, out of order". Maybe you didn't know that there are different senses of use and definitions of this word? Just like the word "Sorry", can mean both to apologize and to be of a poor character. Think about it ... where Paul wrote "against nature", try substituting it with the word "supernatural". Seriously Ron, if we used your definition of natural (which ignores context completely) We'd have to say that to call "murder" perverse is to call God perverse ... or to call rape perverse is to call God perverse. Or to call anything perverse is to call God perverse. Talk to any Bible scholar about your understanding of that word and see what he/she would say about it. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Let's take one thing at a time. And I'm going to demand some answers from you before we proceed to any other point. This one issue you are not adequately answering ... quote: I have given reasons as to why Paul would naturally exclude mentioning "relational" aspects of homosexuality, IF he indeed felt that it was intrinsically wrong and against the created order. (Read them in my former reply ... 1, 2, 3.) Now the burden is on you to give reasons as to why he Didn't refer to "relational" aspects if he were only talking about "indecencies" or particular types of homosexual behavior. Answer this and we'll continue. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Notice that I said that heterosexuals do not have habitual or repetitive sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. The view that heterosexuals sometimes cross the line, is actually more congruous with my view of homosex, that it is a chosen sinful behavior ... which may or may not take root as a bondage and prevalant orientation. Heterosexuals who have had encounters with homosexuals, were, to put it simply, tempted. I still find it difficult to call "heterosexual" those who have had romantic or physical homosexual encounters. That is, if heterosexual refers to a settled personal sexual orientation. Bisexual would be more accurate I think. In briefest form ...I think bisexuals have it at least half right. quote: I meant that homosexuals can't procreate by the homosexual method ... they at least have to be "heterosexual" for the momentary pragmatic purpose of concieving. But then there is adoption. And you're right that technology is making the sexual interlude more and more unnecessary for making babies. But I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I was pointing to the fact that from the beginning of mankind, there has been only one "natural" way to bring forth children ... and that's between man and woman. To me it is not the total indicator that homosexuality is wrong ... but it's a fascinating clue and for me is only part of a totality of arguments against homosexuality. I understand that standing alone, it's not the most compelling of arguments ... but interesting nonetheless. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Who said anything about doomsday? (though I do believe in judgement and consequences from God). I was referring to the specific concern that if we reject the traditional view of marriage, then it will constantly be redefined in society, perhaps into an absurdity. There are already groups lobbying for polygamy rights and polyamorous marriage ... and who knows what else. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which does not support your contention that interpretations of the Bible must be defended from the Biblical texts. The passages you cite, Stephen, instead imply the Bible needs no defense at all and, indeed, the passage cited from Corinthians more closely aligns to my contention that interpretations by man are often faulty. The Word can and has been used to justify every atrocity imaginable. quote: Scripture is more than reflective, it IS the will of God. The Bible, however, is a compilation of interpretation, specifically an interpretation by the Catholic church as to what should and shouldn't be included. There are many people who believe in Christ, but not in Paul, and many more who believe everything attributed to Paul was not necessarily written by Paul. Let's rephrase your question, Stephen. Is the Bible authoritative? Or, as you've already quoted from Corinthians, should it be filtered through the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit? quote: It amounts to a great deal, Stephen. It irrevocably proves that man's interpretation of the Bible is not infallible. If Pope Paul V was wrong about Galileo, why should we believe you are right about homosexuals? You can't just brush credibility off as being irrelevant. quote: It's not irrelevant if Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is based on the same definition you insist upon using. That's Essorant's whole point. If homosexuality is nothing more than the experimentation of heterosexuals, then I agree it is no less a sin than any other sexual activity outside the sanctity of love. I still won't throw the first stone, I still won't pass human laws to enforce God's laws, but I will agree it is wrong and like every sin will lead to Earthly repercussions. That's between the sinner and God. However, I don't believe you can define either gender or sexual orientation solely by actions. Both are physical manifestations, which in turn, define the actions. In your worldview, Stephen, I sense you can't imagine ever being attracted to another man. But your worldview is sorely limited if you've never encountered a man who can't imagine ever being attracted to a woman. Nothing short of a supernatural miracle is going to turn you into a woman, and nothing short of a miracle is going to turn a true homosexual into a heterosexual. quote: I agree, but with only one small change. Paul's usage more appropriately should be characterized as, "out of our place, out of our order." If you define natural in any way apart from nature, it becomes entirely subjective. Which is exactly the problem. When homosexuality and long hair on a man are both deemed unnatural, questioning the usage probably isn't such a bad idea. quote: It's inconclusive for everyone, Stephen, but only unsatisfactory for some. We knew that blue eyes was genetic several hundred years before the gene was found, and anyone who has been close friends with a homosexual knows it is not something they picked up on the playground or learned in college. It's who they are and how they see the world, determined by wiring set in place long before that first slap on the butt. Sexual orientation, like intelligence, probably isn't determined by a single gene. But that's okay, too, because when I get to know someone well enough, I really don't need a scientist to tell me what's what. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Good Morning All I've given this issue thought over the weekend...Since Friday, I must say, you've all offered some very good imput to ponder further. I unfortunately, am a very expressive talker, writer, which sometimes doesn't come across clearly to the reader, realizing, but also, in the same, sometimes the reader reads and sees only what he/she wants to read. Again, let me reinterate that my statement about gays outnumbering us was not a statement of fear, but perhaps someday it will be a reality. There is also something else inside which I have also discussed and admitted to my friends (when asked) who are gay, as follows. "My Beliefs" of which I cannot or won't compromise which is same gender sex is abnormal. I believe there is a very rare change that during conseption sometimes, something goes wrong...and a very few percentage of people are born with a tendancy toward feeling like they are a man when they are a woman or visa versa. But, on the average, taking that step towards homosexual tendicays is a choice made by the individual. Yes, hormonal imbalance can occur, I also believe that, but not to the magnification that has impacted this issue today. When I read over my last two comments the first one adamently speaks the truth of what I feel and have felt all my life on this issue. The second comment bends with some doubt. I am always open to discussion, and I don't hate gays nor fear them. And yes, someday, they may outnumber straights, that is a definate possiblity. I was simply stating a fact of something that may come in the future, surely it isn't impossible. Certainly there are more people today, then 50 years ago, but I believe there are more people choosing to be gay for reasons other then a hormonal imbalance or complications which occured during conception. My point being, I stand by my beliefs...your sexual prefrence is your choice, but in the same...as heteralsexuality is mine. I will not judge anyone for their choice, as long as they respect my feelings on the subject as well. I have and always will raise my son to believe it is wrong...but in the same to no hate someone for their race, color, beliefs and sexual prefrences. Gays "are" human beings, and God's children. And even though I disapprove, I will still love them and give them my trust and utmost respect. I hope in this 3rd comment I have been able to articulate that I harbor no adamosity or fear of gays. They have been a part of my life, and there have been many many fond memories of laughter, agreements, disagreements. We're not perfect human beings...there will always be conflicts of opinion...feelings, beliefs. But as a whole, we are all people, one united under God, and hopefully we will learn to listen, to each other, trust each other, respect each others opinions, and not reach a point where being right and lashing out becomes more important then love and understanding. Remember, always, everyones opinion is important to them, it is who they are, and a composition of their entire being. It is important to express your thoughts, believes and opinions, but it is also important to allow others and not react to the point that the being right becomes the issue. We must somehow establish this courtesy to all. Freedom of speech balances on both sides of the scale, and that scale weighs different to each individual. I don't consider myself a member of any religious group, nor do I go to church, but do believe in God...and the same respect should go towards people who do go to church and believe what they believe. There is good, bad and inbetween in all, and we're not going to find perfection in any human being. We all, even the Pope, even our Presidents, make mistakes, and hopefully we will learn from them...as each individual has a signficant journey to accomplish...if we don't understand that, and allow and give in at times, then how would each of us be any different from dictating what another should be. That's why we are still the Greatest Nation in the world to live in, because we Do have a choice, and allowance is a very large part of that great freedom. But, in the same, freedom is not and will never be at the cost of anyone's integrity, loss of respect, name calling or looking to our leaders, parents, lovers as Gods. If you do, you set yourself up for dissappointment when they do make a mistake. People are people, human beings capable of making some pretty good choices and some not so nice choices due to many things, upbringing, conditioning, etc. and none of us, not one of us, are absolutely 100% right all the time. Happy Monday to you all and thank you kindly for this opportunity to express. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: That's exactly what I'm saying ... even if not wholly from those texts. Of course we often have to go extrabiblical to define the cultural implications, and hone in on what is being stated. But any interpretation which runs diametrically opposite to what the text is stating, (if the text is thought to be in any way authoritative) must be called a heresy. By your methodology, literally ANY interpretation is valid. But the Apostolic tradition, along with an almost unbroken consistency in Church History, denies that approach to biblical interpretation. quote: It doesn't imply that at all. Again, even your interpretation of THIS passage must be supported by the rest of the Bible. My view, (though I'm not denying there is ambiguity in the Bible) is that there is correct way to interpret scripture versus an erroneous way ... a heretical way. And again, though there is some ambiguity in the Bible, my contention is that it's not here, on the issue of homosexuality as sin. You must also remember that those who have challenged the doctrinal certainty of the deity of Christ, and the literal nature of a corporeal death and ressurection (doctrines which I assume that you hold as non-negotiable), have done so using the exact method of obscurantism that you are now using. Here are some further scriptures to support that the Bible indeed DOES require some defending and proper principles of exegesis: "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (1 Timothy 4:13) "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." (1 Timothy 4:16) "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) " ... consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16) "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 3,4) quote: I agree with this. As your interpretation is also an interpretation "by man". That's why proper exegesis is so important. There has to be a way to distinguish between what is faulty and what is not. Or else you just threw us all (including yourself) in the post-modern mire of "nobody can really know". Though it may be more difficult with knotty passages of scripture, which can be confusing, these particular ones are not of that category at all. quote: Indeed ... and often by violating sound principles of Biblical interpretation, in order to justify what one desires to do. The word has also been used to condemn those very atrocities. The two methods should be compared and contrasted ... rather than constantly mired together. quote: Aren't you confusing the thing interpreted with the interpretations? If we only have recorded the interpretations rather than authoritative documents, what is there to judge error with, to compare the Bible with? If the Bible is to you only "man's interpretation", then what right do you have to call it "The word of God"? The Canon of scripture is another great subject. But the Church, as a whole, has always felt that God himself has purposed what is and what is not scripture. Whether writings were "inspired of God" or not, must be at least patially objective. The Catholic Church, as faulty as men may be, was the instrument of discovering and confirming what the Canon of scripture already was. These writings did not become "inspired of God" all of a sudden, when certain Bishops and councils decided to make a definitive list. A rainbow didn't become a rainbow, when we became able to articulate what the spectrum is. You have to believe in some sort of divine boundary for what is authoritative and theologically true, or you may as well pick up the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Satanic Bible the next time you hit the bookstore. quote: But if Christ chose Paul, and gave him apostolic authority ... that means that they are wrong doesn't it? We would have to weigh one argument against the other. Should a Christian believe in Paul or not? I'm prepared to show that "believing in Jesus", while rejecting the teachings of Paul is an untenable position. History, and exegesis, and reasoning support either one or the other, not both. Actually Jesus put it simply ... "He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16) Muslims claim to believe in the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New Testament too, yet they reject Jesus. If God set forth his son as the way to himself, will it really matter if they continue to call themselves followers but reject the Christ? It's much the same way with those who reject the Apostle Paul. Similarly, if you claim to be my friend and yet deride my wife, I've got a problem with you. quote: Why do you pose this as an "either/ or" situation? I never denied the Church's need of the Holy Spirit. Yet I can't imagine a non-authoritative bible being "filtered through the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit". All you are saying, is that God is needed in this whole interpretive process. I'm with you on that. But does that nullify the need for textual honesty and biblical scholarship, especially when we are called to "study to show ourselves approved"? quote: Part of credibility is one's ability to "rightly divide the word of truth". When's the last time you examined the Biblical support of Geocentrism? You can't win an argument on laurels of a wholly seperate one. The possibility of being mistaken is a given, and too obvious to be mentioned. But how is that an argument for ANYTHING? Each Biblical issue must be looked at quite separately, and each of the opposing arguments presented with it's own weight of interpretive evidence. And that is exactly what you haven't been doing. It's much easier to just say someone is in the same unfortunate position as Pope Paul V. But then again, you might be wearing his miter yourself. quote: You and Essorant are forwarding two very different arguments. He seems to be saying that the Bible means something else. You seem to be saying that the Bible is wrong on this point. At least that's what it sounds like to me when you write that Paul was merely writing out of cultural bias rather than the inspired words of God. I was showing Essorant that biased or not, Paul did not mean a certain "kind" of homosexuality. I maintain that that argument is indefinsible historically and from the text itself. Would you like to try to defend this view? Like Essorant, you'll have to offer something historically or textually to give weight to your assertion. quote: But science has not, up to this point, offered any evidence that homosexuality is essentially a physical difference. Any physical differences that are there (inconclusive and pretty much limited to the brain) might have been caused by the habitual practice and variance in thinking, not vice versa. quote: Who says I've never encountered a man who can't imagine ever being attracted to a women? I have. quote: And nothing short of a miracle is going to turn a sinner into a saint. Habitual adulterers and pedophiles do not typically change either .. that alters nothing concerning the immoral nature of their deeds. All of the above mentioned are "sexual orientations". quote: It must be entirely subjective unless God is imposing a rule of "what should be" onto nature. And that is exactly what the Bible teaches from beginning to end. There is an an appropriateness, a natural or moral order that the creature is accountable to conform to. If this were not so, then Paul's context of "exchanging God's truth for the lie" becomes meaningless. Also the wrath of God being revealed from Heaven against all "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" is without significance. For God to punish men for violating human subjectivity is an incredible interpretation. That means that you assume the subjective view of what is "natural", and then wrestle with the fact that the entire structure of context in which Paul speaks does not conform. Your unsavory task now is to defend why God has the right to punish men for merely overstepping social norms, which have no real moral foundations. In this instance, I interpret the piece of the puzzle according to the overall context (the pieces already in place). While you're throwing out the context in order to salvage the piece of your choosing. If you define "natural" in this scripture, as any way other than that which is orderly and appropriate according to God, then EVERYTHING becomes entirely subjective. Because every crime and sin imaginable, condemned by the pages of scripture, occur "in nature" ... if nature merely means "that which is". quote: Briefly, on the "long hair" issue ... Paul was speaking within the context of culture here. But cultures typically reflect what is universally proper in various outward forms. We must determine what is variable here, and what is constant. Again, looking at the rejection of pedantic legalism by the early Christian Church as opposed to Judaism ... and looking at such things as the Nazarite vow in which men were set apart and holy and required to have long hair, the underlying principle must be what is kept as universal. What is that underlying principle? I believe it is that nature teaches us that there should be a proper social distinction between men and women ... that the importance of gender difference should not be ignored. A friend of mine informed me that in certain Native American community, it was that a man should have a bear chest. If his chest is covered, as an Indian woman's, it was improper. The male Indian's long hair was actually seen as an emblem of masculinity. The principle is kept, the variable is not. It would be unnatural and counterproductive to impose a different form of this principle upon a society for the sake of legalism. In light of the whole Bible, my interpretation of Paul here involves proper Gender differences and roles. But again I don't disregard mountains of clear scriptural principles in order to reach my conclusion, by sweeping them under the proverbial rug. I use them in my reasoning and exegesis. I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about Paul's instructions on "head coverings", simply because it is comprehensive and might deserve a thread of it's own. But I'm contending that it only looks the same to those who haven't looked closely enough. And again, you can't forward your position based on something quite different. And I am prepared to discuss why these two are worlds apart, based upon context. quote: So was Geocentrism. It wasn't so satisfactory to Galileo and his entourage. quote: We also had instantaneous empirical evidence that humans are born with eye color. Since it's not the same with sexual orientation, you're comparing apples and tennis balls. quote: I do have homosexual friends. And who ever said it was as simple as choosing to buy a car? (actually that's probably not so simple either, from a psychological standpoint) I never denied that it was a complexity of influences. But the same can be said of a multitude of behavioral wrongs. And yet we don't tend to justify them just because they didn't happen overnight. quote: It's the "determined by wiring set in place long before that first slap on the butt" that you can't prove, either by intuition or by science. quote: Thanks. That's a clear statement to me that what you have earlier passed off as "scientific" is merely intuitive, a hunch. I don't mind that. And those kinds of intuitive arguments do hold certain weight at times ... but not when they are passed off as science. I think we've made some progress. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Nothing like trying to have it both ways, is there, Stephen? Your rationalization of what Paul meant about the length of hair mandated for men and women brought what is probably the best smile I've had all week. Thanks. It's late. I'll try to touch upon some of your less outrageous points later. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, I wish I, You, and anyone reading may know Paul's thought and exactly what his saying is. But I don't think there are any that may at least while humans; and we are not even reading exactly what Paul is saying because he spoke in another language; and men that translate the bible are not the men that wrote it. A construed bible is not original. Only the original is the original. Why should I and You, and why should society, and should the government give a few of the briefest lines, the benefit of the doubt, over hundreds of people? Support condemning, or denying those people marriage because a book has briefest descriptions of people of the same sex in a negative context? On what ground do you see we should accept such sayings as a complete assessment, that aside from being briefest things in the bible, are made of words that are not any certain equivelents to homosexuality, and don't seem in the context of anything marriage is based upon? They are elements that include people of the same sex, that people construe as homosexuality, that are not the same people that wrote the bible. Such little attention to anything involving people of the same sex in the bible overall, the uncertainty of the translations, the distance between the language and of age, and ours, even if you may be right, leaves too much absence of certainty. Hundreds of people are making the bible out as if it does judgement upon homosexuality, but those hundreds people are the ones that seem to be giving the longsome discourse and judgement about this issue, not the bible. There is no such length, discourse, or for sure an overall judgement at all to be found in bible about homosexuality. Not much level of attention is in the bible to "hold" on to at all about this issue, let alone make worldly choices by. If you believe the bible does such judgement, I won't blame you for a belief; but if you think your belief or anybody elses belief that the bible condemns homosexuality is based on a substantial and completelike ground thereof: I don't agree at all. There is no such substantial ground about this issue in the bible. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Must you use obscurantism to argue every point? Try to defend your views with something more substantive. If you are going to defend your points based upon what you've just stated, we can't even know what Juliet really meant in the line "Romeo Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo?". NO TEXT is attacked on such grounds except for the Bible. And why is that the case? ... simply because it claims to be authoritative. And in general, if people disagree with authoritative statements, they deny the truth of the statements, or outright deny the authority. "We can't know what the text really means because it wasn't written yesterday" really isn't a valid argument, because it isn't true of other non-debated texts written even much earlier than the Bible. So I'll still be waiting on your specific answer to my former post ... where I asked you to give specific reasons for your views, not more assertions of ambiguity and your own feelings. We can't have a rational discussion about this otherwise. quote: Did you know that both the Iliad and the Bible are ancient texts which exist not in their original autographs, but in copied manuscripts. Good. Have you noticed that the text of the Iliad is not often debated as to what it meant or as to what is says? Ever consider why the Bible is so hotly debated as to what the text actually says, and texts like the Iliad are not? Very interesting, especially since the following is true: existing manuscripts available for the Iliad: 643 existing manuscripts available for the New Testament: 24,970 The time of the earliest copies of the Illiad (the original written about 800 B.C.): 400 B.C. (time gap of 400 years) The time of the earliest copies of the New Testament (written about A.D. 50 - 100): 115 - 200 B.C. (time gap of 50-100 years) The time of the first complete copies of the Iliad: around 1200 A.D. (time gap of about 2000 years) The time of the first complete copies of the New Testament: 325 A.D. (time gap of about 250 years) In numbers of copied manuscripts the New Testament takes first place, and Homer's Iliad second place. Essorant, unless you're willing to cast ALL ancient literature into significant textual uncertainty, this argument just doesn't work. quote: Essorant I have presented "substantial ground" in my arguments, and you haven't even commented on anything relating to my specific points. Neither have you attempted to support your own view textually or historically. I'm waiting on your response. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When people try to make the bible out as doing judgement to condemn people - homosexuals, and deny those people something special because they are the same sex, that to me seems a good enough reason to question the text more closely and people's judgement. You and others are stretching scripture as far as it may go to try and make it out as some heavenly judgement made against homosexuality, and it may not be stretched much further you shall see. Why do you think People always need to tell their own long tale about how scripture judges homosexuality? Don't you think if the bible was meant to express such judgements it should say those things itself? Again I have nothing against believing this or that. But you still don't have evidence yourself from the bible because there is no such evidence in the bible to acertain that a judgement is being made on homosexuality. Do you think I ignore what you say about acknowledging the historical and cultural standing? I do not. My point is what you are saying is NOT in the bible. Whatever the case you may bring from outside sources, the bible's attention goes to no such lengths about anything. You're trying to make boulders out of pebbles. There isn't a substantial "body of evidence" involving people of the same sex anywhere in the bible itself that may be declared as any certain judgement upon homosexuality. Trying to make something out as if it is, is taking everything out of proportion to try and please your own belief and judgement. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: " You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." (Romans 1:18-32) " ... the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." (1 Timothy 1:9-11) " But I intend to remind you, you once knowing these things, that the Lord having delivered a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed the ones not believing. And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire." (Jude 5-7) quote: Not in the bible?? Please go back and read the above scriptures. Essorant, my first line of argumentation DID come precisely from the obvious words and context of these bible verses. When that didn't satisfy you, I went further and discussed how homosexuality was generally viewed in the surrounding cultures of that time period. Then I reasoned many points as to why the Biblical writers would never make a distinction between your so-called "good" and "bad" versions of homosexuality. So, you see, I have presented a case from the Bible itself (just take a poll, and see what others think these scriptures are saying at face value, when they read them at first glance) ... and also I've included some extrabiblical information to support what's in the bible. But you have not referred either to the texts OR to anything extrabiblical. You have only given comments and opinions about the texts ... not one thing you've said, mentions anything within the texts. Don't you think there might be something lacking in that approach? Someone reading your responses can't even begin to take your argument that "the bible doesn't say that" seriously, if you don't even attempt to explain or reconcile any of the parts where the bible at least SEEMS to say the thing you are denying. My argument is simple really ... Here it is in four statements. 1) The several Bible texts at least appear, to the plain reader, to condemn homosexual behavior without any exceptions mentioned. 2) The foundational doctrines of the Bible, beginning with creation in Genesis, only tend to support the idea that God intended only men and women to relate to each other in a sexual way. 3) Extrabiblical knowledge of Hebrew culture, and pagan culture regarding homosexuality only tends to confirm that the Jews and early Christians condemned homosexuality. At the very least, such knowledge does no damage to the assertion that the authors of the Biblical texts meant what the texts all seem to say at first glance. 4) A more "homosexual friendly" interpretation requires one to ingore much context ... both in Jewish culture, and in Pagan culture, and requires one to derive a meaning from the text that seems contrary to what the text actually says, depending on a "He really didn't mean what he said" kind of reasoning, which has no basis. The only basis is our current cultural sympathy with homosexuality as "civil rights" and popular sentimentality. quote: Really? If you won't comment on the Bible, how can I know this? I personally feel that Romans 1 goes into a substantial amount of detail about homosexuality. But let's start there ... Why (specifically, using the text of Romans 1) do you feel otherwise? quote: The same would be true of "trying to make something out as if it isn't", wouldn't it? Couldn't you also do that to preserve YOUR own belief and judgement? I feel pretty confident that my judgement on the issue is derived from the biblical text, (which I believe to be authoritative). And I can go into detail about the text itself and defend why I think it means what it does. A question for you ... Did you honestly derive your conclusion about what the Bible says from the texts themselves, or did you have a fairly strong wish or opinion before you read them? If you say "No, I derived my conclusion from the texts themselves", I would like to ask you to defend that notion USING those texts. Since you haven't done this very simple thing thus far, your argument is still lacking. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But isn't that exactly what you did, Stephen, in trying to defend Paul's statements about the "natural" length of a man's and woman's hair? The text of the Bible is not authoritative when it contradicts the message of the Bible. Show me anywhere in the NT where Jesus condemns someone because of WHO they are. Show me anywhere in the NT where Jesus persecutes someone for loving another. The teachings of Jesus are not an instrument for you or anyone else to shape others into an image of yourself. That job has already been filled. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
" You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)" "Lie with" = sexuality, nature, personality, spirituality, relationship, love, truth, marriage? "Do you not know that the unrighteous be deceived; neither fornicators, nor shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) " I don't think you may treat one "sexuality" as if it is only like an object and then make it out as if it is wielding itself, an object doesn't commit a sin on its own and become a theif, abuser, etc, it is committed by a wielder of a will, a doer of a deed, a commiter of a sin/crime. In other words if you accept this translation and will erase homosexuality out of nature, and make it only one of those, ultimatly a sin, there is only ONE sort of sexuals and sexuality left--heterosexuals and heterosexuality. And as there is no moral distinctions of a good side for the commiters of these sins and crimes, and this is a condemning as you will teach, then heterosexuals are the one's going to hell. "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." That is a different translation I see. You changed your mind about the other?. I don't fear. You may translate it through as many circuits as you wish, but it still doesn't say "homosexuality" to me. "Lust" "committing shameless acts" and suggesting people were in affairs in one sex and then wrongly had affairs with peole of the other sex, does not translate as sexuality/homosexuality. It translates as betrayal and indecency. If Paul would say people of the same sex being together in an intimate relationship at all was a sin, he would say it. But there are directly negative conditions that are homosexual AND heterosexual if you didn't notice. Heterosexuals turning to homosexual indecency, I should think is a wrong, just as homosexuals turning to heterosexual indecency, just as sexual indecency, betrayal is a wrong anywhere. I don't why you decide this is about the genderness of people as being a sin in and of itself, a generalization upon any intimate relationship between people because they are the same sex, when the points of "dishonourable passions" (sinful lust?), turning from attachment wrongly to another, sseem to hang over the whole passage. "committing shameless acts" There are negative "strings" attached, so what makes the genderness as a sin in and of itself, in these lines? It does make a distinction because it refers to those negative things. Trying to say that there is distinction aside from those negative factors, upon samesexness in general, any intimate relationship, is trying to force a distinction, that you admit is not there to begin with, it is forcing own judgement upon the lines. "Not in the bible??" Exactly, Saying that culture and history says it, is not equal to saying "the bible" says it. If the bible says it, use evidence in the bible, and show me that is says "homosexuality" and why it should be perceived in the sense of homosexuality in anyway we know it culturally and historically. May you show me that those distinctions that are there in real life are being referred to in one swoop when they are not referred to, in the bible? You are trusting your own belief, and suggesting that because no distinctions are made, that all distinctions that may be made,(i.e goodness, respect!) are covered. You remain forevermore without the biblical distinctions of those things. You simply can't say you have evidence that it refers to such distinctions and differences- cultural, historical, physchological, etc when it doesn't have such distinctions to refer to as evidence. You just don't have that evidence, Stephenos. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-17-2004 01:00 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I'm glad you're willing to discuss the texts and take a look them. Let's go one thing at a time ... Essorant: quote: Lie with = the Hebrew word “shakab”: To lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease, or any other purpose.) "as with a woman" = (believe it or not) as with a woman. Just connect the dots. The verb "lie with" is a general term, which is further defined by the qualifier "as with a women", which gave the word a general meaning of sexuality. In simple terms, Moses wrote to men, "Don't have sexual relations with men, as men normally do with women" This is also in accordance with the Jewish understanding of the created order of God sanctioning only male and female intimacy ... with Adam and Eve as the pattern set forth for normative sexuality, for humanity. Seeing that heterosexuality as normative is the traditional jewish view, is supported by scripture (in Genesis, and many other places), and the most immediately apparant meaning of this very text, why should someone feel compelled to believe the text is not referring to sexual relations in general? "To lie with a woman" (the normal baseline given) is not condemned in this scripture, only "to lie with a man, as with a woman". Are we to conclude that the bible sanctions all heterosexuality (including adultery and fornication) simply because a general term is used here? Or would it be more natural to conclude that the bible is speaking of normative sexuality (emotions, commitments, orientation, and the whole nine yards) by the phrase "lie ... with a woman"? It appears normative sexuality as understood by the average jewish male is being to referred to by the qualifier "with a woman". Would you agree? Because this is a general and common term, there is no textual need to discuss "spirituality, relationship, love, truth, marriage, etc ...". Therefore if the positive of this statement only needs a general term to tacitly imply all of the things typically associated with normative sexuality ... why would the negative of this statement require more than the general term? You are demanding something from the text which would be unnecessary (actually more than just unnecessary ... more like unnatural, incongruent, and just plain strange). My argument in a nutshell ... 1) The phrase "lie ... with a women" in this levitical passage represents normative sexuality with which to contrast the behavior which is called "Toevah" or "an abomination". 2) The positive phrase is general and common and nees no addendums to clarify it's meaning. 3) The negative alteration of this phrase by the qualifier "with a man" would also need no addendums to clarify it's reference to general sexuality. For whatever coexistent emotions, commitments, affections, contracts, which would come to mind with normative sexuality (with a woman) would also be naturally implied in the abberent sexuality (with a man). Such superflous descriptions are unnecessary for the purpose of the text ... which is to describe sexual relations between those of the same sex as contrary to the will of God. Essorant, could you respond specifically to these questions ... Do you deny that "lie ... with a woman" in this text denotes normative sexuality, at least in the mind of the writer ... as a backdrop against which to contrast an abberent behavior? If you answer no to question 1, then do you admit that, at least in the writers mind, there was apparantly no need for additional descriptions of the phrase "to lie ... with a woman"? That at least the writer thought it was obvious what was meant? If you answer yes to question 2, then why would additonal descriptions be needed for the negative "to lie with a man as with a woman", since it uses the same context as the normative example? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not erasing "homosexuality" out of nature ... that would only be the case if nature meant "that which is". I already told that the Bible speaks of nature in the sense of "orderly, right, according to God's purpose and pleasure" .... same term, different contextual meaning. So, no, my interpretation does not render heterosexuality as the only kind of sexuality that is. Instead it affirms the existence of normative sexuality AND perverted kinds of sexuality (including homosexuality, adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, etc ...). Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Then why is this conversation taking place, Stephen? Obviously, without those missing clarifications, there is room for interpretation. Adhering to one's own interpretation might be seen as conviction, but refusing to acknowledge the possibility of other interpretations would likely be seen as something else entirely. Heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts cannot be grouped with homosexuals, any more than you can group serial killers with soldiers and police officers. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Jesus' ministry was primarily of reconciliation. Jesus often spoke of the need for repentence, but His ministry was not so much recalling people to observance of the Law as it was delivering people from the ultimate effect of the Law (i.e., condemnation) as our substitute. The context of Paul's early statements in the Roman epistle was an expression of Law ... that is, why the reconciliation to God bought by Jesus is necessary for us all. Paul included those who practiced homosexual acts as being Law-breakers. This shouldn't be contrasted with Jesus' ministry as you seem to be doing, but rather to drive home the point that we are all Law-breakers and in need of reconciliation. I see no reason why the issue must be complicated by finding contradiction between Jesus and Paul. Doing so is a failure to recognize the relationship of Law to Gospel - the Law condemns all men (as Jesus in all rights could have) and the Gospel presents the means by which God, on His own initiative, provided a propitiation for our transgression of the Law. I think it is foolish to try to twist Old and New Testament texts to find acceptance of homosexual behavior, just as I think it is foolish to attempt to force Biblical mandates on those with no intention of responding to the Gospel. To the extent "sinful" behavior disrupts the peace and infringes on inherent rights, I believe it is the civil authority's place to enforce law that is coincidentally Biblical, but only to that extent. Why do you seem to have a problem with homosexual behavior being both sinful AND legal? (This question I pose to Stephen also). Unless it can be demonstrated that homosexual behavior causes harm to other citizens and/or deprives others of life and liberty, why shouldn't some legal recognition of homosexual marriage be warranted? It is still sin, regardless of legislative or judicial action. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't believe ANY sin should be illegal simply because it is a sin. But simply because I think something should be legal, it doesn't follow I also agree it is a sin. Your question, Jim, presupposes a connection that doesn't exist. quote: It is only sin, Jim, if God deems it is sin. I don't believe He has. Sin is more than simply an act, it is a choice. I won't believe that having blue eyes is either a sin or unnatural, in large part because I was given no choice about the color of my eyes, and in large part because the color was determined by God. He didn't want me to have six legs, and I don't. If He didn't want me to have blue eyes, I wouldn't. In one sense, I agree that our very existence is contingent on sin, that all have sinned, and that all sins are equal. However, until man starts condemning man for simply existing, I will not support man's condemnation of others for things which are ultimately controlled by God. For me, to believe that love, trust and commitment is contrary to God's wishes is untenable. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, "Just connect the dots. The verb "lie with" is a general term, which is further defined by the qualifier "as with a women", which gave the word a general meaning of sexuality. In simple terms, Moses wrote to men, "Don't have sexual relations with men, as men normally do with women" I don't understand. That biblesaying to me seems flat and physical, not general and all encompassing. "Lie with" seems to mean "have sex" "Do not have sex with a man as a man does with a woman. " What more? Are we supposed to accept "lie with" -what seems a very physically-oriented saying and apply this to love-based intimacy? All spiritual, intellectual, personal, affectionate inclinations and relationships? How does that kind of point compare? How does lying (having sex) with someone of the same sex, if that is wrong compare, to the right personalities, the right love, the right spiritual "agreement"? How are we supposed to take this seeming narrowness and apply it the broadness of sexuality in general, and love, and personality? A part of sexuality -sex- is being referred but I don't think it has the kind of sphere that you are trying to give it. It says sex to me, and sex just isn't the whole picture. "Do you deny that "lie ... with a woman" in this text denotes normative sexuality, at least in the mind of the writer ... as a backdrop against which to contrast an abberent behavior?" I don't know. I'm not coming to any conclusions because I am too confused. Why should we translate "sex" as sexuality? Isn't there much more to sexuality than that? If what is being shown is an expression of disgust at the physical sex part of homosexuality and a response based on that, and knowings of people that made indecent and wrong choices, is that relevant to the "whole" and to people that make good choices? How should we read it that way? [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-18-2004 10:12 AM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I found this article interesting and reasonable. I would actually favor study of the social implications of same-sex marriage prior to forcing recognition of it by law. I think this way we'd be better equipped to shape policy in a way that benefits the public welfare. Jim http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm503.cfm quote: |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That article, Jim, is indicative of a truly frightening attitude -- the homogenization of a society. Of course the application may be new, but the tactic is an old one. We've seen much the same thing for years with I.Q. tests and other scholastic measurements that evaluate how well our kids fit into a mold much more than they measure the ability to think or reason. With only a few exceptions, the "criteria" cited in the article is similarly subjective and similarly influenced by those doing the testing. People are not so easily measured, nor can they be as long as every yardstick we have is determined by biases of other people. Is the kid with a 2.98 GPA happier than one with a 2.79? Or are they perhaps just more successful because their own rigidity is reflected in the rigidity our school systems? People have a right to not conform. And government has absolutely no right to tell us how to raise our children. Forgetting those simple tenets can only lead to the death of diversity and the homogenization of a society already mired in too much prejudice. We need to strive to be better, not the same, and the only way to do that is to risk being different. Diversity is our greatest ally. quote: While a separate issue entirely, this is one that just fries me every time I see it. This is yet another example of state extortion masquerading as socialist altruism. "We're going to take care of all the sick and the poor, but of course that gives us the right to tell you how to live your lives." Did you know the U.S. Federal government can't dictate speed laws? That's the mandate of the individual states. What they can and have done, however, is threaten to withhold billions of dollars of highway funds from any state that fails to comply with their "recommendations." It's even more common with our supposedly *local* school systems. Any school that refuses to do this, this, and that find themselves shorn of Federal funding and, essentially, out of business. Money is Power. If a friend gives me a ride because my car is broke, that doesn't give him the right to tell me where I can or can't go. Altruism with strings attached isn't altruism. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: This is where I believe you are erring. Let me explain ... The scripture we are speaking of does not forbid "lying with a woman", right? If "lying with a woman" were a purely physical act separated from love, commitment, marriage, etc ... it would be considered fornication, and forbidden. So if you are right, why would "casual" or "loveless" sex with a male be contrasted with the same type of sex (casual or loveless) with a woman? Why would one be called okay, and the other an abomination? Remember that in taking issue with the general reference to sex, you are condemning BOTH examples in the text ... acceptable and nonacceptable. But the Levitical text does not condemn both, but male/male sex only. To uphold your view, you would really have to say that the Bible condemns casual homosex, but upholds and honors casual heterosex. That is a hard position to uphold, seeing what the Bible teaches from cover to cover concerning fornication, adultery, etc ... The Jewish sexual ethic actually denies that interpretation. Remember that you have to try to grasp the ancient Jewish understanding of sex, sexuality, and God, in order to get the context. You can't rightly assume that "to lie with" meant a flippant or casual sexual encounter. To do so, is only to project our modern sensibilities and choice of diction on the ancient text. Every bible scholar knows the importance of context in determining what a text is really saying. So I maintain that the structure of Leviticus 18:22 is such that heterosexuality (as a general description) is normative, and that homosexuality (as a general description) is sinful in the eyes of God. If you want to go on saying that you think the Bible is only talking about a debased uncommitted form of sex, since it only says "lie with", you will have to answer the Biblical sexual ethic that surrounds the text, which says "NO" to that kind of sex (heterosexual or homosexual) ... all the while this one little stubborn text seems to uphold flippant intercourse as long as it's between man and woman, but condemns it between man and man. I don't think so. I think it's obvious from the structure of this text, that to "lie with a woman" was just a term for normative sexuality. And the ancients obviously understood it that way ... or else the text would not have been worded to uphold one and condemn the other. quote: I think we have to say that THEY (to whom it was originally written) accepted it as such. This should not be so surprising since to the ancient Jew's mind there was very little dichotomy between purely physical and abstract spiritual. If you think it's so odd, just consider the reverse phenomenon in our own language today ... How often is the phrase "make love" used for base, uncommitted, expressions of purely physical lust? And you couldn't argue from the lyrics of some rap artist that "make love" must be referring to the "spiritual/ emotional" side of sex, just because it was put in those terms. Again you would have to look at the context ... like the rest of the lyrics of the same song. And maybe the prevailing sexual ethic of rap artists in general. Likewise, I'm asking you to consider closer the rest of the Bible verse, and the surrounding context that it was originally written in. Just because it says "lie with" doesn't mean that it refers to a base type of sex ... look beyond first appearances. For again, why would the writer praise uncommitted, flippant sexual acts that are heterosexual?? You have to give a plausible reason for that ... unless you're willing to conclude, like I have, that the writer wasn't referring to uncommitted, purely physical sex, but to human sexuality in general. quote: I think you are reading narrowness into the text. The text does not refer to a "purely physical" act. The text is indeed morally narrow, in the sense that it is strictly defined. Sexual relations between men and men are wrong. And I'll remind you again of an example, where the physical act is referred to as immoral though there may exist significant emotional love, feelings, and commitment ... adultery. The Bible simply denies that such things are relevant if it is indeed immoral. Who ever said immoral things, bad choices, lacked all good graces? And you must remember that the Bible's sexual ethic is based upon the created order of God as revealed in Genesis ... "Male and Female he created them" ... "and the two shall become one flesh". The Biblical writers simply presuppose that God, as Creator, has the right to determine what is and isn't right in his creation. Good and Evil are defined by him. When we define it strictly ourselves, becoming a law unto ourselves, we are committing the original sin of eating of "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" ... making ourselves arbiters of what is and is not acceptable. quote: I think the biblical issue goes much deeper than a mere "disgust at the physical act". Again the Bible's context requires us to try to think in terms of the Judaic mind ... where homosexuality, (also adultery and fornication) represents a perversion of the deeply objective order set by God ... a rebellion against his benevolent Lordship over every aspect of mankind, including his gift of sexuality. The Biblical view does indeed have a deeper spiritual context and foundation for why homosexuality is wrong. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-18-2004 11:34 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, what is not ultimately controlled by God? ... if you're going the "ultimately" route, to argue your point. I don't believe deterministic homosexuality is any more defensible than deterministic pedophilia or deterministic kleptomania ... or any other behavioral wrong. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Why should we think that ANY of the passages under consideration, are speaking of heterosexuals committing homosexual acts? Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, are about as rare as faithful husbands who commit adulterous acts, or the unicorn. Anyway, everyone knows that those who fit your paradoxical description are better known as "bisexuals" not heterosexuals. And regardless, even if conceded this, why then would it be immoral for heterosexuals to commit homosexual acts, if it's not immoral for homosexuals to commit homosexual acts? And why didn't the bible go on to condemn homosexuals who commit heterosexual acts, if the big sin was being untrue to one's "own nature"? It's seems you're still murdering the text to hold your own view. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Jim, I want to respond, but haven't the time. I'll be back. I agreed with 90% of what you said in your post. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Adultery and homosexuality aren't analogous, Stephen, because one is a betrayal and the other is not. Any "significant love, feelings, and commitment" in adultery is at odds with an earlier promise to NOT pursue or act upon such feelings. There isn't necessarily any such similar conflict in a sincere homosexual relationship. Why aren't Catholic priests allowed to marry? Is it because marriage to a woman is immoral? Of course not. It's because they have promised to not marry any except Jesus. The act of marriage isn't immoral, but the betrayal of their vows would be. Homosexuals have made no such vows. quote: Why should we care, beyond simple historic curiosity, about the Judaic mind? More importantly, why should we accept their interpretation of God's deeply objective order? The culture of 2,000 years ago shouldn't dictate the way we live our lives today, especially when we know they were wrong about so very many things. If God doesn't want to bless the union of two people in love, regardless of genders involved, then I have to suspect He won't. Just as I figure it's at least possible that He isn't blessing the marriage of that guy getting married for the third or fourth time. Maybe that young teenager, six month pregnant and marrying only out of desperation, will live the rest of her adult life in sin. And I honestly don't know if that Baptist minister can really be married to both Jesus and his wife at the same time. Fortunately for all those people, God's blessings aren't dependent on what I think or believe. His will be done. If any two people want to have their love sanctified by God, all they have to do is ask. He will answer, and I seriously doubt our advice will be sought or considered. I honestly don't pretend to know what His answer will be, but I do know it's not my job to stop people from asking. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Oopps, I posted the same thing twice. Ron, do you mind zapping this one with your magic wand? Thanks, Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron, I know we touched upon this issue before, but: "I won't believe that having blue eyes is either a sin or unnatural, in large part because I was given no choice about the color of my eyes, and in large part because the color was determined by God. He didn't want me to have six legs, and I don't. If He didn't want me to have blue eyes, I wouldn't." So, are heterosexuals who choose to perform homosexual acts sinning, because it is their choice to defy they way God made them? Is the act itself inherently good, bad, or neutral, or is it the reason that the person committed the act (I'm genetically predisposed to this behavior) that justifies it? Because I'm with Stephen on the whole genetic predisposition thing- if it is a genetic origin, it doesn't make it any less sinful- if you believe it's a sin. Personally, I don't think badly of much in the area of sex, so long as you aren't forcing anyone or hurting anyone, I don't think there's inherent wrong in a whole lot... so with the whole homosexuality thing, it doesn't really matter to me why they do it... because either way, they should have the right to be who they were born as OR who they choose to be. Stephen- 'Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, are about as rare as faithful husbands who commit adulterous acts, or the unicorn.' Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you there, because you're talking to one. Granted, it was once, and it was a teen experiementation thing, and we were all a little drunk... but that's how these things come about sometimes. I haven't repeated the behavior since... but I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't curious about it in the first place. I'm not a bisexual though... I don't feel sexually attracted to women. So I do think there are heterosexuals who have engaged in homosexual behavior... it happens. Sometimes people just want to see if the grass is actually greener on the other side... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Hush, I'm talking about something more habitual and ingrained. Despite the encounter you had, you don't really fit the category I'm speaking of. If such "experimentation" had taken root and become habitual for you, then it would seem more accurate to call you "bisexual". But I was referring to something that becomes a part of one's lifestyle ... a familiar swimming hole, not just a splash through a mud puddle. And you have to understand what I'm arguing against here. The Biblical text in Romans uses phrases like, "abandoning the natural use" and "degrading passions" and "burning with lust toward one another". It even says that God "gave them over" to their perverse desires. Such desciptions cannot refer to just a momentary lapse of reason, or a foolish jaunt down an unfamiliar path out of curiosity (though those are, for many, the beginnings of much more). They describe something that becomes entwined within the heart. Ron and Essorant are arguing that the text is referring to heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, NOT to homosexuals. But these descriptions are much too strong to describe what you would call "experimentation". You (thankfully) did not choose to continue in a way that would encite more and more lust for homosexual activity, and eventually cause you to prefer the perverse over what is natural and right. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The scripture we are speaking of does not forbid "lying with a woman", right? If "lying with a woman" were a purely physical act separated from love, commitment, marriage, etc ... it would be considered fornication, and forbidden. So if you are right, why would "casual" or "loveless" sex with a male be contrasted with the same type of sex (casual or loveless) with a woman? " Yes, because it is homosexual. Why should homosexual intercourse opposed to heterosexual intercourse, be construed as "homosexuality" overall opposed to "heterosexuality" overall in all possible senses? You are making a specific reference to sex out as a representative of sexualities, where the representativeness is is probably not a "sphere" of what is actually being said. I still think this is upon the act of homosexual sex, not homosexuality. And I think it may be more relevant to a frame of wrongs committed in homosexual sex of that specific people and age. But again there are no distinctions that may give us evidence of one or the other. In the absence of certainty about the deepness and relevance, without any distinctions of these things, any biblereader should be wary of making judgements that go too far. In uncertainty of how far these shoud be judged as going, by the reader, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that it condemns a group of people for the personality, spirit, sexuality, selfwill of what they are, even when those are based on the right things? I don't believe it at all. We don't refer to fornication with a woman as "heterosexuality." (humansexuality) overall, so it seems very uneven that we should translate a refer to sex with one of the same sex as "homosexuality" (humansexuality (again) ) overall. Why then does it refer to people of the same sex at all then? Why shouldn't it? If one sees many sexual things that are indecent, won't he/she usually come to have somewhat of a negative opinion about sexuality in general? If Moses knew of many homosexual things as well that were indecent and engrossed, in the midst of sexual things, it seems normal to have a negative conclusion about (homo)sexuality as well and make such conclusions. When we find many wrongs in human behavior in general, we also often form a a negative judgement upon human behavior. Does that mean all human behavior, is actually wrong and deserves that judgement upon it? No, the judgement is not upon all of it. The judgement is in reference to a negative part, in the general term of "human behavior" However, a term to help guide us as an equivelent of our modern "homosexuality" seems absent and that it speaks in the sense of all distinctions and any intimate relationships between people of the same sex, we have no distinctions to evidence in the bible. Personally, I still don't sense spiritual connotations in "lie with a man as with a woman" It doesn't feel to me as if it is referring to wrongs made in having a relationship at all, rather than sexually. And sexually I don't think homosexuality is what is the abomination here rather than sexuality more in the form physical sex, in the conditions and consequences of negative choices people (heterosexuals as well) made then, and still make today. But again, most of all, the lack of certainty regarding who and what exactly are being spoken out against is what disturbs me, and makes me fear when people try to say that it is certainly a condemning of people and their sexuality. "You can't rightly assume that "to lie with" meant a flippant or casual sexual encounter." Maybe not. But I don't think we are too far off noting that it is speaking about sex in any case, rather than whole relationships. Sex isn't a "whole" relationship. Trying to force whole relationships to always act as physical sex is supposed to degrades our ability as humans to make make choices and relationships based on a higher personality, reason, self will, affection, love. Relationships and marriage simply are not parallell to "sex" and sexuality" because I believe they involve a lot more than that. "..Likewise, I'm asking you to consider closer the rest of the Bible verse, and the surrounding context that it was originally written in" Right underneath "lie with a man as a with woman" it it addresses bestiality. So even a whole and decent relationship with a homo-humansexual just because he or she is the same sex is on the scale of having sex with an animal?!! [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2004 03:49 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Unless, the text involved makes "lying with a woman" the term for normative sexuality. Also there is the Sodom and Gommorah passages where the word for sex has more "intimate" connotations ... a hebrew word which means to "know". Also you have Paul's description of an exchange of what is natural for what is unnatural. You arent' convincingly stating why we should not assume that these scriptures are talking of sexuality in general, or sexual orientation. Your dichotomy between "sexuality" and mere acts is one the Bible seldom makes. It condemns the acts certainly enough, but with the assumption that actions come from the heart. quote: Let's use Paul for example ... You would have to convince me as to why we should think this is the case with Paul. You would have to convince me that he came to look down upon homosexuality based upon his particular observations rather than his religio-ideological roots. Remember that I discussed earlier that Paul was well familiar with a Pagan culture which contained ALL kinds of expressions of homosexuality ... those commonly thought of as virtuous AND those thought of as debased. He could have just as easily adopted a positive view of homosexuality if he were basing his judgements upon relative humanistic thought. I've already explained everything to back this view up. You've given nothing to back your view. You just keep restating it. quote: If Moses or Paul understood homosexuality to be wrong in ALL of it's expressions, why would he include such a needless distinction? You're begging the question here. Moses or Paul would almost have to agree with you, in order to even mention such a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" homosexuality. Go farther back, explain how they could even have such a view in light of their religio-ideological roots and understanding. The evidence points to the fact, that they were not ignorant of "positive" elements (emotional) involved with all sexuality ... but still deemed homosexuality to be wrong based upon their worldview. And it doesn't have anything to do with their ignorance of "good" things attached with sexual relationships, homosexual or otherwise. There are many today who feel the same way. I myself am not ignorant of such things. And yet I believe homosexuality is wrong in ALL intances. If I can believe it, why not they? I think the evidence is that they indeed did. quote: Then answer this question ... Why is the merely physical "lying with a woman" in this text not also condemned? If the mere physicality of it is condemned, it wouldn't make sense for Moses to uphold heterosexual sex as normative and condemn sex between men and men. quote: No one ever said that "sex" was the whole of a relationship. But traditionally marriage is "sexual" in the sense of a certain kind of love ... romantic, sexual, intimate, if you will. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not condemning friendship or devotion between males and males, or between females and females. This is called friendship. But the homosexuals who want legalized marriage liscences are not just friends wanting to get married (though they may be friends). Their relationships are of a sexual nature. If you don't believe me, just ask some of them. quote: If it is indeed immoral and wrong, and against the creative order of God ... then yes. The whole passage deals with things which are contrary to God's will and design. Is petting an animal wrong? Is affection toward animals a base thing just because it is not with a human? No. Therefore, what is condemned with bestiality is not the mere physicality of it, but the fact that God never intended us to be sexual with animals. The same is true of homosexuality. He never intended men to be sexual with men, or women to be sexual with women. The details are irrelevant, and do not justify the faulty configuration. Again Essorant. It would be much easier for you just to admit that you disagree with the Bible's sexual ethic (Which you almost seem to be saying at times) rather than try to change it and obscure it. When you try to say it's different than it appears to be, you have to evade the whole religious superstructure upon which their ethic is built. The same one that mine and many others' (in the present) is founded upon. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But someone usually does get hurt, Amy. Intimacy, for most, creates an emotional bond, and the only way two bonds can be equal is for both to reflect a lifetime commitment (rare though that may seem today). When two people part with absolutely no hard feelings, one of them is probably lying. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I am so completely bored with this that I don't know what to do. No, I won't stop it, but guys can you start another thread? To be honest, I feel like this is the dumbest thing to continue about. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Your silence was enough to communicate your lack of interest in this thread. Why not start another thread that is intensely relevant and interesting, rather than just say this one is stupid? (after all that could be a bit insulting to those who don't share your feelings) Besides, I've been wondering what the record is on the longest thread in PIP ... are we getting close? Stephen |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen, go look at that geography game thread in the lounge. No, this isn't close. Sorry. Ron: 'But someone usually does get hurt, Amy. Intimacy, for most, creates an emotional bond, and the only way two bonds can be equal is for both to reflect a lifetime commitment (rare though that may seem today). When two people part with absolutely no hard feelings, one of them is probably lying.' That's not what I meant, Ron, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Of course people get hurt when their feelings get involved. That's a natural part of a relationship. What I meant, without being so specific, was that nobody gets hurt in the sense that nobody should walk away from sex all black and blue... unless, of course, they specifically said that's what they wanted. I wasn't really talking about realtionsihps, I was talking about the act. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, I never said that adultery and homosexuality were sins for the same reason. I was merely giving Essorant an example of a sin where often love and deeply felt emotions are operative. It is also an example of a sin which is often rationalized and self-justified because of the presence of those very things. But you misunderstood if you thought I was claiming adultery and homosexuality were the same. One similarity between them though, is that they both depart from God's plan for human sexuality... one by betraying their spouse, the other by betraying their own (and their partner's) gender. quote: I wasn't refering to mimicking an ancient mindset on every particular. Of course when true correction comes, I don't want to deny it. What I was referring to was refusing to surrender their basic world-view, which was given by Revelation. (Remember that word? ... which means a vertical invasion into culture from beyond, not something merely derived from culture). That basic worldview is virtually the same as that of Christianity. It is the Theistic one which says that one God created all things according to an order and plan as revealed in Old Testament (and New Testament) scripture. So for you to disparage the "Judaic" mind as if there were something intrinsically undignified about learning their wisdom, or acknowledging that perhaps God gave them something we need to acknowledge, is amazing to me considering your profession of faith. Scripturally speaking, you and I are still only an ingrafted branch in the same Olive Tree. Where it gets touchy is when the question involves rejecting non-essentials versus rejecting essentials. Shedding a dead limb or leaf, versus claiming autonomy as a spurious seedling. It's my opinion that your tendency is to deny foundational things, based on the spirit of this age. Your feelings about the homosexual issue seem to stem from the mood and mindset of contemporary culture, from ultra-tolerance. While mine is derived from scripture (which I consider authoritative) and Church history (which I consider persuasive). Neither of us are holding some kind of empirical "proof" to devastate the opposing view. Our ideologies, philosophies, or theologies seem to be at odds. And really I think it's our whole attitude of what scripture is, and the scope of its immutability and authority, which differs. But even by your standards ... you can't reject something merely because it is ancient. And I think, for the purpose of determing what scripture actually says, (which was the subject of my exchange with Essorant), determining what the Jews thought and understood in the area of sexual ethics was perfectly proper. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, quote: Yikes, you're right. I don't get around enough in this place. Only 49 more pages to catch up with that one! But how about the longest thread in PHILO101? Any idea?Stephen. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Yea..this thread has about covered it...but, I'm glad Noah took a woman with him on that arc...aren't ya all? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040626.shtml |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Once the courts recognize gay marriage as equal in all ways to heterosexual marriage, then everyone else - including churches - has to recognize gay marriage as equal, too." Heaven forbid! That people recognize two equal humans' marriage as two equal humans' marriage! [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-26-2004 09:50 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise is just kidding with us, Essorant. Even she knows that argument is a load of brown misdirection, because she's smart enough to see the parallels between homosexual marriage and no-fault divorce. Anyone seen the Church taken to court because they define divorce differently than does the Law? No? Didn't think so. I see things like this and honestly don't know whether to laugh or to cry. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Time will tell, Ron. There have already been 'clashes' with the courts. The one that comes readily to mind is the ex-lesbian who was told by the court that she must see to it that her daughter must never hear that homosexuality is a sin, not at home, not at school, not at church, or the court will take the child from her. This was in a visitation suit brought by her ex-lover, who won visitation rights and asked for that stipulation and received it. And this ex-lover didn't even have any legal connection with the daughter whatsover, was never given any legal rights by the parent and never went through any adoption proceedings either. I'd certainly consider that this parent has been muzzled regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think people deserve to be treated innocent until proven guilty. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I haven't heard anything of that case, Denise, and considering your obvious bias and equally obvious willingness to be swayed by that bias, I would have to hear more of it to respond intelligently. I'm guessing, however, that the part you're leaving out is that the estranged lover who "didn't have any legal connection with the daughter whatsoever" spent more than a little time raising said daughter and was just as much a parent to her as the one "with" the legal connections? I'd guess, further, the judge recognized the inequity and believed both parents should have input into the child's religious training. In which case, of course, it's not a matter of muzzling one parent so much as it's a refusal to muzzle *either* parent. Sounds like justice to me. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But even if the court did make a wrong choice about such matters, the blame is not due anything for the people being or not being homosexual. It is maljudgement on the courts part, and perhaps in deal of the people involved; a specific blame is due to those involved, not the whole justice system or all homosexuals. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think not muzzling either parent would be to allow both parents to each express their individual points of view or convictions on a given matter, without disparaging or disrespecting each other in the process, stating to the child that it is a point upon which each parent has chosen to agree to disagree since they just don't see eye to eye on the issue. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If she is allowed to be made out as a sinner to the child, how shall the child feel around her? Shall she wish to ever see her again? How is that fair to the child or to the woman? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, I see Denise's point. It is an intrusion on a person's religious right to say "You can't teach this tenet of your religion to your kid." However, I would honestly imagine that a woman who had lived as a lesbian and apparently found God (is that the case here? Seems like where you're arguing from, Denise) would still be fairly tolerant to the lifestyle... I agree that if she can say, in a respectful manner, "Honey, I've come to believe that my choices were wrong..." why shouldn't she be able to? On the other hand, I really don't think the dystopia of churches being forced to marry people of the same sex will come to pass. There are churches tolerant to homosexuality, even branches of Christianity, so I think those trying to overturn to attitudes of more mainstream religions will be few enough to be 'outvoted' per say. Then again, what about churches that seem to be heading in the direction of their own accord? Remember the controversy (It was maybe 6 months ago) about the gay Episcopalian priest? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It sounds to me like the mother is only bidden to shield her child from the teaching that homosexuality is a sin. And that to me is rightful. The child deserves to come to her own judgement as naturally as possible without a judgement being forced into her at a young and an uncritical age to preponderate as she grows up. A condemning of homosexuality would be impressed upon her, and demonize the other other woman as a sinner. And how shall she feel about being around the other woman after that? Usually people don't wish to be close to sinners. Usually people avoid a "sinner" Let a child be a child and grow up! And when she grown up more, then she shall have true judgements about these things. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Exactly, Denise. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What Denise is missing Amy, is that when your life comes the point where you find yourself in front of a judge the rights and priveledges you enjoyed before being in front of that judge are about to change. This judge didn't go up and down the street looking for someone to persecute. This couple came before the judge, as any separating or divorcing heterosexual couple would, to resolve a dispute they could not resolve themselves. That's what happens when you can't come to an agreement... the judge will do it for you. It's all within due process. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Conclusion: Below and above Forever Love is Marriage And Marriage is Love! [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-02-2004 10:00 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think that disagreeing with someone necessarily equates with disparaging and disrepecting someone. It depends upon how the disagreement is handled, I think. And silencing disagreement by falsely equating disagreement with disparagment and disprespect is wrong, which is where I think this judge is in error. How would a divorced Catholic mother, for example, be able to comply with a similar ruling by a judge, that she must never allow her children to hear, at home, at school or at church, at the risk of losing custody, that divorce is a sin because it might cast the father, who sought the divorce, in a bad light? It's an impossible order to be followed, at least without keeping the kids home from church and not sending them to Catholic school. And I think any judge who puts a parent in that position is violating the Constitution. Despite disagreement on various issues between partners, children can still be taught to honor and respect both parental figures despite any faults or perceived faults. At some point all kids, I think, come to realize that neither of their parents are faultless, but love them anyway. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Due Process IS Constitutional Denise. It is the means by which our rights may be abridged. Consider a restraining order. It limits both free speech and freedom of movement. It happens all the time. That's what judges do... determine who's rights override someone else's rights. Consider the parent who can't move to another state or else violate the other parent's rights to visitation. Ain't love grand? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think any judge is acting within the Constitution when he/she rules in such a way that religious expression is silenced. I think what a judge should do in such cases, when one partner petitions the court asking that restrictions be enacted that can't help but abridge the religious practice or expression of the other partner, is to tell the petitioner that what they are asking for goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and as such the judge has no authority to rule on the issue. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe the judge must always show evident and substantial reason for a judgement against a religious doing; that it is become a threat, misdemeanour, or defames, or provokes wrongs and violence, etc. And thereby the judge shows a legal and constitutional ground for forbidding the continuance of this or that. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
At the very least, half of all parties to a court's decision will be in disagreement. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Not that this is going anywhere, except in circles, but I still agree with Denise. Even if a separation hearing leads to decisions about custody, I think a decision restricting a parent's ability to teach religious tenets is wrong. Is the ex-partner still allowed to tell the child about homosexuality from her point of view? If so, then I would definitely say the religious parent is muzzled in this case, and the child is simultaneously put at a disadvantage (only knowing one point of view) and being belittle, because people are simply assuming the kid can't deal with hearing two sides of the story. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Exactly, Hush, the child is not allowed to hear both sides of the issue. The only restriction enacted was the restriction on the now 'religious' ex-partner, which along with the Constitutional issue of freedom of religious expression and practice, is the basis of the pending appeal. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There's no easy answers, and I can only guess upon what grounds the judge based his decision, but I still the think the age of the child and the relationship between the parents have to be taken into account. Is it okay to teach a fifteen- or even ten-year-old that sexual promiscuity is wrong? Why should that be any different than one parent repeatedly telling a three-year-old their mommy is a whore? Does a toddler really need to hear both sides of THAT issue? In an ideal world, we wouldn't need judges to tell a parent to not undermine the love and trust between a child and the other parent. Sadly, it's not an ideal world, and too many people use their perception of truth as a weapon to hurt others. In lashing out at an ex-partner, it's the kids who are most harmed. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
From what I understand of the issue, Ron, and I read an article from a conservative news source as well as from a Gay Rights news source, the petitioner filed the petition because her ex-partner's church had pamphlets in the lobby of the church,(according to the Gay Rights news source), from the Focus On The Family organization and other organizations, as most churches do, but didn't mention the topic of the pamphlets, which if they were about homosexuality I would think they would have mentioned that fact, but maybe not. Both news sources stated that the mother stated that she was not homophobic and was not attempting to cast her ex-partner in a bad light in the child's eyes. And neither article stated any rebutal from the ex-partner to the contrary. I didn't get the sense from either article that the mother was 'lashing out' in any way against her ex-partner. I think it is totally unacceptable when one partner lashes out against the other out of anger or spite because it is the kids who do get hurt the most. And if a judge does need to step in and issue some sort of ruling in some cases, I think any judge worthy of wearing the robe would be able to come up with a better solution than issuing an order that effectively violates one parent's freedom of religious expression and practice, maybe like counseling to deal with any anger or emotional damage issues. And I think 10 or 15, maybe even younger these days, is a very good time to start instilling in children the pitfalls of sexual promiscuity and why it is wrong. But nobody should be telling a 3 year old that mommy is a whore, but if they were, I'd sure hope someone would be giving that toddler the other side of the story. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What if the custodial parent joined the Aryan Nation? Should the child be allowed to be indoctrinated into the belief that white people are superior and that black people are inferior? What if the custodial parent joined a fringe Mormon group that still practices polygamy? What if the custodial parent joined Al Quada? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Reb, as far as I know, as long as someone doesn't act on their hatred of another race, by doing something illegal like hurting someone or burning crosses, it's not illegal to hate black people, or jews, or even gays. (Of course, nobody's trying to prevent blacks and Jews from marrying...) As abhorrent as it is to have a racist viewpoint, once we enter the arena of what thoughts and ideas are permissable to pass on and which aren't, we enter an Orwellian dystopia. If someone suggested that gay parents shouldn't tell their kids it's okay to be gay, I think you guys would be pitching a fit. But it seems as soon as someone's not supposed to say something, as long as you and I agree that it's something a kid shouldn't be told... well then it's okay? I understand it may not be as simple as it's been portrayed here, but at face value, I don't see how this can be seen as anything but unfair. If I want the freedom to someday assure my son or daughter that I won't be upset if the come hom with a boyfriend or girlfriend (respectively), then another parent must have the right to tell their kids that homosexuality is a sin. That's just how it works. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I suspect we're all in much more agreement than not (amazingly!), with the only stickler being Amy's "at face value." We just don't know the whole story. We all seem to agree a parent should be free to teach their child as they wish, but at the end of the day, as LR has repeatedly referenced, when TWO parents are involved and a conflict arises, someone has to win and someone has to lose. Too bad it's usually the kid.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-06-2004 02:50 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you believe homosexuality is wrong, why not express it rightly as your belief and show your child, when he or she is more grown up, why you believe it is wrong, rather than making it out as some universal sin, that shall put all cosmos into chaos? If you believe it is wrong and personally will influence your child, that is different than publishing homosexuality as a "sin" and trying to universalize it as the judgement of God! One is respectful, the other is a shame. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ess, you and I may agree that that's how it should be done... but if someone honestly believes that homosexuality is a sin, and that to engage in that behavior would severely impact the child's life... by their morality, it would be wrong not to impress that upon their child. We may not agree with it, but that is part of the freedom of religion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Amy where you have it right is that parents certainly should and do have the right to teach their children as they will. (Thanks in part to Richard Nixon who vetoed a provision that was tacked onto a Congressional bill during his term that would have made it illegal (that no one in Congress seemed to know they were passing at the time) ). If two parents agree to raise their child as a United Methodist, Buddhist, Jew, or Skinhead there is no jurisdiction for you or I, or any court to say otherwise. A separating couple has the full ability to hammer out all of the terms of their separation without the participation of a judge -- other than to sign off and make binding what it is to which they agree. If they cannot come to an agreement then it is in the judges court so to speak -- to make all kinds of decisions that are normally considered private matters of individual liberty.So the question is -- if the father of your child planned to educate him/her as a skinhead -- would you just allow that? Or would you want to have a say in the matter? More pointedly -- if he was going to teach him that you personally were going to go to hell -- how would you feel about that? And, what would you do? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Orwellian did come to mind, Hush. It's scary to think how easily it can happen. Long live the Constitution! L.R., the other parent always has a say (or they do if they aren't silenced unconstitutionally by a judge) and can inform the child of his/her own beliefs on any given matter and state that something that is told them by the other parnter is simply that person's belief, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It may even be a good way to teach the lesson that there are all sorts of various beliefs held by all kinds of people, and that while we won't always agree with others' beliefs, we can still treat the people with love and respect, despite the disagreements. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That not Orwellian, Denise, it's Utopian. Parents capable of actually practicing it, however, typically aren't the ones going into court to settle their differences. Such reasoned discourse is a great way to treat an adult or adolescent. It is a terrible way to treat a child. To thrive, kids need a sense of security, a solid place to set their feet. A mercurial world where Mom and Dad are no wiser than the child, where there is no right and wrong but only opinions that vary, is anathema to that sense of security and, in my opinion, worse than physically beating the kid. Our young children don't worship up because we deserve it, but rather because they need absolutes. There are few greater dangers to childhood than two parents viciously attacking each other's credibility. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I'm certainly not advocating parents viciously attacking each other's credibility. But when there are genuine disagreements, there are genuine disagreements and they have to be dealt with as honestly and as sensitively as possible. I think kids can handle quite a bit more than we sometimes think they can. I think if there are issues of viciousness that is what should be dealt with by the courts, through counseling, to enable the ex-partners to better communicate with each other and to learn how to handle any disagreements in a mature fashion. Silencing one or both of the partners regarding a point of disagreement isn't going to make the disagreement go away. And children sense that and know something is wrong, even if it isn't voiced. And when it comes to religious matters, well, I can only see silencing one or both ex-partners as a violation of their Constitutional rights. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You might be able to force someone to go to counseling, Denise, but you can't force them to learn what you'd like. And, in any event, both would be no less a violation of their rights. If you don't want the courts deciding religious issues in the home, don't ask them to decide religious issues in the home. It's really not any more complex than that. Until one or both parents requests intervention, the decisions are still in their own hands. Better yet, just remember the vows made to each other and forget the easy-out that divorce has become for most. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
LR- 'So the question is -- if the father of your child planned to educate him/her as a skinhead -- would you just allow that? Or would you want to have a say in the matter? More pointedly -- if he was going to teach him that you personally were going to go to hell -- how would you feel about that? And, what would you do?' Okay, good point. Personally... I'm quite used to people telling me that I'm going to hell, what with being an unbaptized agnostic living in sin with my boyfriend . I don't take it personally anymore, but I heard it much more when I was a kid, and your question brought back a couple of memories... It is positively awful to hear someone tell you you're going to hell. Not they think, but as a fact. Even worse when you're a little kid. I can imagine that it's probably just as bad a thing to hear about your parent. Actually, though, it was the skinhead comment that got me more. Instant reaction: of course not! Not my kid! So I see your point. Although I would say that teaching your kid to be a skinhed is a little worse than teaching your kid to be a Christian, IMO. I guess I think that teaching right and wrong (whatever your standards of it are) is usually different than teaching hatred. I could (in my opinion, very plausibly) argue that teaching my child to hate will be harmful to him/her... but then there's that whole slippery slope thing, where I can see the logic in this case, and it starts to make a little more sense where the other one is coming from. Still don't agree that it should be taken that far, but I guess I can see that that's a matter of personal politics more than universal rights. Thanks for clearing the air around my head, I need that from time to time. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It only takes one person to bring an issue into court. Obviously it is out of the hands of the other to keep it out of court, so it seems to me that the one who doesn't want religious issues decided by the court is at a decided disadvantage in following your advice, Ron. Even criminals in prison retain their right of religious freedom of expression. But a person in a relationship gone bad can have a judge essentially take that right away from them if the ex-partner is disposed to taking it to court. To me, that's alarming. And equally alarming that some rationalize it away as simply a domestic issue. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not true. Both individuals are responsible for the issue ending up in court, Denise. The one who demands, yes, but also the one who refuses to surrender. Each makes a choice, just as they once made a choice to bind their lives together. Now they have to live with their choices, and frankly, that seems both fair and just. The kids, after all, have to live with the choices and they didn't have any hand in making them. Two people joined as one, willingly accepting the responsibility to bring new life into this world. That choice was not without consequences for both. Trying to reverse that choice won't be without consequence, either. Once bound, always bound, and if they can't work together, someone will have to pay. Each of them accepted the potential for that burden long ago. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey Guys, I'm back. (Been in China for 2 weeks, adopted a little girl). It was great fun. But I'm glad to be back home. I was too busy to keep in touch, and internet access was time charged at the Hotels. JIm: (from pages back): quote: Jim, Doesn't the latest direction of this thread at least bring up the growing trend of curtailing expression about homosexuality as sin, based on "hate speech" laws, such as Canada's Bill C-250? If such speech is considered "hate speech" then the clause you speak of (to protect public preaching) may not be seen as relevant. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, there will be an increasing tendency to think of homosexuality as normative, and therefore the Biblical condemnation of it (by the standards of popular culture) will be judged as hateful and harsh. LR, Ess, & Ron have already expressed similar opinions on this very thread. I personally think your view might border on the idealistic, since laws designed to protect religious expression can be questioned and eventually toppled just as easily as current law forbidding homosexual marriage. Why would you expect one leaf to blow away with the relativistic wind and not the other? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: If Hell were real, would it always be an awful thing to hear of it, or could it sometimes be a merciful reminder in order to avoid it? Blades can cut and kill, but they can also aid life saving surgeons. Stephen |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Jim, I agree with Stephen's assessment. The Constitution offers us protection only inasmuch as we have a judiciary that respects that protection. The rationalizing away of our Constitutionally protected God-given rights is happening already today, whether it be in divorce/custody issues, or due to judges ruling that the expression of the belief that the practice of homosexuality is declared biblically to be a sin is not permissable. Another article touching on the topic of freedom of religion/expression, or rather, the violation of it: http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=1602 Serious stuff, in my opinion. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, Stephen, when you're a little kid who knows nothing about the bible, having grown up in a secular household, hanging out with other little kids who don't know enough about the bible to explain, only to condemn, then yes, it sucks. It's "you're-not-as-good-as-me-because-you-don't-have-the-same-beliefs." I understand what you are saying- if someone really believes I am going to go to hell and they are trying to prevent it, they really aren't trying to do a mean or hurtful thing. I don't really agree with them that I am going to hell because nobody dribbled some water on my head, but that's okay. They have a right to believe that. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen and Denise: I see the "eroding of unalienable rights" argument posed most often as a last cry of desperation. Advocating the curtailment of free speech is a two-edged sword that I really don't believe will get much traction, whether coming from the right or the left. The Ku Klux Klan still has the right to rally as much as GLB activists have the right to parade in drag and those guys who travel the country with "AIDS is God's Judgement on Fags" banners. I predict that the moment a 9th Circuit Judge slams a radical evangelical group for strong anti-gay rhetoric, a GLB group will get slammed by the same doctrine for describing the evangelical activists as Nazis. Besides ... I don't see the make-up of the US Supreme Court changing so much that such a 9th Circuit Opinion would stand. So Stephen and Denise, I think your concerns about erosion of freedom are overblown. I find the antics of all the above as horribly offensive, but such is the price we pay for living in a free society. People have the right to act irresponsibly, so long as their actions cause no direct and actual harm to others, and people can pretty much say whatever they want as long as the language is not defamatory or does not cause others reasonable apprehension of harm. Legally, I believe the gay marriage issue is one of State's rights. If the people want it, fine, let them. Again, changing the legal definition of marriage CANNOT change the sacred definition of the same. Also, if evangelicals are looking for opportunities to extend their ministries into the gay and lesbian communities, stumping for a Constitutional Amendment is an abysmally stupid way to start. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: It's more than that Jim. It arises from the conviction that Government has the responsibility to enforce what is right. When it fails to do so, it incurs judgement from God in the form of dire consequences. This way of thinking however is always met by crying "theonomic reconstronctionism". But that's a straw man. Defending what has already been established for hundreds of years is hardly an agressively offensive move. And traditional marriage should be considered one of the "biggies" in my opinion. The preservation of such a public institution, as is, can hardly be compared to something as extreme as enforcing sodomy laws, or imposing government established religion. Ministering to homosexuals is a separate but not incompatible response that evangelicals should also be giving attention to. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It seems strange to me that such an outrage is made about minor differences and yet the pornography culture, an industry that widely publishes sexual abuse in all forms of media that great populations go to, growing more and more, seems to be spoken out against less and less. It rude unevenness when some people seem to have so much fear to show and things to say against minor sexual differences such as heterosexual and homosexuality. It is like making an outrage and perversity of a straw, compared to something as wide and perverse as pornography --that is an industry makings millions of dollars is getting away with something that is seaping into the images and attitudes, even the dress-fashions, of people today. There is disgusting untenderness in all sexuality today and pornography plays a major part in that. What percentage of the internet is Pornography? What percentage of citizens use the internet? I really think there is a danger in pornography, and it is not unevidenced in the sexual behavior of our culture. I said it before, it is very shameful when someone abuses a substance, but sex and sexuality are things that happen between people coming together and touching each other. I believe when people are doing ill there, they are direclty doing wrong to themselves and others. Looking at the suggestion/accusation that homosexuality in and of itself is a form of perversity, holds even less weight when there is something like pornography whose evidence of sinfulness is in every media. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-19-2004 04:53 PM).] |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: So all narcotics should be legalized, because it's not up to the state to keep people from polluting themselves... only to protect them from one another? Personally I think that's a gross over-simplification of the responsibility of law. In protecting things like traditional values, people who normally would have done something destructive to themselves, either physically or morally, are shielded from the ignorance of their own actions. It is the law's responsibility to look out for the well-being of all its citizens. Don't you think it would be dangerous if all things disgusting and perverse were legally considered to be "okay?" What about our ignorant and impressionable youth... do we want them growing up in a society that legalizes self-destructive perversions? Personally I think that is harmful to many people. I do realize you're not speaking necessarily from your point of view but only from that of the state law, Jim... but I felt that your way of wording it was a nice one to address. I think our freedoms often contradict the principles on which they were founded, and when we explore them, we realize that the state's responsibility is often overlooked by our democratic drive to please the masses. We tend to feel that law is only good in as much as it's convenient for our personal desires. This is how morality ends up declining and the law ends up being harmful rather than beneficial. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Parasite "It is the law's responsibility to look out for the well-being of all its citizens." That is fresh breath of truth. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In my opinion, yes, absolutely (of course, what one might do while under the influence of narcotics is another matter entirely). I would be willing to bet that an unhealthy diet kills far more people each year than do drugs. Certainly enough, at any rate, to be a serious concern. You ready to have someone tell you what you can and can't eat. Ready to have government mandated exercise thrice weekly? When you start protecting people from themselves, you end all pretense at free will. Without the freedom to make bad choices, there are no choices at all. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
We take a natural need and turn it into manmade excess with food. But drugs are already a manmade thing, with special powers that directly alter the body's system, that we should use to pursue revival of natural flow and balance through scientific force, when it is fallen out in some manner. They automatically are "excess" force, to counter other forces for specific work/reason/need, for help and health, not for pleasure like wine and choclate. Where there was and is a natural need and usually a great flexibility with food, that grows as naturally as we eat, there was never a native appetite for drugs nor any parallell, but that appetite was put there by manmade and extranatural force, for what are meant to counter other extranatural forces (usually manmade as well), not to fullfill an appetite in general. When people use drugs I think they are also, aside from obvious bodily damage, directly devestating to the brain, the mind, the ability to think. And once the brain is polluted the ability to make (better) choices is very much polluted. Surely eating wrongly may go to the brain, physically or spiritually, but I don't think it ever as directly and "at once" has such harsh effects. People more severely place them in an addiction for drugs, that body does not naturally need, and that scathe body and the soul when used as they are not meant; and it takes far less time to cause very long lasting confusion or wounds, or permanent scars. For this reason, I think very strict laws are more needful to be on drugs. But food is a natural and more generally inevitable "condition" where we should be able to have more choice and freedoms. The law certainly should work to help change and influence food industry, and be more strict, but I don't think it should ever dictate in the manner that it should dictate the use of drugs. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-20-2004 12:09 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't believe in the dull attempts man makes at healthmanagement with potions, pills and chemicals. I think Nature cures most sickness best, but has a thickened and more doubtful battle needing to fight off so many potions, pills and chemicals too. Nature's victory over sicknesses and man's malpractice, is often deemed by man as some good use of his potions, pills, and chemicals. But often the time the potions, pills and chemicals may actually make the worst part of the battle, in dependences, addiction, confusion, depression, etc,. The best cures are in Nature's cabinet, the worst ones are in man's. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Nice choices, Essorant. The alcohol in wine is classified as poison to the human body, and the parallels between chocolate and cocaine border on the ironic. All you've done is prove what we already knew -- people only want regulation where it doesn't deprive them personally of their little pleasures in life. Depriving others, of course, is fine. quote: Clearly, Ess, you should have been born into a different age, perhaps before the advent of civilization, when hunting and gathering were still the predominant activity of humanity. I have no doubt you would have appreciated the more natural, unspoiled way of life. Uh, for a while? If you weren't one of the quarter of all humans who died in infancy, your life expectancy at one year of age would have been about forty. Those potions, pills and chemicals have already helped keep me alive fifteen years past forty, so I'm sure you'll understand if I don't want to join you in your primitive paradise? Everything you eat, drink or breathe is a drug. Some are just more socially acceptable than others, partly because people still think they can legislate cause instead of effect, but mostly because they always want to control someone else's life (while always avoiding having their own controlled). Drugs. Sex. Marriage. It would seem that hypocrisy is a very normal part of the human condition. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Ron...you don't think we have to endure "hunting and gathering" these days and times?..When the hell was the last time you went to Walmart with your honey? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: About 1993. Soon after, I discovered a new religion that saved me from such uncivilized trials. There's no worship involved, but you do have to sacrifice a credit card occasionally. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Only if you "tithe' though....and God knows I give more than my "tithe" to Walmart....ya think I'll be blessed? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Nice choices, Essorant. The alcohol in wine is classified as poison to the human body, and the parallels between chocolate and cocaine border on the ironic. All you've done is prove what we already knew -- people only want regulation where it doesn't deprive them personally of their little pleasures in life. Depriving others, of course, is fine." Yes, scientifically choclate or wine indeed may be much like drugs. But in real life, I think, overall, there is a great difference in the intentions, meanings, traditions, and behaviors and kind of results about these. I think all those factors--everything counts. Choclate and wine may perhaps be like drugs and as destructive as any drug, but I don't think they ever are, or at least ever to the frequencies or severities that heroine or cocaine are. Where drugs are used for things other than their specifically scientific reason, they are ALWAYS abused because severe addictions are inevitable, and as the addiction grows more severe so does great destruction; I just don't see parallells in choclate, or wine, etc. Drugs are to be used for scientific and careful reasons, not for cheer and appetites. Aren't they specifically made to scientifically aid a person? Why should we let these then be taken as things that are meant to be enjoyed by the appetite like wine and choclate? This doesn't mean that moderation in wine and choclate should not be practiced, but the use of these things are still in the right place. They are meant for our appetite, and yet like with anything we need a bit of reason; but they don't need as much strictness as drugs because drugs are more "specialized" and directed at more specific use. Even that strictness is loosened a bit sometimes by doctors because they understand what the system of the body and that the body may handle this much or this little. I am therefore trying to say that drugs should be used for only reasons, not appetite, and that choclate and wine are meant for appetite, but still need to be moderated with some reason in deed. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: There's a difference between what people want and what's best for them. I think you're confused. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And you don't think every drug user throughout history hasn't said much the same thing, Essorant? You think because you enjoy a glass of wine you should be free to make that choice? Perhaps you should be more willing to extend that same choice to everyone else, without imposing your own standards on them. quote: I'm not confused at all, Brian. Are you suggesting that enforced exercise wouldn't be healthy? That fish and white rice wouldn't be better for you than burgers and pizza? If our goal is to legislate what is best for people, to save lives through more enlightened laws, let's start a little closer to home and dictate first how YOU should live your life. Do we impose fines for every chip, soda, or gummy bear? Or should we throw your butt in jail with all the others who refuse to respect their bodies? Why would you or anyone else suppose that I know what's best for you? |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: Not at all! In fact, things would probably be a lot better. A lot of people probably wouldn't like it, but can you imagine how much better things would be for people in the long run? You're trying to prove your point by appealing to me personally, but I'm concerned with a more objective good. The problem with law is that it appeals to what people want rather than what's best for them. That's democracy for you, huh? quote: If things were like that, I'm willing to bet I'd be a lot healthier, as would everyone else. What are you trying to prove, anyways? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Geeze, And I thought I was bad about rabbit trails. Stephen |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Stephanos, I'm talking about law's responsibility in terms of whether or not legal "marriage" should properly represent people's freedom of action, or freedom from something potentially harmful to the impressionable future generations (in this case homosexuality). I'm mostly concerned with what law's responsibility is in relation to marriage, and how legal "marriage" should exist so that things don't get out of control. Such as, encouraging widespread perversion by recognizing it with legal unions. Sorry if it seems like I'm ruining the topic. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Well, pride is certainly not the proper response for Christians to have ... seeing they are no different than anyone else, being spared from God's wrath only because of his mercy, not because of any works they do. But kids (of any persuasion) often have such an arrogance, until they grow up some and life kicks 'em around a bit. Anyway, my point was, if they knew much about life, (and about the Bible too) they'd probably not be so arrogant. Of course, like C.S. Lewis observed, I know that I'm usually the most proud when I assume I'm not, and when I am proud, I tend to see it most clearly in others. I'm not saying the fault was yours. It's just something which I think is always healthy to ponder. quote: Heaven and Hell have little to do with dribbling water on someone's head, or not. Maybe that's how those kids who "didn't know enough about the Bible" explained it? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-20-2004 11:46 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LP, How's it going? Glad you peek in from time to time here on PHIL101. Ruining the topic? Nah. This thread has been everywhere but Neptune. You are welcome to take it anywhere you want. Of course I knew the main point of your argument. I was just laughing to myself about how the concourse drifted to dietary regulations (drifting is not an unusual thing in this forum, nor is it a bad thing. But it is amusing sometimes ). And you know from previous posts that I'm in agreement with your main point... that the function of law is higher than maintaining an extreme individualism at the cost of trashing foundational things that are better for the whole community. Of course, taken to the extreme, that could sound like an extreme authoritarianism. And that's why things like "dietary laws" are inevitably brought up. There will be those who insist that if you're for the preservation of traditional marriage, or something similar, you might as well make it law for everyone to cut their toenails every tuesday, and to eat no pork. But I fail to see why I should think that my stance is at all like the caricatures they usually offer in their arguments ... especially since, 1) Most people grassroots really are against homosexual marriage, 2) Preservation of traditional marriage is a defensive not an offensive move, since the challenge is coming from a small group of activists who seem to be more concerned with getting homosexuality normalized in the mainstream culture, than committing themselves to monogamy and getting tax breaks. and 3) The cultural, anthropological, and ethno-religious foundations of what marriage IS, though not scientifically quantifiable as "proof" of what should be, do hold a powerfully persuasive clue to what is right and wrong, and have been acknowledged without significant variation for hundreds of years. And when the variation has become widespread, much trouble has accompanied. I know, I know, I'm only repeating myself. (There Ron, I typed it for you.) Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The fact remains that the long tradition is sexist. Discrimination based on sex. Some other inequalities were long traditions too. Therefore tradition and fixedness is not a complete ground to go by when judging whether something should be continued. People, and understandings change, and sometimes therefore the laws or traditions must, or they no longer accuratly reflect the truth of what is in life and the people. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There is no objective good, Brian. There is only opinion. To legislate your opinion over someone else's is simply to destroy the diversity that is humanity. Save where others are faced with harm, people need the freedom to define their own paths, their own fates, their own accomplishments. Most will occasionally get it wrong, of course, but mistakes are the price we pay for growth. The greater good won't come from protecting people from their mistakes, but rather by helping them learn from them. First, of course, we have to learn from our own mistakes … a hurdle few will ever pass. quote: I guess that makes it my turn again? quote: And forty years ago, most people were against equality for blacks as well. Fortunately, human rights aren't granted by majority vote, nor even by the government. Our role, at best, is to acknowledge such rights as the will of God. Or fail to acknowledge, as is so often the case throughout history. quote: Really? Personally, I find current prejudices very offensive. Those who wish only to defend traditional marriage need do nothing, because traditional marriage is in no danger. It will continue to exist, just as it should. After all, the marriage, intermittent affairs, divorce, remarriage, more affairs, another divorce, a third marriage, ad nauseum, hurts no one except those directly involved. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to suggest traditional marriage in the 21st Century should be better regulated. No harm, no foul works both ways. quote: Unsupported fear is a poor reason to deprive others of basic human rights. It's a common reason, I'll grant you, but a poor one nonetheless. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Accusing something as being wrong, and people thereof as wrongdoers, is nothing but name calling if one gives no reference to what is the offence, crime and ill that make them evil, wrong, destructive, etc. Yes, many homosexuals are part of movements, and are activists and extremists; but so are many heterosexuals, and so are probably some christians. But those "parts" are no basis upon which to judge the whole of those manners of people and deprive the members of their "groups" of rights about this or that because of the behavior of others in that group. An honest homosexual that really does pratice monogomy and wishes to be married should not be deprived of the right to because a group of homosexuals elsewhere are rioting and throwing thunder and really only seem to wish to make outrage. Those that are rioting and throwing thunder are the ones that deserve to be reproached and spoken against for their foul outrage. That is just not what sexuality is, or a reason to call all people that are of that sexuality-manner, wrong and sinners, and unworthy of marriage. If it was, then no one should be able to marry because every manner of people seems to have another manner out of them that goes to outrages and extremes about issues. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Even so, sexism is based on gender. This has nothing to do with biological gender. No one is discriminating against homosexuals based upon the gender they were born with. Pointing to one thing that traditionally has been out of balance (ie, sexism against women), does not in any way suggest something else bound in tradition is therefore wrong. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: You've never established that that comparison is noteworthy ... except by repeating that you think it is. Their differences you've tended to avoid in our discussion. quote: Homosexual marriage is a right, according to the will of God? What do you base that upon, other than your opinion? Also You've stated before that free-will is important enought to God, to have given us a measure of it. But you cannot support scripturally that he gives anyone the "RIGHT" to sin. Longsuffering and forbearance are not to be confused with advocacy. quote: What I meant by traditional marriage is it's heterosexually exclusive nature and definition. quote: What one man denounces as "fear" may turn out to be prudence even wisdom. Time will tell. But my assertion is that time has indeed already told, if history's patterns are to be learned from. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Even so, sexism is based on gender. This has nothing to do with biological gender. No one is discriminating against homosexuals based upon the gender they were born with. Pointing to one thing that traditionally has been out of balance (ie, sexism against women), does not in any way suggest something else bound in tradition is therefore wrong. I was pointing here to: the fixed notion that a man should not be involved this way/that way with a man because he is man/male; that a woman should not be involved this way/that way with a woman because she is a woman/female. That two men or two women should not be together this way/that way because they are the same sex. Only a man should intimize and be able marry a person of this sex: female; only a woman should be able to a person of this sex: male. Only that sexual combination is good enough to enjoy the estate of marriage. To me that sounds like sexism. I wasn't trying at all to refer to sexism as in masculinism, patriachism, etc, but sexism as in sexism against people of the same sex. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: Black people have something in their skin that naturally keeps them from getting a sunburn. Is that racism? Throwing "ism"s at anything that distinguishes between one group and another is a very short-sighted way of dismissing anything. I could very well say that your whole argument is false because it distinguishes between my argument and your argument and therefore is argumentalism---because all arguments need enjoy the same priveleges as one another, and one cannot be more right than the other because all points of view are equally valid at all times. Wow, I sound like Ron. You can eat pudding with a spoon, but you'd be less likely to eat a spoon with pudding, or eat pudding with pudding, or a spoon with another spoon. Is there an ism for that? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not until you use it to keep them from doing something you want to reserve for yourself and the other "right" people. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But Essorant, that's not what sexism is. sexism: (sek' siz' em) n. 1. Prejudice against the female sex. 2. An arbitrary stereotyping of males or females on the basis of the gender. Sexism is discriminating against something amorally oriented, namely the gender one was born with. So you can argue that homosexual marriage is right, but you can't say that to disagree amounts to "sexism". Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sexism: Any overmindness, orientedness or centeredness about, and fixing or hanging upon sex/gender, and judging beings or things by sex/gender or a sex/gender-theme. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Could you please cite me the dictionary your above definition came from? Pardon me, but that sounded like it came from the "Essorant-ary" rather than a real diction-ary. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The AllTruthbook" by AllWise. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, that's what I thought. What you should realize is this ... sexism is defined as discriminating on the basis of gender. racism is defined as discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or physical characteristics. Both of these attitudes (sexism and racism) are wrong, or invalid because race and gender are both normal and inborn features ... and completely amoral in their outcome. Sexual preference, whether it is in the form of pederasty, homosexuality , or just plain adultery, is NOT an inborn feature in people ... it is aquired. And those who say it is pre-programmed, offer nothing scientifically evidential to support that idea. So just calling the opposing view sexism or crying "civil rights violation" which is calling it the equivalent of racism, does nothing for the debate. It's attempting to win the argument using the merits of another argument which has completely different grounds. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Just as those who say it is not genetically determined are unable to offer any scientific evidence, Stephen? It shouldn't be that hard, either. You don't have to find an elusive gene after all, you just have to show a determining moment when a man's sexual attraction to a woman is acquired. When you convince me that a heterosexual male isn't hardwired to prefer women, then I'll be willing to concede that a homosexual male might not be hardwired to prefer men. Lacking conclusive proof either way, however, I have to weigh what evidence is available and decide on that basis what to believe. Frankly, even if such evidence didn't already strongly point to genetic determination, I suspect I would give the benefit of doubt to the side least likely to cause harm. I'm not willing to curtail someone's pursuit of happiness based only on fear and speculation. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"Sexual preference, whether it is in the form of pederasty, homosexuality , or just plain adultery, is NOT an inborn feature in people ... it is aquired. And those who say it is pre-programmed, offer nothing scientifically evidential to support that idea." Have to partially disagree with you Stephanos. Pederasty-- an adult act toward a child, that requires acquiring a child’s trust or the manipulation of a child, Yes, I have to agree. Adultery-- I think it’s more feasible to express how humans try to resist the temptations, because we are pre-programmed to pro-create. To pro-create there has to be a sex drive. Whether it goes into over-drive or not does depend on the human. Regardless, science is very busy trying to help us alter the pro-creation part. But homosexuality? It doesn’t matter what my beliefs are, let’s look at the wee periods of a child’s development. There are young boys that exhibit effeminate characteristics, and young girls that exhibit masculine characteristics at a very early age. Ever held one while they cried, because the other kids picked on them or rejected them? Their differences are identifiable by other children, why not science? There are many children that do not completely fit into the gender skin they were born in. And they come from very normal families. Things get really twisted up as they mature. Effeminate males and masculine females are rarely accepted by either peer, let alone potential mates. What are they to do? I’ve seen these children grow and mature into extraordinary adults, loving, kind, goal oriented, hard working, with all the values any human can have, and be completely rejected. And I do want to clarify that not all effeminate males/masculine females are destined to be homosexuals. They are treated as if they are, or most people suspect them to be. Most people suspect me to be straight. Is it anyone’s business? But I was accused once of being a Dyke in highschool, simply because I excelled in sports. I didn’t even know how cruel that word was, but it did give me a pretty good idea of how society wanted to box me in, figure me out, and label me. I also want to clarify that I do not feel all those who prefer same sex start out this way. I’m only referring to those few that I know for a fact did. As a mother, care giver, teacher, aunt, neighbor, friend, I’ve come to recognize the children and adults that I’ve developed bonds with as gifts to me. They teach me valuable lessons about who they are, and what I am to them, or what I need to be. I don’t know everything. I’ll not feel foolish for caring for them and respecting them either way. No matter what science says. I don’t trust science, I trust my heart on this one. And if homosexuality is something that is “correctable” within a person, then wouldn’t everyone be encouraged to send their child off to some “correctional straight camp” during the wee periods of self-discovery and normal curiosity toward same-sex? Government funded, mandated? Or would it just be for the elite who can afford to straighten their kids out? What about hermaphrodites? Babies that are born, having both sex organs. Parents have to choose which they want, boy or girl? Are doctors just doing away with the unwanted organ identifier? There are many adults who still have both, intact. How do they fit in or out of the box? We, who sit here and have minimal problems with our social belonging, are so lucky. Which brings me to these questions and thoughts about the legal, philosophical, and spiritual aspects of marriage/same sex marriage issues within this thread: Has our modern philosophy-religious-laws institutionalized something that can’t really be defined for any one person, such as love? Are all the marriages that took place before marriage certificates not really marriages, but some other kind of joint venture? Which is more righteous: To walk alone for your entire life, because society or your religious beliefs do not support same sex marriage, or to live a complete lie with someone of the opposite sex, for the sake of God and humanity? Are Homosexual Christians simply a contradiction in terms, or males and females who believe in Christ? Feel free to cross-reference to any belief. The same as homosexual citizens, who believe in their rights? And does 100 years of marriage between two couples (my parents and my grandparents) make their marriages more ideal, than say, a couple that’s been together for 10 years, each a divorcee, and each deeply devoted to their new spouses. In God’s eyes, in society’s eyes? But my grand parents can’t stand each other, so one lives upstairs, and the other downstairs. And since the young couple has already had their shot at what might have been the ideal, does that mean that no matter what they try to establish onward, it’s a tainted endeavor? If we continue to link sex to marriage, then why bother with marriage at all, since many people have sex before marriage. What’s the point? And am I the only one that finds social exclusivity a bit scarey? There’s always somebody casting you out, or trying to induct you in. Somebody’s always got to be the ring leader, or somebody gets high horsed and pillages a village. Seems a little quasi-cultish in nature to me, or imprisoning, Aristocratic, Boxed orthodox, Supreme-ish, group self-righteousness, or something not quite....tolerant, Maybe I need drugs to help me overcome the social anxieties of it all. I mean I’m all for matrimonial sanctity, but I’ll not enter into any kind of pact with society as to the hows, what, when, or wheres I’m gonna sanctify my marriage. We’re just two names on a piece of paper...the rest is our business. Whether same sex marriage is right or wrong seems irrelevant under attack. Their bonds will be strengthened by the human need to cling to other humans that accept them as they are. They may never get a piece of paper for that. And love and acceptance are real factors people. No matter what laws govern us, or how much hell the world brings down on a person for loving someone, they will love them, and that much harder. The depth becomes fathomable to them then~ I think all walks of life understand that to varying degrees. But the legalities of it all, leaves such a gay area. I don’t mean that as a pun. I mean that as a plight for the pursuit of happiness. I don’t know how I can trust a law that establishes only my ideals. I don’t know how I could trust a God that loves only me. Forgive me folks. I have few days off to write, so I have to get it all in there at once. Sincerely, Reg |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Rwood, What an eloquent response. Makes me remember why I love discussing philosophy with members of a poetry website. I would argue, though, that children do a lot of things innocently, though they be wrong, that are capable of being grown out of in their adulthood. Some children are poorly tempered, for example, and pick on others; some have sexual attractions to the same sex, or for that matter to their cousins or siblings, even their parents. Now it's clear to us adults that there are some things we simply come to realize are fundamentally wrong. As soon as we raise the issue of "tolerance," and make that word seem like the letter of the law, we allow all sorts of immoralities to slip through the cracks of our justice system. This is the reason we have associations like NAMBLA, for instance. Children innocently sin all of the time. A favourite image of mine comes from Augustine (I think), who described how two children feeding at different breasts will still cry when they see the other one feeding from the same mother, even though there's enough for two. Sure, I feel sorry for them as much as you do. The slings and arrows they have to endure in childhood sting quite a bit, I know. But let's face it... children are naive, and we can't depend on them as evidence of what's morally right or wrong. Have you ever seen a toddler at another toddler's birthday party, who is crying because none of the presents are for him? Or a kid who doesn't get exactly what he wants on Christmas morning so he throws a crying tantrum at his parents who spent large sums of money trying to please him? Children don't always know what's right, and although we can feel sorry for them, it's up to us to provide an environment for them in which to learn moral rights and wrongs. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Immoralities SHOULD slip through the cracks of our justice system, Brian. Government's role should be to protect men from men, not men from God. quote: Which is exactly why we *teach* our children the difference between right and wrong. However, while no one is born with a knowledge of morality, they are -- by definition -- born with a knowledge of what is natural. Still, while I think Regina poses many interesting points, I also think her post places us in danger of confusing sexual preference with gender confusion. Being effeminate has little to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in the sense that blue eyes tend to go with blonde hair. Young children don't exhibit "signs" of sexuality, homo or otherwise. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Brian~ Thank you. I agree with most of what you expressed, but I don’t want to assume that homosexuality is something a person will grow out of, if it’s something they are born with. As Ron stated above, there’s no proof either way. Ron~ I admit, this is all very confusing to me. Gender is a separate issue from sexual preference. Since I was unsure about the term “gender confusion.” I had to look it up. Here’s what I found. “Despite a smattering of research conducted around the world, Kohler and other medical experts have not pinpointed what causes people born as one gender to identify more strongly with the opposite sex.” "Medically there is no explanation," Kohler says. "There are lots and lots of theories in the psychology and psychiatry worlds. It's probably much like being gay or lesbian. No one can explain it, it's just something that exists." http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=493 All the info establishes gender/sex/preference as separate issues. But development in all areas is still based purely on theory upon theory. Many persons refuse to be categorized no matter what the world thinks. “Being effeminate has little to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in the sense that blue eyes tend to go with blonde hair.” Gender confusion may be a more proper and defining term for what I described above in the early years. But it’s a little more than coincidence that each person I referred to as effeminate/masculine, grew to have same-sex partners....as pronounced on their birth certificates. Many then classify them as homosexuals. And I don’t believe that’s the case for everyone considered. So gender aspects seem to have had something to do with the way they developed their sexual preference. I just don’t know. Whatever term is attached to them medically or psychologically, they aren’t being cured or quite defined. And it scares me to think what people would do if they could detect such things beyond a shadow of doubt. “Young children don't exhibit "signs" of sexuality, homo or otherwise.” I agree, there’s nothing completely identifiable or concrete about who they will be sexually attracted to in maturity. It’s just a whole lot easier on them if they mature into an accepted ideal, and naturally a whole lot easier for adults to try and define. Sincerely, Reg |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
rwood- "I don’t know how I can trust a law that establishes only my ideals. I don’t know how I could trust a God that loves only me." Thanks. That's the most succinct and potent rebuttal to this ridiculous attempt at legislation that I've heard yet. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Marrage is the union joining of man and woman as one being thinking and doing for each other and to share there love for god with one another. Face it Marrage came from the jewish religian. Changing the definition opf marraige changes what marrage means. I will not argue with you all, but to change the meaning of marraige so it fits you, won't still make it marrage. I know every one will hate me and not respond to my poetry and excetra, but heh no one does to begin with so I don't really care. Juju Yes I am in a bad mood. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: This is just trying to switch the "burden of proof". But for centuries sexual misconduct (& orientation) has been seen as a moral question rather than a genetic one. Therefore it would seem natural that science be required to actually back up the assertion of genetic predeterminism. Especially when there are such political overtones to the whole question, and so many people WANT to believe it's genetic. No evidence for genetic homosexuality means that as far as we know homosexuality is not genetic. Your intuition is not sufficient to back up the allegation against traditional views of homosexuality ... that it is bigotry or discrimination or the like. quote: Do you think pedophiles are "hardwired" to prefer children? Apart from the moral consideration that would obviously affect your public policy on this one ... how can you so easily attribute one to genetics and the other not. Or perhaps you don't. Perhaps in your eyes child molesters can't help it, and therefore shouldn't be held morally responsible for their actions? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
So what is the preference/choice/difference of homosexuality being named as wrong and sinful and against God, and unright to partake in marriage for? To me it still looks like it is being called wrong because of the gender it involves; and therefore the argument against homosexuality still lives up to the word and the meaning of "sexism" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, sexual conduct and one's own gender are two very different things. I can't state it any plainer than that. Is it distally related in that homosexuality has to do with one's sexual preference? Yes. But that's still not "sexism" ... since sexism is discrimination of one's person based upon gender. Still the objection to homosexuality has to do with one's behavior, while sexism has to do with one's gender. One has moral implications, the other doesn't. quote: I've already explained that. If God designed male and female sexuality as normative, and deviations are not acceptable according to him, then homosex is sin. That's what the Bible teaches. You're free to disagree or not. And remember scripturally speaking, God has given the institution of marriage to men, and it's definition is rooted in his teleology. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rwood: quote: Yes, to put it simply homosexual Christian is a contradiction in terms, just as a "Christian murderer", or "Christian adulterer", or "Christian Thief", or "Christian pedophile" are all contradictions in terms. Are you are asking this question from a mindset where there are presumably no moral absolutes, and where "sin" is an imaginary concept and not a stark reality? If so, the answer given from the basic assumptions of Christianity (with moral absolutes, the dilemma of sin, the requirement of repentence and Spiritual renewal) will be quite different. From the framework of the Christian worldview, homosex is sin. And Christians are those who have 1) come to recognize their own sinfulness before God, and their own plight before him as guilty and worthy of punishment. 2) come to a place of repentance where they turn from those things revealed to be sin in their lives. and 3) Believe that only through Jesus Christ, crucified for their sins and risen from the dead, can they overcome sin and it's consequences. Now that's the simple answer given purely in theory. In reality, sin is not so easliy done away with. It's better than saran wrap, it CLINGS to us, because we have all been so closely associated with it's habits. Only those who never try to resist it, dream that they aren't sinners. When there's no resistance, there's no awareness of a battle. So even when someone is awakened to the necessity of overcoming sinful thoughts and behavior, a person can struggle for a long time. The apostle Paul describes this in Romans Chapter 7, where he talks about "doing those things which I hate", and "being unable to perform that which is good". So a person who struggles with lustful homosexual thoughts may indeed be a Christian. There is a process of coming out which can be difficult and arduous. But someone who practices the homosexual lifestyle, and who is hardened against the very idea of it being sinful, by biblical standards cannot be a Christian because they have not taken the task of repentance at hand. They have basically said to God, and their own consciences, "I disagree with you. This behavior is not wrong ... it's the way I am." quote: Here is a link to a question (perhaps similar to your own) someone wrote to Randy Alcorn. His answer is a bit more detailed than mine. I thought it might be helpful ... for understanding, if nothing else. http://www.epm.org/articles/gaywitness4.html Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, If it is not about the gender then what is that that makes the difference/preference and behavior wrong and judged as a sin and against God, and unright for marriage? What that heterosexuals don't do as well, as or more unseldom? What is the proof, evidence, ground that you shall bring for to show as "incriminating" or wrong of homosexuals? Homosexuality? Then what is that that makes homosexuality incriminating? Unnaturalness/deviation? What makes this unnaturalness/deviations worthy of being treated as a wrong/vice/sin/crime? Wherein lies the wrong/unhealthiness/destructiveness/evil? What are the things that you may bring forth that make homosexuality wrong, but not even just wrong, wrong enough to make laws against and that may affect people's life about. I may bring forth something like smoking and say I know there are many health risks and health hazards that I believe make smoking wrong and that should be avoided. I think you will agree with me, even if you don't agree that is wrong as much as I do, that there is evidence that proves it is a risk to health and causes health problems. Where is such evidence about homosexuality, and also such evidence that may not about as equally be brought up against heterosexuals behavior? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Juju- 'Face it Marrage came from the jewish religian' So, um... I don't get it. Is it only the homosexuals who can't get married, or are we ruling out Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and atheists here too? Ah, screw it, let's just trash that whole separation of Church and state thing and implement a Judeo-Christian theocracy... woohoo! Now my life of sin shall become a life of crime! I'm sorry, I'm crabby and I'm sick of this whole thing, but Stephen... ya know I love ya but come on... lung cancer doesn't stop smokers from smoking, and the idea of divine punishment doesn't keep sinners from sinning... at least, not the ones who really want to anyway. Look, I respect that you see it as a sin, but I romp around with my live-in boyfriend in biblically sinful ways, are you going to say cohabitation should be illegal, too? I mean, it's "bad" in all the same ways gay marriage is... bad for the kids, unstable relationship, more likely to cheat, screws up your chances of getting into heaven, etc. etc. It's like Regina said tho... same-sex marriages will exist, at least in that couples eyes, and the eyes of their friends, whether a law consecrates it or not. You can't stop it, and furthermore, there's no real good reason to stop it... I'm beating my head against a wall, I've got to get out of here... |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephan: One of the revolutionary ideas that came out of the Reformation was the notion that Christians are simul justus et peccator ... at the same time saint and sinner. To suggest that "Christian homosexual" is a contradiction in terms is similar to saying that "Christian liar" or "Christian coveter" or "Christian thief" also cannot exist together. In truth, all Christians are at the same time just and sinner, and, yes, this is a contradiction unless you consider that we are forensically righteous, and nothing more. It is Christ's righteousness, apart from our actual sinfulness, that is imputed to the Christian in the legal sense, just as our actual sinfulness is imputed to Christ on the Cross. Granted, the test of the genuine faith would involve a life-long struggle with sin, but I think that if your arguing that a Christian is no longer Christian if, for example, he or she is struggling with alcoholism or obsessive gambling, your understanding of the doctines of sin and grace is flawed. Romans 7 is a somewhat contentious passage to cite, but I think the meaning is quite clear - Paul struggled with behavior he knew was wrong, even as he wrote his letter to the Roman Christians. The Corinthians were sliding toward antinomianism, which explains Paul's stronger language. But I think this leaves the door wide open to the possibility that a homosexual can be a Christian while at the same time not being able to change his or her homosexual lifestyle at the present time. I also share Amy's frustration with this thread. A Constitutional Amendment prohibiting homosexual unions is bad law and bad for the church. As citizens, our energies are better spent in understanding the root causes of the behavior and offering assistance to those who wish to change. As Christians, our time is better spent evangelizing - I think Jesus and Paul would agree with that. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Jim, I think scripture adequately teaches (without too much ambiguity) that a Christian's "righteousness" which is from Christ, should manifest itself in a real and tangible way. Therefore, regardless of reformation theology, a theology much older might suggest that Christ's righteousness is more than merely forensic. (and that's not saying that it is derived from ourselves ... only that it is required to manifest in ourselves.) If it is just a legal sense that Christians are righteous, then where does repentance and regeneration fit in? It's true that we live with the conflict between flesh and spirit, which won't be completely won until our own death and resurrection. But Romans makes clear a difference between Christians and non-Christians in this: "Sin shall not have dominion over you". I would say that a practicing homosexual (who denies even the preliminary light which tells him that it is sinful) is in bondage to sin. The same would go for theives, adulterers, murderers, etc ... That's not to say that those who struggle with sin (ie those like Paul describes in Romans 7) are not believers. But they have definitely escaped the state of denial and non-resistance that they were previously in, and are well on their way to Romans chapter 8 in their experience. I think you have to understand what the question really was that I answered. Reg wasn't asking (IMO) whether Christians can struggle with homosexual temptation and still be genuine Christians (as Christians en route of exodus). She was asking whether or not those who are settled in their homosexual lifestyle, considering themselves to be non-transgressors, can be also Christians. But what concord hath Christ and Belial? And that principle goes for any settled unrepentant sin.If you're describing a middle ground, transitionary period, I agree, though the flow has to be definitely away from sin. But I wasn't really writing in reaction to that state at all, but to the extreme of making grace a license to sin. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, Jesus Christ isn't enough, Stephen? Sinners have to pass your judgment, too? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Who said this is my judgement Ron? I'm not stating anything original. I'm asserting that that's what the Bible teaches, and can back it up if you want to take a look. On the other hand, if you want to make a Christian case in apologetics for Christ redeeming unrepentant sinners, I'm all ears. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You still need to prove why it is truly wrong in life. Until then the bible doesn't have much weight. Books and words don't go the length if life doesn't confirm something that is said in them. |
||
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
(allow me to jump in )Two men and two women cannot create life. They cannot have actual sexual intercourse. This goes against all of the laws of nature. That being said, the Bible tells us that a man and a woman are husband and wife.. and from a Christian viewpoint, the biggest sin of being a practicing homo is defiance and disobedience of God. We are all born with sin, and we all have our sinful tendencys. I struggle with depression, some people struggle with lying and stealing, some people deal addiction to drugs, and some people deal with sexual issues. Next, you will be saying that it's alright for depressed people to hurt themselves because that's their right.. they were born that way, right? I don't think that we should be forced to accept homosexual marriage. Wouldn't it be strange if the Christian church was made to accept people who don't believe in Jesus Christ as members? Sure, these people are welcome to come and attend church, but they cannot join the religion because they are in staunch defiance of the religion. Wouldn't I be strange if I called myself a Muslim, when I don't believe that Muhommed was a prophet? I would have no connection with the thesis of the belief, so why would I claim to be a Muslim? Why should Muslim people be forced to accept that I am calling myself something that I"m not? Why should any religion or institution that doesn't believe that homosexual marriage is the will of God be forced to accept and perform such things? Oh, make me Thine forever And should I fainting be Lord, let me never ever Outlive my love for Thee |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Please do, Stephen. I've seen nothing in the Bible that says salvation is dependent on sinning less and less (the flow away from sin, as you put it). John 3:16, the foundation of the Gospels, says nothing at all about sin. Repentance, which I suspect is what you really mean, is evidence of salvation, not a prerequisite for it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with secular law. quote: Were I to fall in love with a woman my own age, Erica, we couldn't create life either. Would you deny me the right to marry because of that? Will you suddenly "stop" being married when you've given birth to your last child? Marriage, love, and even sex, is about a lot more than just procreation. quote: You're not. If you don't want to marry another woman, no one will force you. If you don't want to be friends with a homosexual couple, no one will force you. If you don't want to attend church with homosexuals, no one will force you. The issue is about you trying to force others to live their lives according your own precepts. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Marriage is not just a part of being religious, it is a part of being human. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: No need to. You just conceded my point. I didn't say that salvation depended on sinning less and less. What I did say was that salvation would result in sinning less and less. Whether "repentance" is a prerequisite for salvation or evidence of salvation is to quibble over semantics, when my point is much broader. Practicing, unrepentant homosexuals are not Christians. The particular type of relationship repentance has to salvation is irrelevant to this discussion ... as long as we agree it cannot be absent. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant, the fact of the matter is, you are using double standards. I'll just bet you're morally opposed to fornication, polyamory, and pornography. Yet in each of these examples, those participating usually do so of their own volition. Everyone is consenting ... the woman who bears it all in front of the camera, as well as those who commit the voyeuristic act of watching. So no one is "hurting" anyone else (hurting in the sense that Ron likes to use the term- meaning immediate physical harm). Now you could go into all of the reasons as to why these practices have been harmful, in order to establish your case that they are immoral. And I could do the same exact thing for homosexuality. Statistics hold much evidence of unhappiness surrounding the homosexual lifestyle, increased STDs, unstable relationships, multiple partners. But all of this is anecdotal evidence, since ill results can always be attributed to other things and there is no hard "proof" that the behaviors always cause the alleged negative effects. That doesn't mean that the evidence is not persuasive, it just means that those who demand "proof" in the sense that you're using it, aren't satisfied with such observations. There's nothing wrong with you demanding such, it's just that I want you to realize that you don't demand such proof for other things that you KNOW are wrong and destructive. There's not much in the "irrefutable" category for tthose things either. That was my first issue with what you said. My second one is this... Morality cannot or should not primarily be determined by statistical averages and pragmatic perception. What do I mean? I mean that the moral question goes deeper. Is adultery really only wrong because the wife is offended, or is the wife offended because adultery is wrong? I've heard of women who said they "didn't mind" their husbands speaking to them in a degrading way ... does that make it therefore morally right? Is it right to swing and have extramarital affairs if your wife says it's okay? I don't think so. I don't think you do either. Placing morality in the relativistic category of percieved benefit versus loss, is egoism ... which I find to be untenable. It is a philosophical outlook or system which cannot adequately give account for the morals of it's adherents. That brings me to what you say about the Bible. Believing the Bible to be more than anecdotal, but authoritative in nature, certain moral precepts are accepted on authority. Accepting things on authority blindly can be problematic. But accepting things on authority which prove to be right, is not such a bad thing. Now I believe that the Bible's placard about homosex is right. But I also believe it PROVES to be right in actual experience. That's where all of the negative examples would come in, as anecdotal evidence. That's where history would come in (as I believe that the destruction of Sodom is more than Jewish folklore). That's where common perceptions of morality would come in (the greater percentage of people believe homosexuality to be immoral). That's where arguments from nature would come in (homosexuality at least appears to be against design). So it's not that evidence doesn't exist. It's that you aren't prepared to accept that kind of evidence for something you've predecided is okay. And you're not ready to accept it on authority. I respect that. But to me, the question of morality of homosexuality is based upon something deeper than percieved benefit versus loss. And I also believe very much believe that what the Bible says goes beyond mere detached aphorisms, and is confirmed in life itself. But when incontrovertible proof is what you're looking for, the Bible, or life itself, seldom offers it. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: It always happens that arguments become polarized and caricatured. I am NOT arguing for Theocracy. Nor do I think all "sin" should be made illegal. In fact I consider the aim to reverse laws which forbid homosexual marriage as a public institution to be agressive and oppressive, headed up by extremists. Defending and seeking to maintain the traditional definition is a more defensive and passive aim by far. And yes, though morality is an issue, it's NOT the only one that has been offered. quote: No. Cohabitation (with it's various degrees of commitment) has existed as a contrast to what covenential marriage offers. That's quite different than pressing something so fundamentally different to the point of redefining Marriage as a public institution. Cohabitation comes with the assumption (whether right or wrong) "Marriage isn't needed". So it's not the same thing as pushing that something else BECOMES marriage, when it wasn't/ isn't/ hasn't been. quote: Wow. Finally. A recognition that there are reasons for my position beyond naked morality. quote: Yeah. But as I've said before. I believe that on the biggies, our government has the responsibility to uphold what's right, especially as regarding foundational public institutions. And law DOES affect the way a society views something. If law embraces homosexual marriage, the society/ culture will be helped along the path of viewing it as normative and perfectly acceptable. (In fact if you ask the homsexual activists that's exactly what their pushing for ... not legal recognition, but cultural moral approval). And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see, that if I'm right that homosexuality is morally wrong, and that homosexual marriage will speed the fall of our culture, there IS a good reason to make illegal homosexual marriage. But that's the whole argument right? And to those (like my friend Jim) who think I'm opting that law is the entire solution, I would deny so. It's not evangelism OR law. Just as it's not really Grace OR law. Why so quick to dismiss the school master? It's those who graduate who understand grace, not those in perpetual truancy. Also, I'm not opting for the fullest possible (or impossible) marrying of divinity and law ... only a degree which I believe is necessary for national survival. Not the whole house, but some essential framework nonetheless. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's not at all what you said, but it's equally wrong. By that logic, given enough time, you will stop being a sinner. Wanna bet that happens? quote: There you go playing God again. Sorry, Stephen, but *you* don't get to decide that. quote: The path to salvation isn't irrelevant, especially when someone tries to confuse it. Still, do you sincerely believe, Stephen, that you know all there is to know about sin and God's will? Didn't think so. Or, at least, hoped not. Do you repent the many, many times in this thread you've arbitrary placed your will over God's? Or does failure to recognize your transgressions free you from the burden you would cast on others? (Slippery slope, ain't it?) quote: Good examples, Stephen. Let's stop all of them from marrying first, and save the homosexuals for later. Sound's like a perfectly workable compromise to me. quote: LOL. You might want to look up the word persuasive. I'm not satisfied by such observations because, duh, they're not at all persuasive. You can't point at any single facet of homosexuality that isn't equally present in an equally promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. Sex isn't a toy and people get hurt when they think it is. When you advocate a law that no one can have sex until they're married, and no one can get married if they've ever had sex, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you're still applying the double standards you accused Essorant of following. quote: Morality cannot and should not be determined by men. That's God's role. Ours is simply to determine laws that will allow us to live together in relative peace. You follow your sense of morals, I'll follow mine, and we both will abide by man's laws. That should work out real well for both of us on this Earth, and God will sort out what comes after that. quote: That's either incredibly paradoxical, Stephen, or incredibly enlightening. Sounds like you don't have a problem with sin and morality after all? You just want it to be a sin with which you're comfortable. That sin can even evolve into sanctity (common law marriage) as long as you're comfortable. Hey, I got no problem with that, either. Not until your comfort becomes someone else's discomfort. quote: Let's hope so. Of course, it won't happen overnight. In spite of laws passed more than thirty years ago, racial prejudice and bigotry hasn't been erased quite yet. Homophobia, sad to say, will likely survive well past my lifetime, too. People will probably always fear and hate what they can't comprehend. quote: We can certainly agree on that, Stephen. Your proposal lacks the compassion of one, and the justice of the other. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: I think you know I'd argue that the Reformation view of sin and grace more closely resembles Apostalic teaching than the papist semi-Pelagianism that has found its new home in modern-day evangelicalism. What I'd have to ask you Stephen is what do we contribute to our righteousness? Righteousness itself is a legal term - what you are talking about is the process of sanctification ... the ongoing process of being "set apart" or comforming more closely to the Godly ideal. Some of the misguided believe we can perfectly conform in the lifetime - others slightly less misguided believe the progressiveness of the sanctification does not involve stumbles or that much of it should begin immediately following the time of decision. But that's a bit off topic. I'm pretty much in agreement with Ron on this, with the qualification that I don't think believing homosexuality is immoral means that belief is driven by fear or hate. Jim |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Actually, if these laws are passed, a Church that does not believe in homosexual unions will not be able to deny them. Thats what I think is wrong. Also, as I said, man and woman create life. Thats what makes man and woman the couple, because they are mates. Even if they are past childbearing age, they are still the couple ordained by God and nature, man and woman. Men and men and woman and woman aren't mates. Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Jim, I don't believe that every aversion to homosexuality is necessarily driven by fear or hate. I wouldn't even say that most are. Just some. In my experience, people who are irrational and uncompromising are inevitably motivated by a great fear of something they don't or won't or can't understand. quote: That's entirely untrue, Erica. Priests and ministers can and do, right now, deny a church-sanctioned marriage to anyone who doesn't pass *whatever* criteria they choose to set. Many denominations require counseling before marriage, and woe be to the couple who refuses (or otherwise doesn't pass muster). Not enough to convince you? Try getting married in a Catholic ceremony should you be unfortunate enough to fall in love with a divorced man. You'll discover very quickly, I think, that any church can do just about anything it wants short of blood sacrifice. That's the way it is, that's the way it should be, and that's the way it will remain even when civil marriage for homosexuals is legally recognized. And, that's totally cool. At least it's cool until a religion decides to force its way on people outside the church. Then it becomes domination and ain't so cool. quote: You're certainly free to decide for yourself, Erica, what you believe God has or hasn't ordained. I'm a little less clear on the entirety of God's will, but hey, that's just me. The question, however, isn't what you or I believe, but rather whether either of us should be free to force our beliefs on the rest of the world. Giving everyone the legal protection of marriage, Erica, doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with religion. We don't protect the rights of alleged murderers because we think murder is something we want to do ourselves, but rather because we want our own rights protected should we be falsely accused. People are innocent until proven guilty not because some religion or denomination believes that God said so, but because it's the right thing to do. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Is it really wrong to assert that willful unrepentant sin is incompatible with true Christian conversion? That is the gist of what I was trying to say. And Ron, If you and I are truly Christians, given enough time, we WILL stop being sinners. quote: Can you see no difference between stating what was said by someone else, and arbitrating? If I, as a co-worker, point out to you a policy which our boss implemented, does that mean that I'm trying to arrogantly exalt myself over you, my equal? There are only two ways you can say that I am, 1) claim that the boss never clearly reveals anything, and the documents are dubious, therfore I'm deluded or 2) try to show I'm wrong by referring to the actual policy in question. Typically you're attempting the former approach by playing the ambiguity card again, denying any possibility of getting anything clear from God. I haven't been stating something that orginated with me, and the things I state apply to me as well. I never claimed anyone must achieve moral perfection to gain eternal life. But a willingness to repent is inseperable from the gift, at least according to scripture. That's a sobering thought, for me as well as anyone. quote: Stop them from marrying? Consider how each of them are quite out of the context. Fornicators: Content to enjoy their sexuality outside of marriage. Therefore forbidding them to settle down and enjoy monogamous marriage makes no sense. Polyamory: Last I heard polygamous marriage IS illegal. Pornography: What does that have to do with marriage? However it is public enough that I wouldn't be opposed to it's production and sales being illegal. quote: Ever heard the saying that an enemy multiplies kisses? Or that the wounds of a friend are faithful? I'm not ignorant that there is cruelty and even hatred for homosexuals by some of those who disagree with their lifestyles. I believe in love, gentleness, tact, and good deeds regardless of what a person practices. But IF homosexuality is a sin, couldn't you be encouraging people in what is wrong by denying that it is a sin? And IF homosexuality were sin, would that approach be somehow more conducive to evangelism? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Jim, how is my claim that repentance is a necessary ingredient in salvation, semi-Pelagian? I never did deny that repentance is a gift of God. I think you're over-complicating my whole point. The question was asked by Reg, in effect, whether or not homosexuals who deny it is sinful behavior, and reject even the idea that they might have something to repent of, can be authentic Christians. What is your answer? By bringing in the Pelagian debate, you only change the charge of being unrepentant, to being perhaps unchosen. But it certainly doesn't change it into being "okay". Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Time is neither sufficient, Stephen, nor even relevant. quote: Depends on whether you're trying to warn me or condemn me. So far, all I've heard is condemnation. As an equal co-worker, Stephen, it's never your job to tell someone they've been fired. That's the boss's job. quote: Hey, you brought them up, big guy. I won't compare innate sexual orientation to free choices if you won't? quote: It's not my job, Stephen, to either define or deny sin. It's not my job to encourage or discourage my own vision of morality. It's not my job to protect people either from themselves or from God. What doesn't, in any demonstrable way, harm me or mine simply isn't any of my business. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: If it's possible for me to get the two confused in your eyes, ever think it might be possible for others? ... even you maybe? Have valid warnings ever been dismissed as arrogant and even cruel? Stephen. |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Actually, the will of God is quite clear in His word. And if gay marriage is legal, everyone WILL have to accept the fact that these two people are married, even if they walk into a church that doesn't believe it is so. Also, marital benifits exist because most married couples start *families*. That is something that homosexual couples cannot do. I can understand the desire for a gay couple to have things like power over life support choices, esc.. but I'm pretty sure that anyone can be given power of attourney, and that if you make a will, you can leave your money and belongings to anyone you wish, no legal marriage needed. Also.. I don't hate homosexuals, and I'm not afraid of them. I'm a music major in a large university! I have several gay friends.. and I believe that homosexuality, as I believe I said before, is a sinful tendency. We all have sinful tendencys, so I'd be silly to hate someone for that, when I have sinful tendencys of my own. Oh, make me Thine forever And should I fainting be Lord, let me never ever Outlive my love for Thee |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm sure they have, Stephen. Did their validity make them any less arrogant or cruel, though? At the end of the day, denying someone a right or privilege that you and others enjoy isn't a warning. It's a punishment for being different. quote: Over the past two thousand years, Erica, some very smart men, like Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, have spent a lot of time and effort exploring the meaning and intent of the Bible. Why do you think that is? |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
I agree that many things are open to interpetation.. but I think on this issue, it's quite clear. I know there's always some wiggle room, but this issue seems to have very little of that in the Bible. Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"Wow. Finally. A recognition that there are reasons for my position beyond naked morality." Stephen, I know the internet can be fairly hard to read emotions and implications on, but when I said: "I mean, it's "bad" in all the same ways gay marriage is... bad for the kids, unstable relationship, more likely to cheat, screws up your chances of getting into heaven, etc. etc." The quotation marks were meant to imply sarcasm. I don't think cohabitation is bad (or I wouldn't be doing it) any more than I think gay marriages and families are bad, any more than I think single-parent families are bad. Yes, they all have challenges, and so do mom-and-dad families, especially with wife-beating husbands, and parents who cheat on each other, and the divorce rate... might I suggest to you that it's better to be raised by one parent than have a 50% chance of being exposed to divorce? I'm sure you'd disagree- and for good reason, because there is nothing inherently wrong with two-parent families, despite the challenges they encounter. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with any other kind of family. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: quote: Another hypothetical: a Christian missionary converts a Third World tribal leader who has ten wives. Biblical texts frown on polygamy (at best) and consider it sin. Could, then, the new convert continue to reject the idea that polygamy is something requiring repentance and still be an authentic Christian? Should he immediately disown all but one wife? Your question really is about the degree of sanctification that takes place concurrent with justification (i.e., derivative sanctification). This is, what you alluded to earlier, what gives us both freedom from the wages of sin AND the dominion of sin. The real question is whether homosexual behavior is necessarily changed at the moment of faith in order for the profession of faith to be validated. I don’t think so. Regardless of whether you admit it or not, by tacking homosexual behavior to derivative sanctification, you are linking this specific moral conduct to salvation (hence, semi-Pelagianism). Certainly, there will be some moral change immediately following the moment of faith (which is evidence of the authenticity of faith), but I think you’re in error if you believe homosexual behavior must be completely and immediately extinguished as a requisite to a valid salvation experience. In time, I believe the homosexual will be faced with some important decisions as he or she grows in faith. Those struggles may involve failures, but biblical teaching is pretty clear that we are not judged on our failures because Christ atonement efficaciously covers our past, present, and future failures. If it didn’t, how could we say with any confidence that we are indeed freed from the wages of sin? Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Multiple Choice: a) The Bible is of a divine origin and therefore worthy of deciphering to the best of our ability b) The Bible is practical, meeting the needs of the pragmatist in us all, and therefore requires study and practice. c) The Bible is intriguing and mystical and describes the ineffable, meeting the needs of the philosopher/ mystic in us all, and therefore requires study and speculative discussion. d) All of the above. e) The Bible is ambiguous, arbitrary, and patched with cultural bias and error, and pretty much as pliable as we want it to be. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The problem with A, B and C, Stephen, is that none of the choices explain why study is either necessary nor even desirable if, as Erica contended, "the will of God is quite clear in His word." Is there something more important than the will of God, something perhaps not entirely clear, that we should be getting from the Bible? The problem with E as a choice is that you're mixing far too much into one bowl of stew. Throwing lizard gizzards in with the steak doesn't make the gizzards more palatable. I don't want to take this thread any more off-topic than it is (since marriage has nothing to do with Christianity), but will quickly say that "arbitrary" should be removed (or at least moved), and "All of the above" should be shifted to indeed include ALL four choices, not just the three you seem to like. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Hush, there are several different threads running in this topic. One is the moral issue. Is homosexuality immoral or not? There are those who think it is, as well as those who think it's not. And then there is the legality issue. What should marriage be according to law? There are different views on that as well. Jim and I (as far as I can tell) seem to be in agreement that homosexuality is immoral. We are not however in agreement about the legal issue concerning marriage. Ron and I, however, part ways on both questions. The moral issue is further divided I think into morals based on pure pragmatism versus morals based upon something more foundational. You (if I've learned anthing of you from our discussions) tend to decide whether or not something is right, by your perception of outcome and whether or not it "works" for the individual. I think my moral view differs from yours on two points. 1) Pragmatically. Those things you mentioned "sarcastically" that were bad about co-habitation and homosexual marriage, are valid concerns to me. So we simply disagree about outcomes. And while I'm aware that my view of outcomes can be biased by my ethos, I think you should also be aware that yours can also be biased by your individualistic view of ethics. 2) Foundationally. While you think that the moral question is pretty much suspended until the chips are cashed in, and pros and cons are measured, I think the moral question goes deeper. I think that immoral things can often be justified on pragmatic grounds, either negatively or positively, either by a perceived lack of ill effects or perceived benefits. In fact if every moral issue were decided by evaluating personal wellbeing alone, the whole idea of "morality" is lost. Of course the problem lies in our perception. Ron settles this by talking of the "long-term or enlightened self interest" versus "short-term self interest". I agree with this partly, but don't dream that that can be the whole story. No one can know enough of what will be "long term" or even "short term", in order to justify refusing the moral imperatives of God. Even if the results of "cohabitation" were statistically more bad than pleasurable, if my ethic was based on that outcome alone, I wouldn't necessarily be against playing against odds either. Heck, I've always admired the daringness of gamblers anyway. But although morality often determines outcome, outcome does not always determine morality. Therefore, even if one can be the "exception" rather than the rule, by playing against the odds, that doesn't make it right. Having said that, I would reemphasize that I don't think everything considered immoral should be illegal. I am a LONG way from that view. However I think differences between making a private personal decision illegal, and preserving a publicly sanctioned institution are not hard to see. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-04-2004 12:43 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Not at all. Sanctification is evidence of salvation, not the grounds for it. If you attack all such references to evidence of salvation, you also will end up attacking much scripture as "semi-Pelagian" ... such as "You shall know a tree by it's fruit" and many others. Look, I never was denying the possibility of homosexual temptations, struggles, even actual sins and failures existing alongside a true Christian faith. I was responding to what I felt was a question aimed at making homosexuality out to be compatible with the gospel of Christ ... something acceptable, perhaps even the way God made us, and certainly nothing to repent of. quote: I thought the real question was whether homosexual behaviour is necessarily changed AT ALL. At least that's the one I was trying to answer. Contextually that's the question Reg and others have seemed to be asking. I think you and I actually agree on this, if we can just agree on which question we're answering. quote: How true Jim. However, referring to homosexual acts as "failure" pressupposes a goal, and one in the opposite direction of homosexuality. I was really talking of homosexuals who join the church and try to justify the sin, and ask God to change his mind rather than themselves, who admit no need for repentance, and therefore can technically have no "failure". We are, I believe, talking about two different situations. Grace can be no license to sin, though "Grace Alone" is certainly an indispensable creed of our faith. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, my point was, there is no necessary connection between how much something is studied, by so many intelligent scholars, and a lack of clarity. We continue to study the stars, yet don't doubt the basics we have learned. We continue to study mathematics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc. But that doesn't mean there are not things about these which are very clear to us. If you want to make the point that scripture is nebulous in areas, I'll concede. If you want to make the point that homosexuality is one of them, you'll have to do more than just say it is. It's one of the clearest categorical emphatic statements in the Bible. It occurs multiple times throughout it's pages, with NO countering scriptures. (Hey, even Paul's statements about long hair had a counter-example in the Nazarite of the Old Testament, and was only ONE scripture). It is trans-testamental. It is even connected with historical judgements and the wrath of God in the book of Genesis. What I'd like you to attempt, is to defend the claim that the Bible is ambiguous about whether or not homosexuality is sin ... using nothing less (notice I didn't say nothing more) than the Bible as your proof-text. Doing this by referring us to the scriptures, and the actual subject under discussion, is more difficult than constantly referring to separate issues (such as Geocentrism, long-hair, and Slavery), and throwing red herrings... but it is more persuasive. (all this talk about lizard gizzards and red herrings is making my stomach growl! )Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Good analogy, Stephen. Both science and Christianity include abundant historical instances where we thought something was very clear, only to discover it wasn't. Indeed, the greatest stumbling blocks we've face throughout time, in both science and religion, have almost invariably been our reluctance to reevaluate our seeming clarity. quote: I already have. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!" Any interpretation of scripture that advocates prejudice and persecution instead of acceptance and love is at odds with the underlying foundation of Christian teachings. Either the interpretation is faulty or we need to redefine the message of Christ. I, obviously, prefer the former. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- I agree with your assessment that in a lot of ways I tend to see what works practically and apply it to life. But I don't think I take it to extremes- there's thisguy- I forget his name, but a big utilitarianist, who thinks that infanticide should be legal because infants aren't aware of themselves and therefore don't value their lives... however, it is wrong to kill animals of higher intelligence, such as certain mammals and birds, because there is the possibility that they do ahve the intelligence to value their own lives. I agree with you when you say: " I think that immoral things can often be justified on pragmatic grounds, either negatively or positively, either by a perceived lack of ill effects or perceived benefits. In fact if every moral issue were decided by evaluating personal wellbeing alone, the whole idea of "morality" is lost." I think that there is a point where you ahve to step up and say "This is wrong." I just think that point is so different for everyone, and that's why we get into these endless debates. To you, infringing upon the sacred institution of marriage is wrong, to me, infringing on people's right to do what they wish is wrong. I'm basically ready to agree to disagree here, with one minor point for thought to add: "However I think differences between making a private personal decision illegal, and preserving a publicly sanctioned institution are not hard to see." Should we have preserved the publicly sanctioned institution of voting as a club open only to white landowning males? It's an expansion of the institution, not a destruction of it. Anyway, I'm done here, I just can't do it anymore... have fun everyone. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: There's a problem with your use (or misuse I think) of this scripture. The scripture seems to take for granted that the sin being judged is truly sin, never questioning that point. It only questions the state of those ready to inflict punishment, and the right they have to do so. This scripture is anything but a defense of sin. But your stance is quite different from the one offered in this scripture, you deny it is sin at all. How could you say with Christ, "Go and sin no more", if you think it's not really sin? Now you can argue how legislating a protection of traditional marriage is "casting a stone". But I'm still trying to hold your feet to the fire on the issue of "sin or not". Because I think the legislative view is influenced heavily by what we believe about the moral issue. Your "don't cast any stones" argument may or may not hold up on these issues of public policy, or even private action. But it doesn't provide any Biblical argument for homosexuality not being really sin. Don't you see that the scriptures you're quoting have conceded the point of the behavior(s) being wrong? In fact the strength of such scriptures hinges on that very thing, as if to say "Don't judge! You're doing the same thing". Would such a rebuke make any sense if the woman caught in adultery wasn't really an adulterer, but a victim of social prejudice? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Every sin that heterosexuals commit, it seems when homosexuals commit them OR heterosexuals in homosexual acts those sins are treated not just as sins but placed in the coverall term "homosexuality" I think this harshly displaces anger and blame for the actual sin--adultery, lechery, etc, and makes out homosexual adultery, homosexual lechery etc as "homosexuality" Yet when heterosexuals sin, no one shall ever call them by their sexuality--"heterosexuals". If a heterosexual commits adultery, it is adultery and he or she is an adulterer for that, not a "heterosexual" Does anyone see what I am trying to show? After you take away all the misuse and abuse of the word homosexuality, which itself I think truly grows into mistreatment of the people involved themselves--After you remove making the word "homosexuality" a cover-all for all homosexuals may do--and sins that heterosexuals commit too as "homosexuality" when homosexuals commit them too (or heterosexuals in homosexual acts), what is left as the sin? We return again to fixing upon gender and gender-combination, or gender-preference, and judging and discriminating based on that--which is once more sexism |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, You are presupposing homosexual orientation and acts to be normative and morally neutral. If that were true, then your points would be more than valid. But I don't share your presupposition. And I've already explained why. If homosexual acts ARE lecherous, then it is no use contrasting a lecherous homosexual with a non-lecherous homosexual. Do you see my point? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What I am saying is that lechery is lechery, adultery is adultery, etc not homosexuality or heterosexuality. Why do you seem to believe otherwise? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, (we're here at the same time. Wanna Instant message?) Is homosexuality different that heterosexuality? Thus it can be spoken of in it's own regard. Lechery is Lechery, Slavery is Slavery, Apples are Apples, and Homosexuality is Homosexuality. I'm not understanding your point. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, think of it this way. If homosexuality (all kinds and expressions, monogamous or otherwise) is wrong, then there is no such thing as "homosexual adultery", or "homosexual lechery". You have to start from the idea that homosexuality is normative and morally "okay" to even allow these words to describe a type of homosexual activity. The reason adultery is not called "heterosexual adultery" is because the heterosexual configuration is normative, and taken for granted. But adultery and homosexuality have this in common, they are both forms of sexually immorality, a general term that describes any sexual expression that strays from God's standards. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey Ess, We've been down this road before, and I don't mind explaining again, or trying to clarify, but I think we've covered all the bases on this thread (and then some). Despite it's continuance, I think the groaning has begun long enough ago to start winding this one up. Email me. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, May we keep our parliament in this thread? It is already come this far, now we--all of us-- should start working more towards our unanimous agreement Or some sort of compromise at least! "Is homosexuality different that heterosexuality?" Yes; but it is also similar It is a "cognate.""Thus it can be spoken of in it's own regard. Lechery is Lechery, Slavery is Slavery, Apples are Apples, and Homosexuality is Homosexuality. I'm not understanding your point. " My point is that people try to make out homosexuality as perversity, backed up by what seems perversity in the bible as well, when that is what homosexuality is taken to by people that make neglectful and wrong choices, the same way as heterosexuality is taken to wrongs and ill choices too. (hetero/homo) Sexuality/sexual personality is not the wrong itself, but ill will and ill doings about sexuality are. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-05-2004 03:50 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"think of it this way. If homosexuality (all kinds and expressions, monogamous or otherwise) is wrong, then there is no such thing as "homosexual adultery", or "homosexual lechery". IF all kinds and expressions were wrong that "IF" would not be there. But we know far otherwise--that all kinds and expressions are NOT wrong. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Whoa, not so fast. Let's remember context. When I said "all kinds and expressions", I meant all kinds and expressions of homosexuality. I was not making a generalized statement. Secondly, if you are taking the context I meant, what do you mean by saying that if all expressions of homosexuality were wrong "the IF wouldn't be there"? That's not a true statement. That's like saying in Galileo's time "If the Earth rotated around the sun, the If wouldn't be there". Questions seek answers but they don't determine them. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That's what I meant too Stephenos. "If ALL expressions and kinds are wrong" is like beginning a statement with "if all the weather is always rainy..." . It doesn't make much sense because we know the weather is not always rainy, and we know that homosexuality is not locked into one behavior. That's because it is sexuality not one act, one behavior, one choice, or one outcome. It has all the possible depth that heterosexuality has, only with the difference of involving people of the same sex. Any differences that you may show between heterosexuality and homosexualiy don't come anywhere close to the similarities because sexuality is almost as vague as saying "nature" "will" "behavior" It is not at as fixed as "gender" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, your argument is that homosexuality is too complex to be immoral? Too broad? Is that some kind of rule, like Occam's razor in reverse? But it is the denial of God's will and design that makes this type of behavior immoral. I could just as easily say (by your standards) that pornography and group-sex are too complex and varied in their expressions to be immoral. And after all, only consenting, willing adults are involved. I've heard you call these behaviors "lecherous" and immoral in other posts, Essorant. Why are they immoral? Upon what basis? I just want to point out, once more, that by your own standards, your own moral convictions about certain sexual behaviors fall by the wayside too. You're using a double standard. You are denying that certain sexual practices can be intrinsically immoral, on one hand, yet complaining of sexual "perversion" on the other, making referece to other forms of free sexual preference that you don't like. What gives? quote: Which is what I've been saying all along ... and the very reason that deeming homosexual orientation immoral cannot cogently be compared to racism or sexism. Stephen. |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
MAN + WOMAN + commitment = marriage. No such thing as "holy" matrimony without this equation, no matter how decayed morals in america become, and i do think they will get worse... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Did you happen to notice into which forum you wandered, dc? Maybe you'd like to support that with, well you know, evidence or logic or something? |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
well ron, a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina. these two organs were made to fit together, unlike a penis and an anus. so , it not only defies god, but nature. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm not sure how you determined either what does and doesn't fit or who "made" it to fit, but frankly, I'd just as soon not know. We're up to nearly 400 posts in this thread and see no reason at this point to get it moved behind closed doors. So, you believe the defining characteristic of marriage is sex? If two people can't get sweaty in a manner dictated by you, they can't get married? I presume if two people stop having sex (as dictated by you, of course), their marriage should be dissolved as well? (You might want to pass that one by your grandparents before answering.) |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
Well, Ron, marriage is more than just sex, of course, but if it weren't for the sexual part, then marriage could consist of either gender's unification. just like the topic indicates. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So you only want to consider the sexual aspect because you think it implies the limitations you want? Sorry, but if sex is important then it logically has to apply to everyone. Any person with a physical disability that prevents sex (by your definition, of course) can't participate in marriage, regardless whether that disability is a result of age, infirmity or even just disinclination. However, if sexual activity is not important enough to be a determining factor, that TOO has to apply to everyone. |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
Well, if sex is not relevent in marriage, then there is no need for marriage to be restricted to just male and female.then why marry at all? i love my best friend, who is a male, but i see no need to marry him. the fact is , sex is a relevant issue of marriage, and i'm not trying to argue a hypothetical issue. marriage is a holy institution honored by God. While man's corruption may condone same sex marriage, it is an abomination to God. So if marriage constitutes "holy" matrimony, and same sex marriage is an abomination, then why even marry at all? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I think Gender would be more essential to the marriage question, rather than individual sexual ability. Just because someone can't have sex, doesn't change their gender. It does however remain necessarily linked to sexuality in a general way. That way, individual exceptions (as you like to bring up for your argument) do not disprove the rule. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Gender is only essential to sexism. |
||
|
JoshG Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127TX, USA |
Stephanos has a point and it was made about 10 post back. This topic is never going to be agreed upon, no matter what logic is used. The people involved in this conversation obviously live by different perspectives, beliefs, logics, etc. There is not an absolute truth to those that do not believe in the Bible and the God that facilitates is promise's, commandments, etc. The only merit to the anti-homosexuality argument is one based on absolute belief in what God's word says about it. The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is because God said. Yes, I am a Christian, but I know the limits of human logic and this topic goes beyond those abilities. I am not saying that we couldn't sit here and argue symantics all day, but at the end of that day you still have different opinions. It will not be this thread that changes minds, but the truth of revelations that makes believers out of the masses. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Marriage isn't about love, either, DreamChild. It's about commitment. And if you and your bud wanted to spend the rest of your lives taking care of each other, marriage is one of the few ways to remove the legal obstacles that would otherwise prevent you from doing so. quote: That's cool, too, Stephen. Because, homosexual or hetero, essential or not, we all pretty much have genders. quote: Thank you, Josh. Since no one yet has been able to show that homosexuality is wrong, its morality is, indeed, the crux of the matter. And, of course, if one believe something is immoral, the answer is fairly simple. Don't do it. Religion is based on a personal relationship with God, with an emphasis on personal. You are free to worship as you wish, which certainly includes living your life in accordance with your beliefs. You are NOT free, however, to force those beliefs on others. Certainly not legally, and in my opinion, not even morally. Humanity wasn't given free will to choose just so you or others like you could take it away. By all means, choose for yourself. Let others do the same. And both will reap the consequences of their choices. Isn't THAT what God intended? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Pardon me, Ron, but defining this in legislation whether pro or anti homosexual, is in some measure "forcing those beliefs on others". Since traditional marriage is the most widely accepted view, for many a moral issue, and by many a foundational aspect of our civilization, I see the angry push by the few who want it (through the arbitrary actions of judges who sidestep any "voting" in determining such weighty issues) as quite an imposition on a culture which feels that it will be harmful and lamentable for many reasons. My point is, when two differ in opinion in matters concerning public policy, SOMEONE is imposed upon. So why not just argue your case, rather than ad hominem villify those who disagree with you? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: My point was, that using examples of sexual inability to downplay the intrinsic connection between sex and marriage is about as valid as opting to include every man in the Army since some already enlisted don't actually fight in the war. Or that a grown man should be able to join the Boy Scouts, since some twelve year olds have facial hair too. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But are any of those reasons based on something other than bias and prejudice, Stephen? No one yet has been able to show compelling evidence that your "feelings" have any basis in fact. I've said many times I don't think you can force your beliefs on others. Well, guess what? I don't think you can force your feelings on others, either. It doesn't matter if marriage is the most widely accepted view, it doesn't matter if it is a moral issue (that especially doesn't matter), and it doesn't matter if it was a foundational aspect of civilization. Each of those points have been equally true of any number of wrongs that have been righted in the past five thousand years. You want to deny someone their rights for no other reason than you don't like them, you don't understand them, and you are afraid of some nebulous "might-be" no one has been able to demonstrate. Ain't gonna fly. quote: I understood your point, Stephen. But you didn't state it very well and you're still not stating it very well. That's not surprising, since it's a bit specious and more than a bit circular. Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage isn't about procreation. Marriage isn't necessarily even about love. You find it hard to honestly argue those points because, after all, they reflect several thousand years worth of reality. So, you want to make Gender the answer to the issue. Excuse me, Stephen? Gender can't be the answer to the issue, because Gender IS the issue. You're simply restating your destination and calling it a road. |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
Ron, " Marriage isn't about love, either, DreamChild. It's about commitment. And if you and your bud wanted to spend the rest of your lives taking care of each other, marriage is one of the few ways to remove the legal obstacles that would otherwise prevent you from doing so. " What kinda legal obstacles would keep me from being with my bud forever, anyway? "And, of course, if one believe something is immoral, the answer is fairly simple. Don't do it." Are you suggesting that morality is based on an individuals own philosophies? Well, is murder ok?, if it's for a good cause? Or is it ok for people to have sex with children if they consent? You know adultery is still illegal, and anal sex too, that's sodomy. "By all means, choose for yourself. Let others do the same. And both will reap the consequences of their choices. Isn't THAT what God intended?" I think it's a little deeper than that. "You want to deny someone their rights for no other reason than you don't like them, you don't understand them, and you are afraid of some nebulous "might-be" no one has been able to demonstrate." I know several gay people that are really great people, even friends, and i have no dislike for any gay person just because of their sexual preferences. Indeed I don't understand that preference, but I am not afraid of homosexuality, or even it's ever growing acceptance in society. I just don't agree with it. "Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage isn't about procreation. Marriage isn't necessarily even about love." Marriage is about all of these things, not just commitment. The commitment is just the individuals decision to not relent, and that can be so without being married. There's a thing called truth, and no matter whether you can prove it or not, it still is. People may have no concience anymore, but with a society like ours, that allows such things as same sex marriages, and abortion, who can blame them. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Then your answer proves the point of my starting this thread. If you can't find a "point" to marriage (at least your arguments have been without one), then it will not endure as anything other than an insipid civil contract between parties, without boundaries or really purpose. Even all your reasons earlier about "caring" and "commitment" are only examples of traditional views. Your constant reliance upon ambiguity (the universal solvent) to always establish your view, will nix your assumptions too if you're not careful. There's no container (or meaningful framework) that is able to store it. Since all eleven states that just recently voted on the legalization of gay marriage, voted AGAINST it, how do you conclude that I'm "forcing my feelings on others"? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Oh, in a democratic society it doesn't? hmmm... You're right if and only if it violates the rights of someone. quote: I guess you just barred yourself from using the "rights" argument then. Yes, barring someone's rights IS a moral issue, only according to your own standards it especially doesn't matter. quote: Really? Tell us why such a weight of history should not be considered. And repeating over and over that old wrongs have been done is not enough ... for many things have endured by value rather than by treachery and oppression. My point is that if historical precedence alone cannot be used alone to defend traditional marriage, then much less can historical abuses alone be used to change that definition. There has to be more discussion about why we should automatically think that the present views on traditional marriage, (and those of hundreds and hundreds of years) are due to bigotry and cruelty. You make this claim, but I don't see much to support it. quote: So? They have also been true of any number of good and right things as well. You've brought up a number of these "wrongs" before. And yet I've shown that the defense of Geo-centrism, Slavery, and Segregation, are all very different from the present question of marriage. quote: This has nothing to do with I like. There are many things which I dislike, which I do not disapprove. And as I've said before, history has demonstrated the harm of a cultural / legal recognition of homosexual relations as legitimate. Unless you think Sodom was fictive. Then there's the historian Gibbon's views of homosexuality and the decline of Rome. And rights DO matter to me, by the way. It's just that I am prepared to argue that maintaining traditional marriage is not really violating someone's rights. You haven't established why anyone should have the right to marry the same gender. If this is an issue about rights (as you say it is) then you are begging the question as well. Watch the circle ... quote: Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Read the rest of the thread, DreamChild. There are about 1,100 legal benefits to marriage that you and your bud have to forsake, and more than a few social ones. Hell, you probably won't even be able to visit him in the hospital should he get seriously ill. You're not immediate family, you see. quote: Which is exactly the kind of vague non-answer I keep hearing. quote: Bull. That's not truth, it's superstition. And vague. And when you use superstition against other people, it's dangerous. quote: The point of marriage, Stephen, like the point of so many social relationships, is individually determined. All of your attempts to mold it into your own image continue to fail because WE are not in your image. quote: Stephen, I don't think you understand what a moral issue is. If you refrain from punching your neighbor in the nose only because the Bible tells you it would be bad, you have made a moral choice. If you refrain because you don't want to be punched back, morality is NOT an issue, no matter what the Bible has to say about punching. Protecting your own nose or your own rights are pragmatic social issues. quote: How about 'cause history is a poor authority, with an abysmal batting average? quote: You've shown no such thing, nor can you, because the differences are minute compared to the similarities. Bigotry follows the same path in each instance. quote: Your historical evidence, in every instance, is purely speculative and circumstantial. You might as well claim the colonists were able to successfully break away because there were known, practicing homosexuals in Mother England. There's no cause and effect. Worse, I think you're demonstrating your biases when you equate homosexuality to debauchery, which is more likely the true ill. News flash, Stephen. Heterosexuals can debauch with the best of them. quote: The real question Why should homosexuals have the legal right to marry whom they wish. Ron's answer Because you do. |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
" The point of marriage, Stephen, like the point of so many social relationships, is individually determined. " Well, no wonder so many replies are vague, Ron but i thought you earlier stated that marriage was about commitment? And will you not reply to the question and statements made concerning morals being determined by the individual? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Commitment is the common element to most, if not all, reasons. Even that, however, can't be a criteria for marriage, not so long as we allow divorces and annulments. Bottom line is, any rule you use to define marriage or preclude marriage between two people has to be applied to ALL groups of people equally. Otherwise, by definition, it's discrimination. quote: Is it relevant? If you'd like to discuss the origins of morality, it should probably be in another thread. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay, good news everybody! I totally have the answer to this dillemma. We'll keep the traditional view of marriage! You see, my father is going to pay my boyfriend to marry me, or vice versa, depending on where and when I live! Actually, he's probably just going to pick one of his buddies who's twice my age, but that's cool too. If my new husband-to-be isn't careful though, some other man might steal me... that's right! physically steal me, right then and there! Man, I better be careful. I also better be sure to submit to my husband and obey him too, or I might be subject to some corporal punishment (rule of thumb in mind, of course...). I better be a virgin at my marriage, which incidentally occured eight years ago when I was thirteen... and I'm gonna bear plenty of children, however many he wants, despite high mortality rates both for myself and my infants. I will keep a clean house and I won't have a career. The only problem with this scenario (besides the fact that I'm being treated like garbage) is that there are probably a dozen cultures and time periods represented in it. Traditional marriage? From when? You guys want fathers to pick out husbands for their daughters? You ladies want to "obey" your husbands? Why was it okay to change all that, but not this one other thing? What makes it okay? Probably because there are less gays in the world then their are women- naturally, we get to treat them like crap for longer. You don't like gays? You think it's a sin? Easy solution- don't get into bed with someone of your same sex!!! Don't sin!!! But let ye amongst you cast the first stone... because I don't think any of you should dare tell me what I can do in my bed and who I can call husband, or wife in this case. And even if you think you have the moral authority- this government should have neither the moral, or (for obvious reasons) the religious authority to tell me not to do something because it's sinful. This topic disgusts me... look in a mirror and ask yourself why you're so scared of people being happy in a different way than you're happy. Oh, wait, it's not about fear... sorry, I forgot. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: It is just as much societally determined. Your hyper-indivualism that you depend on here for your case, is a caricature of the way it really is. quote: Sure. But that's not ALL they are. Social issues always have moral implications. Rarely does any one choose not to punch their neighbor JUST because they are afraid of getting punched back. If that's the only reason then they've got a problem. Rarely is it either/ or, morality or practical consequence. It's usually a mixture of both. Neither do the makers of public policy only protect others because they are concerned what happens to the "system", or to themselves. So, yes, morality IS an issue. You attempt to morally sterilize all of the decisions of civil government, and out of some arbitrary philosophizing of your own, say that every decision is, or must be, born of pure egoism. I simply don't believe you. For that artificial dichotomy doesn't make sense. It's based upon a modern philosophical stance, not the testimony of many many people who would say otherwise. It's also very counter-intuitive to what we all know and feel. You yourself are opposing this based upon a moral stance ... the violation of rights. Since neither you nor I have seen the actual results of this decision in American Culture, to argue from pragmatism is IMPOSSIBLE. Surely you can see that you are not arguing from pragmatism? Governments are no more able to shed the moral question when it comes to legislation, than you are able to shake it when you greet your family every morning. Morality is an intractable part of life, not a separate compartment. quote: Then what are you basing your pragmatic arguments upon, the future? Where's that crystal ball of yours Ron? quote: Alright. Let's hear it. How then is the stance of Geo-centrism by the Church so similar to this issue? Remember that Geo-centrism (based on Aristotelian cosmology) is NOT taught in the Bible, and that it was refuted by pretty solid objective scientific findings. That much alone makes it miles apart from this issue. quote: I'll concede bigotry where it can be shown. But to take bigotry from the past, ascertained from entirely distinct issues, and simply project it onto those who disagree with you in the present is nothing but ad hominem. And remember that abysmally poor batting average? What's that Louisville slugger from the 1600s doing in your hand again? quote: Well Ron, are you only allowing something to be fit for argument when you can use it to your purpose? Don't draw the line of debauchery so confidently after you've basically said that it is too ambiguous for humans to try and express (remember the pornography thread where you didn't even think the word should have a definition?) Homosexuality is a form of debauchery. quote: I've never had the right to marry "whom I wish". It all depends upon what my wishes are doesn't it? If I wished to marry my wife AND another lady, that would be bigamy or polygamy. Doesn't matter if the women consent or not. If I want to marry my brother, I am denied, even if he and I both consent. Sometimes it is best for "wishes" to conform to social norms, and if not, to be left unmet or unrealized. using wishes and desires as the foundation for your argument, really isn't an argument. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-21-2005 12:01 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, The only problem with your rant ... er, I mean argument, is that you want to take every particular surrounding marriage through the centuries, and say ... "If we didn't retain these other aspects, why should we have to retain this one?" Not willing to concede any differences. Or at least not willing discuss whether or not there even IS a fundamental to what defines marriage.I believe that the relations between male and female, represent something foundational and irreducible in marriage. And you know that's my view. But I would ask you, what's the fundamental for you? Anything? ... Nothing? Ultimately what IS marriage anyway? Oh yeah, that's the title of this thread isn't it? See I can easily explain some reasons why I think some of the other things you mentioned are not fundamentals, (though perhaps important, and perhaps good advice, perhaps not) like the question of gender relations. But can you answer for me, what the decisive stopping point will be in this push to challenge every previous view of what marriage really is? Don't you see what's happening? Even in this thread, it's gone farther than expected. Ron began by putting forth committment and caring as fundamentals, and just recently recanted that. Once the banana peal of relativistic thinking takes hold, there is no stopping. I think the same will be true in the public arena. Therefore, What IS marriage? When you eliminate the necessity of male / female reciprocity, you eliminate something fundamental. Whatever is left, ain't marriage. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, Stephen, I do think marriage is a relative thing. What about married couples who also swing? Is their marriage not a marriage because it defies monogamy? I honestly feel that if a man wants to marry two women- I have no moral qualm, as long as they all agree. I think a cap would ahve to be put on number of partners to be legally recognized, sheerly for finincial purposes- ie- it's hard enough to get one person approved for Medicaid, let alone five. We've been over why adult's can't marry kids or animals- no legal consent. They are not capable of entering into the binding contract- at least not legally. So, once again, is there a sound practical reason not to legally acknowledge these marriage? There's God says it's wrong, It's unnatural, it's bad for the kids (which is arguable, subjective, and unproved either way)- but no good reason to object... just God, god, and more God. And yes, it was a rant, because I'm tired, and it's just so incomprehensible to me that anyone would actually care if the kids down the street have two moms. It's so incomprehensible that you think it's any of your business, and that you think it's okay to call the shots on who can marry who. You talk about this being foisted on the majority- nothing is being foisted besides a simple right. Nobody is making anybody attend, consecrate (religiously) or like gay marriage. Just to accept it the way the majority was forced to accept black kids in the same classroom as white kids. That's all, and I just don't see what's so hard about it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: No of course not. But their marriage is still their marriage, and their swinging is their swinging. Swinging is "extra curricular" so to speak. Just like flirting would be unhealthy to my marriage, but it is not central to it. Unless you want to say that the "swingers" are actually entering legal / marital contract with other partners? Gender reciprocity however is central to what marriage is. quote: regardless of your financial limit ... if it is percieved as a "right" then the financial plan will need to be adjusted, not the marital limitation. That is, after all, (I'm speaking facetiously) infringing on someone's rights. quote: Well homosexuals cannot enter a marriage contract legally. The question is about what the laws should be, not what they currently are. Why shouldn't intelligent children be able to marry? Pederasty (homosexual relations between men and boys) was honored and recognized culturally in Roman society. I agree with you about children by the way. My point is, more will be challenged and overturned than you think. And current law apparantly means little, as an argument, or I would have already won my position. quote: Gee, I'll bet your reasons against child marriage would be similar to these. I guess everything is subjective, if you want to insist on it. See my point? quote: Oh thanks Hush. I guess I hadn't thought about it. (is your sarcasm rubbing off on me?? )No really, you can't imagine that it is that simple, that changing the societal definition of marriage would not have wide wide implications, for myself, my family and my children. The entire educational system will no doubt be revamped to teach homosex as normative, and NOT based upon scientific reasons or research, but on the bare assertion that the courts once deemed it a "right". Any teaching or portrayal of traditional marriage as the ideal (in art, literature, or otherwise) will be repealed from the public square, as bigoted intolerant, and "backward". Publicly schooled children (perhaps mine or my neighbors) will be encouraged perhaps to consider for the first time the possibilty of alternate lifestyles. Church pastors will probably be tried for "hate speech" when they teach traditional male/female marriage as the ideal. These are big issues which don't cease to be large, just because you say, "Stephen why can't you just live and let live". And if some of what I say seems far fetched, look at Canada. These trends are increasing there. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Whose moral implications, Stephen? You see, that's the whole problem with using morality to guide society. We are all part of the latter, but no one, is some five thousand years, has ever quite managed to agree upon the former. You want to define marriage according to morality? Cool. But let's use one that is NOT Christian and see how happy you are then. What you really want, but don't have the courage to admit even to yourself, is that everyone conform to YOUR morality. quote: I didn't say history should be ignored, Stephen. I just said it isn't an authority on what is right and wrong. It is, however, a really good indication of what does and doesn't work. quote: Hate and homophobia isn't taught in the Bible, either, Stephen. And like Geo-centrism, hate and homophobia will also one day be recognized as human failings, not divine inspiration. I find it interesting you chose Geo-centrism, Stephen, glossing over slavery and segregation, which are clearly much more closely aligned with homosexual discrimination. quote: And I'll concede the lack of bigotry when the bigots can give ONE good reason for denying others the same rights they enjoy. I'll even take a bad reason if it's based on something besides a long history of hate and prejudice. quote: You probably shouldn't tell that to your wife, Stephen. Chances are, she thought you did marry who you wished. quote: Sometimes? I'd say, very often. I would not, however, say always. When a person's wishes hurt absolutely no other person, society must conform, not the individual. Else there is no individual and society is but a sham. quote: So, then, don't eliminate it, Stephen. No one is going to force you to redefine your marriage or even your idea of marriage. You and your wife can define it any way you like, as can you and your church, and hell, even you and your neighborhood. YOU DO THAT ALREADY. Everybody does. There is not, and never has been, just one set definition of marriage. Even your own definition will likely change and evolve over the years to come. What you can't do is force your own definition on the rest of the world. You can't take away another's right to choose, Stephen, because you didn't give them that right. He did. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your fear is showing again, Stephen. Next you'll be afraid your children will be exposed to alternate religions? You seem to have a fixation on controlling others, Stephen. Why are you are so very afraid that even your own children will be given choices to make? What is WRONG with considering the possibility of alternate lifestyles? Do you really prefer ignorance over free will? |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
Ron, you have a point concerning rights. But Stephen has a good point concerning polygomy. How can same sex marriages be allowed, but not polygomy? Is it tradition? Is it morals? What is wrong with polygomy, if there's nothing wrong with same sex marriages? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You tell me, DC. If it's between consenting adults and harms no one else, what IS wrong with polygamy? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: I was trying to show you that your concern about "rights" is a moral one too. And therefore your soapbox about the incompatibility of morality and social / legal issues just caved in. You're contradicting your own standards. If you really feel that we should throw morality out of public life because no one has agreed upon it with unanimity, then we should just as easily throw out your "rights" argument, since no one has ever agreed on just who should have what "rights" either. And no one has ever agreed on what constitutes harm either, so there goes your "no harm no foul" argument. I mean if you want unanimity to be the standard, you've made it impossible for yourself. It's that nuclear strength relativism again, that always destroys your opponents arguments well enough (not really), but always destroys your own as well. quote: Well, morality is not the sole determiner of what marriage is. So is biology. So is psychology. So is divine decree. So is a fairly consistent societal consensus. And neither is morality the only source of concerns, about what ill effects such a radical change will bring. But let's pretend for a moment that your right ... It still would make little difference as to whether the morality is "Christian" or not, as ALL of the major religions of the world are rejecting homosexual marriage as illegitimate. The moral systems which you always claim differ so much (that's not really true, only a kind of rhetorical assertion) actually tend to agree at least on this issue of homosexual marriage. quote: Well Ron, you're the one making the distinction between what is "right and wrong" and what "works and doesn't work". That distinction is not one that I'm inclined to believe often, if ever, exists. If you prefer to use the morally divested terminology to fit your semi-egoistic views, I too can use that language. It wouldn't be in our "long term self interest", for us or our children. If that past can't show us this for certain, it at least has strong suggestions that it "hasn't worked well" before now. quote: Well hate is something you are inferring from my view. I deny it. Resorting to ad hominem slurs has become too common for you lately. If you're not prepared to argue from the Bible, that the Bible doesn't teach that widespread acceptance of homosexuality is both wrong AND bad for society, then why bring it up? We can certainly go to the scriptures again. But you will then just say that the writers were "biased", or try to say that's not what they really meant. But you never have defended your views textually. Can you explain why sometimes you say "The bible doesn't teach that", and then other times, "We don't have to accept that part of the Bible"?? Whichever one happens to suit you at the moment, I guess. quote: No doubt as clearly as the Sun once seemed to rotate around the Earth? My glossing over was not a glossing at all. It was an abbreviated response since we've already covered much of this. And I merely chose the first example you ever raised in this thread (Geocentrism) I think. But I am quite prepared to explain (again) how this issue differs immensely from slavery and segregation. Lead and I'll follow. quote: I've never had the right to marry another man, Ron. Nor have you ever had the right for your Health insurance company to pay for a Pap Smear. Again, rights must be established before they can be assumed. And if there's ANY doubt as to the social results of such a radical, heedless, anti-democratic push to change the fundamental institution of marriage, then I think it's reasonable to oppose it. quote: So we're just to automatically assume that the precedence of male / female marriage is the result of hate and prejudice, because you say it is? quote: You either left the second part off as a joke, or as an insult, but you surely didn't think that's what I meant. Let's see the whole context again: "I've never had the right to marry 'whom I wish'. It all depends upon what my wishes are doesn't it?" quote: Neither would I Ron. I, and others who oppose homosexual marriage are not out to blast others wishes. But mere wishing cannot be an argument for rights. quote: But it seems like the only thing you would ever accept as proof of "harm", would be an itemized hospital bill or something like that. I don't accept that convenient and narrow view of harm. Sociological problems don't manifest quite that neatly and quickly. They never have. But they are real nonetheless. quote: Who do you refer to by "He"? God? God gave pedophiles the right to choose too, and theives, and murderers, and bigamists, and shop owners, and ballet dancers, and head hunters, and canibals, and accordian players, and vegetarians. Puzzled at my wide array of free choice? You can't use "Choice given by divinity" as some kind of metaphysical argument for whatever social policy you want. It's too broad, and lets in too many things even you would vehemently oppose. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, if you want to call it fear, I've never tried to hide it. I think it's easy to make someone look weak by slurring them with "fear". But fear and prudence, dread and discretion, are not always easily separated in someone else. There is a healthy fear, the opposite of which may be called recklessness, haste, even blindness. Many who have spoken out against Trojan Horses, have seemed overly "fearful" in the eyes of those who disagree. But Troy would have fared better in listening to them. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Homosexuality is a form of debauchery." Stephenos, Heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally capable of being debaucherous or not debaucherous. Gender differences or combinations don't configure or lock people into decency or indecency. People within and among their differences in nature and choice, now wield their own wills in response, and do their own deeds. Gender and sexuality don't. Speak against people and what they do when they express ill will and do ill deeds, but when they simply are different for nature or for choice, if you call them wrong, YOU are doing wrong because that is misspeaking and defamation. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-22-2005 12:39 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You can't, because it isn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality, Stephen. I make no claims as to what is morally right or wrong, and I certainly don't depend on a call to God as an authority. I simply defend my rights and the rights of my children from those whom would wish to restrict them. quote: Sure we have, Stephen. A bit over two hundred years ago. One of them was a freedom from having your religious views legally imposed on us. quote: And several of them, I suspect, would probably make your own marriage illegitimate. At the very least, some would change the definition of it, as you might be forced to share your wife with leaders and family members. Your morality, Stephen, isn't the only one out there. quote: Stephen, there no "immoral" way to wire a new outlet into your house. The outlet either works or it doesn't work, and in neither case will you go to hell for it. There is a whole world out there that has absolutely nothing to do with your morality. quote: Sure it would, Stephen. Especially if one or more of your children happen to be gay. As to the past and your dire suggestions, you're still looking at the wrong thing. We're not legalizing homosexuality, Stephen, so any historical reference to homosexuality is irrelevant. We not legalizing debauchery, which is what you're really referencing, so those are out, too. We're talking about marriage. Show me something in history where letting people get married brought about irreparable harm to society and we've got something to talk about again? quote: Check again, Stephen. My comment that hate isn't taught in the Bible was in direct response to yours that Geo-centrism wasn't taught in the Bible. I didn't bring up the Bible; you did. Again. quote: Stephen, there is always room for doubt. If nothing was ever done in the face of doubt, nothing would ever be done. Southern states in America were making exactly the same kinds of prediction you are making when faced with the reality of inter-racial marriages. Their doubts were, like yours, without foundation. quote: We're not talking about the precedence of male/female marriage, Stephen. We're talking the acceptance of alternatives to the precedence. And, yea, when those alternatives are denied for no logical reasons, the only reasons remaining are emotional ones. quote: I thought wishes didn't count? What you're really saying, of course, is that only your wishes count. You don't want to marry someone of the same gender, so that particular wish doesn't count. If we passed a law permitting men to only marry brunettes, you'd not have a problem with that either so long as your wife was blonde? Unless a restriction makes some logical sense, it shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't exist for some and not others. quote: I don't need an itemized hospital bill, Stephen. I do need something a little stronger than, "Because God told me so." Even if I didn't think you weren't listening very closely to Him, I wouldn't agree with any social structure that tried to enforce a moral edict. quote: A healthy fear, Stephen, is one founded in reality. When you're afraid and can't tell anyone what it is you fear, it's rarely healthy. I can tell a child a thousand times there is nothing in his dark room that is going to hurt him. I can root through his closet five times a night, and the monsters will always return as soon as I leave. He has never been hurt by anything in the dark before, but that doesn't matter, because his fear is not founded in reality, is not rational or even coherent. I can tell, without any reservation, that letting a few hundred, or a few thousand, or even a few million, people live without the danger of having their lives and choices disrupted by unreasonable barriers is never going to hurt you. But, like the child, you won't believe me until you discover your own truths. Twenty years from now you may be no more accepting of alternatives than you are today, but eventually even you will realize that what doesn't harm you really doesn't harm you and need not be feared just because it's different. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, tell me why then when you address this strictly pragmatic concern of "rights", you use words like "hate"? hmmm.... that's a morally charged word, and you can't get around that no matter how much sophism you employ. Can hatred be legislated against? Don't get me wrong. I have no qualms with you bringing "hate" and "bigotry" into the argument, because I haven't divorced morality from public life. But get real ... words like "hate" and "bigot" belie your "amoralistic" stance. quote: Unless you consider a house fire, or an electric shock hellish. Some people do. quote: Whoa. We have to agree on what marriage IS first. We haven't even got that far. I don't think letting people "get married" has ever brought harm. But the public sanctioning of homosexual relationships HAS caused harm in the past, as sanctioning debauchery and unnatural relationships (as Roman society did with Pederasty) always will. quote: That's certainly not true of all situations. Presumption is no less of a mistake than base fear. And while courageous liberalism against a wrong status quo is an honorable thing, not every rabid push for change is right, especially one born of such haste and anti-democratic fervor as this one. quote: Let me clarify then. Wishes are not the primary consideration when it comes to law and public policy ... they are not the basis of rights. You were at least arguing as if you thought they were, and expected me to concede your point based upon "wishes" alone. quote: I don't know what "a little stronger" for you would mean. I've given reasons, and you don't accept them. But then again, your reasons for the acceptance of gay marriage, to me, suffer from the same weakness you describe. Ultimately it's your moral conviction that gay people should have the right to marry. That's really all you've said. Science, and research on this are inconclusive. History is not valid fuel for argument (according to you). And predicting (you've already said) is way out of court. Since this has never been approached in quite the same way before (historically), you are lacking any argument concerning "What works". In short, apply your own standards to your own argument. Ron thinks it's immoral to deny homosexuals the permission to alter the definition of marriage. Where is the pragmatic "PROOF", (that concept you're always demanding of others, but not offering any yourself), that you boast of, if you are not arguing a naked conception of moral rights? And of that "proof" don't forget your own caveats. Don't use History with it's abysmally poor batting average. And don't predict out of fear of the "bigotry" and "hatred" and "narrow-mindedness" that will abound if Government actually resists the relativistic tide on a few things. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But Essorant, (let me share this again, as you didn't respond to it the first time) ... You yourself in past threads have told us that certain sexual acts and attitudes (many of which are consensual) are "wrong". But aren't they, too, just being different in "nature or choice"? Do you feel that porcelain keepsake-cake lacerating your gums yet? Do understand, I'm in agreement with you that sexual perversion can be a reality (even when between consenting adults). But until you can express to me how your views on sexual perversion are essentially different than mine, I don't really want to bother about this point any more. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-23-2005 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I already expressed it Stephenos. Ill will and ill deeds are wrongs. Not gender or sexuality. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But Essorant, all things you consider to be examples of sexual perversion, are not easily demonstrable as "ill will or deeds". After all, many of them are done by consenting adults. Yet you still call them wrong and perverse. Explain how you can call them perverse, by the standard you are now using. (And I've never said that "gender" was wrong, whatever that means. And "sexuality" is too broad of a statement for you to use. If you were against ANY sexual practice at all, I could use your method on you and say that you are discriminating against "sexuality") Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Yes, Stephen, my sarcasm probably is rubbing off on you. Don't take it personally, it's just my way. 'Swinging is "extra curricular" so to speak. Just like flirting would be unhealthy to my marriage, but it is not central to it.' Don't you see, Stephen? Gender is not central to a homosexual relationship- their love (or sex, or whatever they've based this relationship on) is central to it. The fact that two of them are of the same gender is "extra-curricular"- it is this society that puts that in the limelight and makes it the focus. 'regardless of your financial limit ... if it is percieved as a "right" then the financial plan will need to be adjusted, not the marital limitation. That is, after all, (I'm speaking facetiously) infringing on someone's rights.' I don't know how true or untrue this is, but I guess in the end it doesn't matter to me because I think everyone should be entitled to health coverage, regardless of whther they are married or poor or whatever. 'Well homosexuals cannot enter a marriage contract legally. The question is about what the laws should be, not what they currently are. Why shouldn't intelligent children be able to marry?' For the same reason that intelligent children can't vote. We have set an age of adulthood, and that's across the board, not just for marriage. Explain how changing marriage will change this widely accepted and enforced standard. Once again, there's a good reason to have a set age of adulthood- it creates a milestone, and ensures that children who are still under their parents' care are still (at least somewhat) under their authority. 'Gee, I'll bet your reasons against child marriage would be similar to these.' My reasons against children getting married would be that it would be harmful to the child. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule, but by and large kids getting married is a bad idea- hell, I'm 21 and I'm not mature enough for it... and I sure as hell wasn't when I was 16, I can tell you that. 'No really, you can't imagine that it is that simple' Stephen, believe it or not, I do think it's just that simple, the same way ending segregation was that simple. The only reason it isn't simple is because there is such resistance to it. Look, you ahve every right to raise your kids the way you want, just as I have the right to raise mine the way I want. But if your big argument against gay marriage is that it might put sinful notions in you kids' heads and expose them to an impure world, then you ahve a reality check coming. Do you know we had girls with pregnancy scares in my sixth grade class? Do you know I learned how to get high in junior high? Those things have nothing to do with gays... and guess what, no matter how hard you try to shield your kids, they are gonna come in contact with it, just as someday, they're gonna meet gay people. The best you can do, Stephen, is instill them with the values you feel are important and hope that they value your values enough to heed them. But you can't expect the rest of society to be like "Dude, we can't do this- we're setting a bad example for all the Christian kids." It is a matter of live and let live. The first time I saw a preacher getting in trouble for what he preaches in his own church, I'd jump up to stand with him and say that it is his religious freedom to believe this. But you better believe the first time a kid of mine tells me a teacher at school said gays are going to hell, or that they are sick, or whatever, I would be on the phone to bitch so fast- because there is no place for religious ideaology in a public school. I'm sorry if that seems extreme to you Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Thank you. quote: Look more closely, Stephen. Let's assume you're right. You haven't shown cause and effect, and Rome had a whole lot of other problems upon which to lay the blame, but let's nonetheless assume you're right for just a minute. The conclusion we could actually reach is that sanctioning ANY sexual activity outside of marriage, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, leads to a deterioration in social values. Well, guess what? I agree. Sex without commitment usually results in people getting hurt. It makes little sense, then, to put legal barriers in the way of commitment. quote: One doesn't need to prove that something is beneficial, or even harmless, in order to do it. If something isn't expressly forbidden by society, then it is implicitly allowed. You, on the other hand, can't stop someone from doing something without proof of harm. It's called burden of proof. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Explain how you can call them perverse, by the standard you are now using." Stephenos They are perverse because they are obvious bowings-down to sexual and other greeds, but worse continued in consent and in action. People know how to treat people better and choose to treat others and themselves worse for their own selfish greed. That is the perversity and the shame. Not (different or same) gender. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-24-2005 04:41 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Why should a man, who doesn’t want children, has already been in love and wants no other, (lets say she’s gone forever), and can afford either, have a wife instead of take a mistress? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Your question strikes me as largely irrelevant to the thread, John. Mistress or wife, either can have children, neither can have children, and the choice as you've worded it really has little enough to do with any relationship. If he wants no other, he should seek no other. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, Because I think that a mistress will only satisfy his physical appetites. Marriage involves covenantal love which may endure beyond egoistic concern. And I think a man needs that. I think a man needs a woman to love him and be committed to him even when things aren't going well for him, when he's not as attractive as he once was, etc ... Why would a mistress stay committed to a man in times like that? And why would a man stay committed to a mistress, when she loses her mystique in his eyes, and he can get the same perks from any number of other more attractive women? I honestly think a man finds in a faithful wife, something he cannot find elsewhere. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, “Why would a mistress stay committed to a man in times like that?” $ “And why would a man stay committed to a mistress, when she loses her mystique in his eyes, and he can get the same perks from any number of other more attractive women? “ Good question. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, What about when the money gets low? When we're in it for what we can get, the threads are thin that keep us hangin' round. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, “What about when the money gets low?” Until it does why worry. If it does, and she leaves, then he’ll know what he thought was true. Now she could always surprise him at that time; wouldn’t that be a nice story. Besides, “the money gets low” has been real reason enough for divorce as well. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: So if such acts are consensual, why couldn't I simply accuse you of discriminating against someone's chosen "sexuality"? Because they are by consent, your examples, in essense are no different than mine. So I can just as easily call you a bigot concerning someone's chosen sexual preference, as you can call me one concerning their choice of gender for a mate. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"So if such acts are consensual, why couldn't I simply accuse you of discriminating against someone's chosen "sexuality"?" Because I'm not talking about the "frame" of sexuality itself but the "picture" that people are putting in it. To me there's a great difference between putting greed in that picture and frame, and putting monogomy with someone that is same gender. Greed too soon becomes an excessive and violent appetite and if people consent to that greed and act in that greed, that puts people under the danger of that excess and violence. What similar may be said about samegenderness? [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-28-2005 06:14 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: But Essorant, the "frame of sexuality itself" is such a hopelessly ambiguous phrase, that I can't know what that means. You of course, say it includes gender preference. But to me, gender preference is just as much the actual "picture" as anything you are describing. It is a particular, and we are talking of particulars. quote: I've already explained why monogamy versus polygamy is null and void if we accept homosexual marriage. We can't keep that as a solid guideline, if we refuse to HAVE any guidelines. You want to try to argue monogamy in a way that equates polygamy with "greed", using the kinds of standards which have been demanded by many in this thread (including you unless it's something you happen to agree with)? Remember that nothing short of empirical science will do. Don't get me wrong, I agree with monagamy as the standard, but your statements about "greed" are impossible to demonstrate using sexual examples you disapprove of, and the standards you are using with the homosexual issue. Sorry Ess, by your standards, you end up in the same boat you're trying to sink. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Not to worry, Ess. The boat is crowded, but Stephen seems willing to move over a bit for you. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, I may show you a thousand ways that man giving into his greed, in will and in action may bring soreness on others and on himself, whether it involves greed for sex, greed for power, greed for money, or all of those. Whichever greed, a will or an act in that greed, often uses and abuses people and things in order to try to fullfill the appetite of that greed. Continued more and in more frequencies, that greed and consent as a will and a deed are life-threatening and life-harming. To me that is a danger, and thoroughly our experience as being humankind has emphasized that with many examples. What does homosexuality incur on people? I just don't see any such dangers or examples about same sex people in any love-willed relationship. When Love's will brings two people together, I don't care about gender. If that is wrong, tell me why. But give me examples and evidence. Why must I care about gender, if two people love each other above all? [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-29-2005 03:05 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, If you answer my question first, I'll agree to answer yours. How can you show things like "swinging", or polygamy, or pornography to be examples of greed, if they are consensual? What exactly are your "examples and proof" that these constitute forms of greed? Until you can answer that without dodging the question, you're holding me to a standard you're not willing apply to your self. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"...if they are consensual" I sense why you keep emphasizing "consensual" But that just doesn't work in my court. To me the more consent that is shown and expressed is the more we may acknowedge the wrong had not even come to the extent it had to begin with if the person or people had not consented to it to the extent they did in themselves respectively, and among themselves collectively. There's no doubt in my mind that, when consent is involved in a wrong deed, it is about, if not equally, as wrong as the deed committed. That is my opinion about consent. I don't make distinctions about age, gender, race, religion, etc. If you consent to something wrong, that consent is wrong too. There's no exemption or justification in that consent, even if you are a thousand years old. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, it doesn't "work in my court" either. My point was that other than the "consent" issue, you have given no reasons (which conform to the standard you're demanding of me) for being against things like pornography, polygamy, swinging, etc ... You say I'm discriminating against "gender". By your own standards, your anti-porn stance could be called discriminating against freedom of speech. Your insistence on committed monogamy could be called discriminating against someone's sexual preference. Your abhorrence of adults having sexual relations with children could be called "age discrimination" etc ... etc ... You know I agree with all your feelings about the above issues. I just haven't seen upon what basis you're drawing a distinction between my type of moral/ social judgement, and yours. Your distinction is way too arbitrary. sigh ... is this exchange getting close to being over? If you don't see what I'm saying by now Essorant, you probably won't (for the time being). We'll just agree to disagree. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I agree. And, clearly, so do the courts. quote: You're muddying our terms, Stephen, because monogamy has nothing to do with sexual preference. Nor do I think a discussion of monogamy can be so clearly defined or easily resolved. Whose definition of monogamy do you want to dissect? quote: That's just a crock, Stephen, and a brutal twisting of any reasonable meaning of "consent." I will agree that Essorant's standards appear to be far less consistent than, say, your own. So what? Invalidating his doesn't in any way serve to validate yours. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"By your own standards, your anti-porn stance could be called discriminating against freedom of speech." I'll talk about free speech in respect to pornography where people are pursuing speech, talking and writing about something that is pornographic. When people, however are commiting prostitutive, abusive and exploitive acts to make a publication for money, sorry, but that is no longer the pursuit of speech. Talking and writing about such things are talking and writing, not doing those things. When people write about such such things then I'll talk and write about the aspect of free speech too. But when people are in acts, leaving attitudes, images, acts, as records in an industery that shows nothing in pursuit of the craft of speech, it is no longer relevant to bring up "freedom of speech" We're the ones talking, they're the one's acting. If you bring forth the speeches and the writings then I'll talk about free speech; but when you bring up records that capture people in acts themselves, those are now acts we're talking about. And I no longer have anything to say about free speech. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Essorant, maybe you should start a new thread on what Free Speech means to you, and perhaps tell us why you don't think it should apply to Paramount Pictures, National Geographic, or Pablo Picasso. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: So? Just as an example, the courts who defend the rights of women to abort, just charged a man with double homicide for killing his pregnant wife. So the courts aren't always consistent, and certainly not always right. And if they ruled in a way that was contrary to your thinking, you wouldn't automatically accept their views as holding any weight of argument either. Right? quote: Why? I don't see how a numeric value is all that different from gender, if such choices are a matter of "rights". And that's EXACTLY how the polygamy lobbyists are approaching the matter. quote: Ron, look up 2 words in the dictionary .... obfuscation and monogamy quote: At the moment I was only trying to show the faulty standard by which he sought to invalidate my views ... and perhaps make him rethink his own, for a better defense. Perfectly germane for a philosophy thread, I think. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There's nothing inconsistent, Stephen, is saying I can drink alcohol, yet denying you the right to force it down my throat. The former is a pragmatic acknowledgement, based on several years of Prohibition, that a law can never protect me from me, while the latter is an equally pragmatic and I think justifiable application of the law to protect me from you. quote: I'm not denying similarities, but those similarities don't include sexual preference. If you are suggesting that both are attempts to legislate morality, with no real regard to consequences beyond "it ain't right," then I would certainly agree. quote: monogamy * The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time * The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time. * The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime. Sorry, Stephen, but I don't see anything obfuscatory about deciding which of those very different definitions you want to promote. Especially since I suspect we won't agree on which one is "right." Monogamy, like morality, is defined by the individual, not a dictionary. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Was anyone's mind changed by all of this? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos The problem with your argument is that gender has no "content" to judge. It's not like pornography and swinging that involve publications or lifestyles that show a notorious manner of will and acts fixed on sexual hedonism above any other kind of pursuit; and make it a "standard" to continue in their publications, or lifestyle. Despite those things that are far from just differences, we rightly do not deny the people involved the right and enjoyment of marriage. But you're trying to suggest there's something deeper and more dangerous at a mere gender-difference to deny people the rite, the promise and the enjoyment of marriage. And I don't see the "content" you are making your judgement by. How deep does gender-difference go? Polygamy number-difference has some similarity to gender-difference. But the "content" that speaks against polygamy, is actually the intimacy and love of monogamy that we know succeeds to a much better life for the people involved. Not because of gender or sexuality. But because of what makes monogomy: an undivided lover's love to another lover. You simply can't have undivided husbandlove or wifelove, when it is divided. All I want to know is what "content" inside what we call "homosexuality" are you making your judgement by? If it is genderdifference how does that constitute a "content" that makes a wrong? What is the wrongful content therein? And why should we put that above two people's love? I don't blame you for having misgivings and doubts. For sure, I had them, but mostly because my misgivings and doubts are about sexuality in general in this age. But you must prove that you are going by more than those misgivings and doubts. Otherwise, people at least deserve the benifit of them, I believe. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-03-2005 12:19 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Is this the same as the courts allowing someone the right to end life (questioning the very humanity of those very lives) and yet punishing someone else with homicide for taking that same kind of life? Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but homocide means murder. It's not a synonym for damage of property. If the underlying assumptions of Roe V. Wade are correct, then Peterson was unjustly charged in one of his counts of homicide. If the underlying assumptions of the Peterson case are correct then Roe V. Wade was greatly in error. You can't get more inconsistent than that. You can protect me from pouring alcohol down your throat all you want too, and rightly so. But if when YOU drink it it's called alcohol, and when I force it down your throat it's called Anti-freeze, we've got a problem. One of us is wrong. quote: I'm in no way suggesting that. But since both history and prediction have been a priori ruled out by you, there's really no way to discuss consequences with you, that you'll accept. quote: It's very obfuscatory Ron, because it forces other considerations to the center when they are not being considered ... and not for the purpose of elucidation, but for the purpose of distraction as a kind of smoke-screen effect. Since the whole question was about marriage, your first definition of monogamy is irrelevant. Since those who push for forbidding marriage more than once a lifetime, even after the death of a spouse, represent a fringe smattering, and since divorce is accepted by most (even by those who believe in very narrowly allowed reasons for it), your third definition just dropped out. That leaves one. The one most people think of when you say the word "monogamy". Sometimes distinctions are needed, and sometimes they only get in the way of concourse John: quote: Perhaps not ... especially among the most adamantly opinionated among us. (Like me and the Ronster, and a few others ). But for others who are undecided, or are still considering the issues, I think these discussions may provide more to think about, and perhaps some angles they haven't really considered before.It's not that philsophical / political discussions never move people in a direction ... it's just that they rarely do so, and never all at once. But even when they do, no one really ever comes out and says "Hey you changed my mind". There's a pride in not wanting to say those kinds of things publicly. And there's a dignity in being allowed not to have to. Essorant, I'll respond later. Stephen. |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
I actually read this entire topic and all the replies. So, now that my eyeballs are bleeding: quote: Actually it's more like charging Peterson with homocide for killing the unborn child because it was not his choice to make. Had Mrs. Peterson attempted suicide, they'd not charge her with attempted homocide because according to our laws, the life of the unborn child is hers to terminate as it is part of her body at that time. It's not pretty, maybe it's not even fair, but there is logic to it. Unless it is terminated with the mother's consent, that fetus is a potential child, and the courts chose to charge Peterson accordingly. quote: You know what they say about sweeping generalizations, don't you? As to the topic, I don't see any real legal reason to continue to deny homosexuals their right to equal treatment and protection under the law. Marriage in itself is not sacred - it is a civil union with secular benefits. There is absolutely no reason why non-traditional families (and by this I mean homosexuals and *maybe* polygamists, although the possible negative financial aspects of polygamy with respect to the State could certainly be argued) should not enjoy the same benefits given they accept the same responsibilities. This "slippery slope" argument where a man marries his shoe or his dog are quite non-sequitur with regard to this subject, and the pedophilia and incest cases have clear physiological and/or legal barriers. There's enough red herring in here to feed a third-world country. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
" Marriage in itself is not sacred - it is a civil union with secular benefits." Are you considering marriage in respect to its history and to other countries in the world? And to many people that still involve sacred ceremonies and rites, sacred vows, sacred honey moon, sacred beliefs, and a love they cherish as sacred between themselves? Just because you may not hold marriage as sacred, that doesn't mean everybody or even most people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, are the same. I know it is not true about my mother and my father's marriage. And if I ever marry, I hope it is just as sacred as theirs. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ess- the point is that marriage isn't necessarily sacred in the religious sense. We don't all marry because God compels us to. Hell, we don't all even marry because love compels us to. Maybe our parents set us up- maybe I've never even met my future husband nutil I walk down the aisle. Not an uncommon practice on some other countries, BTW. Maybe I married for money, for political alliance, for my hot trophy husband. What's sacred about that? Oh, and for the record, I agree with Stephen. If it's murder when Scott does it, but a right when she does it- there's a pretty big schism there. My personal opinion is that he probably should have been charged with manslaughter for the baby, since it was a of a viable gestational age (I don't believe that abortion after the age of viability should be legal.) Had it happenned earlier, I'm not sure what my call on that would be- it's not an easy question. But, what that has to do with people getting married doesn't make sense to me. Killing a baby/aborting a fetus seems to be a much more compelling difference (and an obviously much more damaging act) than what equipment your lover packs under their belt. |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
hush, I agree with you on the viable gestational age thing - the only abortions performed after this time should be in the case of dire medical danger to the mother. The Peterson case dealt more with intent, I think, than any other consideration. He murdered his wife in cold blood and in so doing ended the life of her unborn child which he knew she planned on carrying to term. It was an interpretation of the law that, in my opinion, fit the circumstances in question. Another case might suggest that manslaughter for the fetus was justified, but the nature of the crime in this case made it "feel" more like murder. I would only be concerned if a law was changed as a result of this case. Legal precedents, while useful, can and sometimes should be ignored. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ess- the point is that marriage isn't necessarily sacred in the religious sense. We don't all marry because God compels us to Hush, That is true. But it is also true that marriage is not necessarily unsacred either; even if not very religious. People make their own mead. If they give their mead more honey it is more honeyful and sweet. If they give it less it is less. But if they give no honey at all, all they have is water in their meadglass, not mead. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-03-2005 04:08 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Capricious: quote: Whether or not it was Peterson's "choice to make" is not in question. Everyone knows it wasn't his choice. But you can't charge me with murder, for something that would only be disposal of personal property, when done by you. When you say that the Peterson case "dealt more with intent than with any other question", you're only avoiding the issue. Homocide, by definition, deals not only with intent but with the unlawful termination of human life. Why else are drunk drivers charged with vehicular homicide, even when they didn't "intend" to? And using "present laws" as an argument accomplishes very little, since it's the consistency and justice of these laws which we're questioning. Your using of the phrase "potential child" for a life which one may be charged with homicide for taking, is too nebulous, and only illustrates the inconsistency and confusion I've been describing. To be honest I think it's avoiding the central issue. If I killed someone's non-pregnant sister, I can't be charged with homicide of your "potential" nephews and nieces. That's very illogical logic, if you insist on calling it that. My point is that the court, by charging one man with murder for killing a fetus, and supporting the rights of women to do so freely, was making a very arbitrary, and may I say, capricious judgement. quote: I was talking in very specific terms about the Scott Peterson case. Just how is that a sweeping generalization? quote: It always amazes me how those who don't see this, just assume that their own personal lines of demarcation will not be affected by their own arguments. There are traditional points that they tend to want retain, and scoff at the suggestion that these will ever be challenged. But the reasons they give, (as to why they won't be seriously challenged), don't hold water in the face of their own arguments against homosexual marriage. Let me give you an example... Remember how one of the big arguments against gay marriage, earlier in this thread, was the claim that sexuality had nothing to do with marriage? Reconsider your statements about Children and Adults marrying, in light of that. Who said anything about pedophelia if marriage has NOTHING to do with sex? And whether or not brothers and sisters should be able to marry, cannot be anwered by anything physiological, if marriage is merely a social contract for civil benefits and has nothing to do with sex. My points about the slippery slope remain valid. The greatest proof if it is, that you are on that slope yourself, desperately trying to retain some traditional, common sensical, boundary that you've assumed has valid reasons behind it. And it does have reasons, just not the relativistic, sterile, impossible kinds that many are trying to use to spearhead such radical social changes like gay marriage. As Francis Schaeffer said, the unthinkables of this decade will always become the thinkables of the next ... in relativistic society. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"radical social changes" It is only radical because people make it radical! |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
quote: Only someone who has never been faced with that choice would ever use the term "personal property." If you insist, however, I maintain that I may not remove your kidney without your permission - in fact, I'd face criminal charges if I did, even if you were dead and no longer using it - but you are free to donate it to whomever you wish without fear of legal reprocussion. Until technology becomes such that fetuses become viable upon conception, there will always be a mother's prerogative regarding what she does with a part of her own body. If a woman makes a decision to carry a fetus to term, and she and her unborn child are killed, there are circumstances in which the spirit of the law suggests that punishment for murder is applicable in both cases. Apparently, the judge thought the Peterson case was one such set of circumstances. In fact, had Mrs. Peterson survived, I would have been disappointed to see anything less than a murder verdict on behalf of her child. quote: Are you suggesting that circumstances and motive should not play a part in judicial process? Oh, but wait, you just acknowledged the difference between murder and vehicular manslaughter, so which is it? Do you believe that the drunk guy whose car kills a busload of kids is as guilty of murder as someone who commits a single premeditated homocide? Not saying I'd disagree with you; just asking. My position is that a fetus is a "human life" as soon as it is born or its mother makes a conscious, legally competent decision to carry it to term. Nevertheless, mitigating circumstances have the potential to be a little more lenient in light of the fetus' "nebulous" legal status, such as in the case of a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman in a collision. Regardless of his guilt in the deaths, the intent to kill was not there, so a lesser sentence with regard to the fetus would be understandable. quote: Right, but there has to be some guideline, else there's nothing to interpret. Laws don't change every time a judge interprets them in a new way for a new set of circumstances. Peterson has a right to appeal just like any other citizen, and the law under which the judge made his decision is subject to the same scrutiny and, if necessary, revision that any other law on the books endures. quote: Abortion isn't an easy issue, Stephen, and I never claimed it was. See my above position regarding the "humanness" of fetuses and you'll see I'm avoiding nothing. If "potential child" bothers you, use whatever semantics you feel comfortable with. quote: "It couldn't possibly get any worse." These are called 'famous last words' for a reason. Either way, this statement is hardly central to my point. quote: Right, but challenges to laws aren't just accepted willy-nilly. They're subject to scrutiny, review, appeal, amendment, etc. quote: I'll say again, marriage is a civil union with secular benefits. Whatever other traditional or religious significance someone chooses to attribute to it is their business, and is hardly subject to dictation by the State - and it is the State's jurisdiction regarding marriage, and ONLY that jurisdiction, that I am concerned with conferring as a right of all citizens regardless of gender preference. quote: That wasn't my claim, but ok, I'll work with you here. quote: Children are not legally capable of entering into a binding contract. There's really no need to address this scenario beyond that. However, Even in the nonexistent hypothetical case in which the child was capable of understanding and entering into such a contract, so long as the laws regarding sex with minors would still apply and not be superceded by the marriage, then I say no harm, no foul. quote: This is about damage control and jurisdiction. The State has little or no powers to limit or control the sexual activity of consenting adults, but neither does it have any vested interest in recognizing a contract that would seem to encourage or at least condone a reproductive practice that is known to be genetically unsound. Moreover, whether or not my marriage is sex-free is none of the State's business, nor should it be the State's job to police such. The same could apply to the child marriages were they not otherwise legally barred: what you are proposing here is not only a redefinition of marriage, but several definitions of marriage, with different sets of rules for each. I am arguing for the single, universal, "The union of one consenting adult with another consenting adult, with all the rights and responsibilities hereunto appertaining." No other stipulations or limitations not already legally established under the "traditional" definition of marriage need be considered. quote: What indication, other than the obviously fatal one of disagreeing with you and the "traditional" stance on marriage, can you give me that I am on said slippery slope? Out of time, back later. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Capricious: quote: I'm not the one using the term "personal property" to say that's what I consider unborn humans to be. I was merely expressing that that's how the legal system is presently treating the issue of on-demand abortions. quote: That's good, but even if I killed you in the process of removing your kidney, your family's lawyers would hardly expect to get a "double-homicide" charge to stick. Your example proves my point much more than yours. No one legally treats a Kidney as if it were a person. If the fetus is merely another organ, like a kidney or a heart, then why stop at the fetus in the Peterson case? Let's just say he committed homicide for each of the major organ systems. You say that's absurd. Of course it is. quote: Well that IS the whole question of the abortion debate. The viability argument doesn't hold water. Here's why ... Viability is simply a technical term for dependence. And yet a newborn is just as dependent upon the mother as any unborn. Left to it's own resources, the newborn infant will die. And yet a woman had the right to terminate this life a few weeks before, merely based upon location (inside her body versus inside her house). After that change of location, (NOT change of dependence), that same woman will be charged with infanticide. That is inconsistent and arbitrary. The question is still whether or not that fetus is a human person, not where it happens to be. quote: Good. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But you still haven't shown how that is really consistent with the court's tendency to allow a woman to end the same life, if she so chooses. How one can be just doing what I choose with my own, and the other homicide? In the case of double homocide, one of those charges must be NOT against the mother but against another individual. That's what homicide IS right? How can one woman be murdered twice? Unless she can be, or that unborn life is considered legally as an individual person, that ruling is bosh. I agree with the court here as much as you do. I'm only pointing out the glaring contradiction this creates with another stance the courts have taken. And all of this merely to say that the argument, "The courts agree with me", which I've encountered several times throughout this thread, doesn't really mean that much. quote: Of course they are. I never suggested that challenges to laws are accepted willy-nilly. quote: But you still have to define what marriage is. "Two consenting adults" is bare, insipid, and without content. For what purpose? Why adults? Why two? Why not siblings? Why not grandparents and grandchildren? If there is not some traditional aspect of marriage retained, there can be no definition that will hold in check the will of the people simply to do what they want, not necessarily to do what's best for the nation. And these include the traditional aspects of marriage that you think should be retained as well. The sterile idea of "secular benefits" doesn't mean enough to give the institution any meaning whatsoever. The house has no walls, much less a roof. Just a side note, neither do I accept that our Government has ever been an entirely secular enterprise anyway. Many of its basic assumptions of human rights stem from religious truths, not secularism. That's why rights have been called "inalienable", and "endowed by our Creator". That's why our rights are not derived from Government alone. Even our Government appeals to something higher. So the total dichotomy between religious life, and public life is untenable in my opinion. The framers of our Government, as wary as they were of the State ruling the churches, were not "secular" in the way you describe. quote: It doesn't have to have a "Vested interest" anymore. And that's my point. (No one here has really argued any kind of vested interest we would have in redefining marriage). Not recognizing a policy, only has to be percieved by a few judges as being discriminatory. If marriage is challenged as to gender reciprocity, then the question naturally follows what marriage really has to do with sex at all? You can see that this is the flow, evidenced by the fact that many have already questioned this on this thread. If marriage is determined to be a separate thing altogether from the sexual question, then whether or not it "condones a sexual practice that is genetically unsound", becomes null. By definition, if it is NOT about or related to sex, it cannot condone any sexual practice. And even though it will in actuality, it will not be proveable, because of the accepted ideological fuzzy definition of "marriage". quote: See what I mean? The barriers you are already surrendering one by one. Now it's mere consent, and laws surrounding that, which will suffice in the retention of what you deem to be essential to the marriage definition. quote: No, the multiplicity I mentioned, I was not proposing. I was describing the decomposing effect of the public institution of marriage, if one definition is not held on to. quote: But you haven't stripped marriage of all possible "traditional" aspects yet. Your definition still rules out and excludes many, whose voices will be heard in the guise of "rights". Why not consenting children? Why only consenting adults, especially if the person desiring to marry them has "Power of Attorney" over them? Why only two? What "rights"? And What "responsibilities"? You dream that that's a basic and finally reduced definition of marriage that can be deconstructed no more, for the sake of individualism and personal "rights"? You're assuming way too much. quote: It's not a question of "need be", but "will be", in my opinion. quote: Read my above reply. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I forgot to respond to this. Of course I'm not saying intent has nothing to do with it. It plays a major part. But you can't set intent over against the question of what the crime is. If I slander you publically, (maybe I call you "Capricious" or something, ) you shouldn't be able to prosecute me for stealing. If I kidnap your daughter, and she remains alive, I shouldn't serve years for murder. That was my point. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The question is still whether or not that fetus is a human person" No it's not Stephenos. If there is human life and a human body, that is a human. Period. That is now his or her life and body, not just a body part in the mother. Humanlife + humanbody = Human being. It is no matter how young or old, how dependant or independant, because those points don't change the absolute and physical fact of a life, a body and being. It's not a question, its "traffic jam" of overcomplication. The most important and serious things are always over complicated by men, but once you shave off the overcomplication, you see the simple and undeniable truths. A life, a body, a being. Nothing changes that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, you should know by now that I agree with you on that point. What I meant was, that the central question of the abortion debate (and therefore of the Peterson case as well) is "Is the living fetus a human being", and not merely "What is the intent of the person who ends the life of the fetus"? Not that that isn't important too. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You make challenge sound like a bad thing, Stephen? Worse, you make it sound like something to be feared. Any so-called "traditional point" I feel should be retained, I'm perfectly willing to argue on its own merit. I'm not going to let a fear of what might happen influence what should happen. Adults marrying children? Brothers marrying sisters? Any example you can imagine, and several I suspect are well beyond your imagination, have but to pass the same litmus test that I have repeatedly asked you to apply to homosexual marriage. Who does it hurt? |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
quote: The point of this example was that a person has power over their own body, not that a fetus is an organ. I'm sure the distinction is clear, but just to be sure: left to its own devices, a kidney has a zero percent chance of developing into a human being. quote: No, actually the whole question of the abortion debate is whether at any time the rights of a fetus should supercede the rights of its mother to decide what to do with her own body. A newborn infant can have its needs met by anyone without further effort by, or impact upon, its mother. A fetus, in most cases, cannot. Again, the mother decided to carry the child to term, therefore it is a person. quote: Again, the rights of the mother > the rights of the fetus. quote: Fair enough. Humans are fallible, laws are subject to interpretation, times change, etc. However, a judge's job is to interpret the laws on the books and apply them to the case at hand. That's what they do. So in essence, saying that "the courts agree with me" means that current laws can be interpreted to agree with your position. If tradition is so important to you, wouldn't laws be moreso? Aren't laws just enforceable traditions? quote: "For what purpose?" I suspect if you asked a traditional couple the same question you'd not get the same answer twice. Should it matter to the state whether two people are getting married for the tax benefits, for insurance or inheritance purposes, or because they are undyingly committed to each other? It doesn't, and it shouldn't. Two consenting adults don't need to declare a purpose in order to make a marriage valid, and this applies no less to a homosexual couple than to a heterosexual one. "Why adults?" Because they're the only parties capable of entering into a binding legal contract. "Why two?" I'll leave the polygamy argument to someone else, but again, I'll say jurisdiction and damage control with regard to child and spousal support. quote: Yes, Stephen, but times have changed. We don't hang adulterers or burn witches anymore, not that I'd suggest that sort of thing was what the Founding Fathers intended. The framers of our constitution were genius in that they realized that their personal religious convictions should not have the power to make laws, nor should the laws have power to make religion. quote: On the contrary, how is guaranteeing equal protection and privilege under the law to a legally recognized minority NOT a vested interest? quote: And the answer to that question is that it doesn't matter. You don't have to declare your reasons for getting married; whether or not your marriage will involve sex is your own business so long as you violate no other laws. Getting married does not mean you can have sex with your spouse without their consent. quote: Again, it's damage control. I can't say it any simpler than Ron did: "Who does it hurt?" While the State has no need nor right to police the sexual habits of its consenting, adult citizens, it does have a responsibility to protect itself and its citizens when the sexual practices in question have the potential to harm someone other than the participants. quote: Again, the State has no interest in limiting the lawful practices of consenting adults, married or otherwise; however, it does have an interest in limiting any practice, sexual or otherwise, that may be injurious to someone outside the circle of willing participants. quote: No, I really don't see what you mean. What barriers have I surrendered that I ever recognized in the first place? quote: Right, but why is your definition of "a man and a woman" better than mine of "two consenting adults?" Because it's been around longer? Because it's "tradition?" Because God says so? Are we hanging adulterers and burning witches again? quote: There is no such thing as a consenting child with respect to a binding legal contract. This repetition is getting tiring. If you can't demonstrate that children can fulfill this first requirement of marriage or any contract, please drop it already. By rights and responsibilities I mean those conferred by the civil contract: tax benefits, inclusion in health insurance policies, implied power of attorney for medical issues (in the absence of a living will), child adoption, etc. There will always be those voices in the guise of rights; however I have faith in the legislative system to determine that while Bob and Tom, as legally consenting adults, are eligible to get married, Bob's award-winning begonia probably isn't capable of fulfilling nor understanding the marriage contract regardless of Bob's desire to wed it. quote: You haven't given me a valid example to support this statement. quote: I have, Stephen, and the question still remains. [This message has been edited by Capricious (02-04-2005 04:03 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Ron, I'm not making challenge (in any universal or general sense) out to be a bad thing, or a good thing. There are good and valid challenges, as well as invalid ones. And much of what I'm saying is to question the criteria and assumptions used in such challenges. If you, on the other hand, want to make "challenge" seem to be unconditionally good, you end up a revolutionary and nothing more. Of course, from your own reply, I don't think that's what you're really intending to do. You did, after all, mention that you would argue each point "on it's own merit". I'm quite certain we disagree on what constitutes “merit”. Your narrow definition is embodied in your question "Who does it hurt"? But I have questions about your criteria. What does "hurt" mean? I had a discussion with someone I work with (last night actually) who told me that he agreed that certain things aren't in any way good for individuals or society as a whole. But his Libertarian ideology piped in, "But unless it causes immediate bodily harm, there should be no laws of regulation." So he conceded that harm is more than just possible, but out of pre-commitment to libertarianism, he limited laws to only a certain kind of harm. I told him that's being arbitrary. Of course it was put forth as if it were so self evident that the only kind of harm worth considering is that which is immediate and bodily. I get the feeling the same kind of thing is going on when I talk to you. There's no use for you to keep firing the question "Who does it hurt" at me, if we can't agree as to what is valid harm ... if you've already got a precommitment as to what would constitute valid harm, in the outworking of public policies. There's a danger in your approach, I think, that all prediction, or long-term considerations, may be nullified by the too strict criteria that we must be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. That doesn't mean a whole lot, if anyone has ever been right about their apprehensions, concerning the trends that they see. It rules out all warnings of a social nature, based on nothing more than the insistence on immediate demonstration. Also, you use the "fear" label, as a sort of ad hominem. Everyone assumes (why, I don't exactly know) that ALL fear is somehow unhealthy and imbalanced. But those accused of undue fear, if their concerns are realized, are later considered prudent and as having foresight. But as with the challenge issue, fear is neither intrinsically good or bad. It is contingent upon context. Sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Sometimes it is personal fear, sometimes it is vicarious. Sometimes it is for yourself, sometimes it is for the community. Sometimes it is mistaken. Sometimes it is valid. Even if harm were not certain in an immediate sense, I reject too the idea that if it “doesn’t hurt anyone”, we should therefore do it. I think with an institution as grounded and culturally rooted as exclusively heterosexual marriage, it would be foolish to change it on the whim of some. Not only does it fly in the face of our democratic process, but in the face of cautious prudence as well. I heard the same kind of argument used for legalized prostitution ... “Who does it hurt”? And even though it is a different issue, here’s an article which shows that negative effects can come in quite unforseen ways, when traditional morality is thrust (by mere ideology and nothing more) out of the legal sphere of what constitutes public policy ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml Capricious: quote: Yes, the distinction is very clear. The fetus is a distinct and separate human organism, though it is inside a woman's uterus. Therefore your example of “the person having control over their own body” (their kidney), does not apply. Maturity and basic biological identity are two different things. But back to the Peterson trial ... If the judges are going say a fetus is presently non-human (with only potential to become a person) as in Roe v. Wade, they shouldn't charge someone else with homocide, which means to kill another actual human individual. Like me, you believe that the Peterson ruling was correct. Where I differ from you is in this, that I recongnize a subsequent ruling can be so self evidently true and right, that it only brings out the error of a previous ruling that contradicts it. Sometimes a puzzle piece reveals that previous ones were put in the wrong place. That's what I believe has happened here. quote: Notice how, without conceding the actual humanity of the unborn, you end up defending a homicide charge, because it felt like murder. So a crime that is severly punishable can be charged according to subjective emotions? Why, by those standards, even when a woman voluntarily aborts, it may "feel" like murder to her husband, her parents, her friends, or anyone else. Likewise, some people are so emotionally attached to their pets, that their dog may “feel” as if it were a daughter or son. If such a beloved dog were poisoned (as despicable as that crime would be), are you suggesting that we charge the perpetrator with the premeditated murder of a human being, because of the subjective feelings of the pet owner? But you can't really be charged with homicide for hurting someone else's feelings. (Thankfully!) The charge of homicide must be against the individual human being killed. If there is no individual killed, there is no homicide. The Peterson judgement resonates in our minds as so very right, precisely because an actual human being was killed in an early stage of development. quote: I suspect that if you asked 1000 traditional couples, though there may be some superficial differences, you’d get very much the same kind of answer with all of them. Whether or not it matters to the state if people marry for secondary reasons, that is no argument to suggest that the State should rush to change the recognized primary ones. What you are arguing, by the support of such a radical change, is that the State has never recognized the primary foundational reasons, and that they are unessential to what marriage is and accomplishes. Exceptions don’t negate the rule. And they certainly don’t make it wise or beneficial to eradicate it. quote: The first example of tradition you use current law to defend. But we are talking about the tendency to question those very defining laws with doubtful criteria. That law could be subject to change as much as any other, depending upon social pressure, and political clout. My point, being, using current law is no argument ... else I’ve already won the homosexual marriage debate. The 11 states which voted on the issue all have voted for State constitutional ammendments rejecting the legalization of this travesty of marriage. With your second example, you have to understand when “rights” are at stake (if it is culturally percieved as that) damage control becomes very subjective. The damage itself can always be said to be from secondary causes. Direct correllation is rare and rarely proven. And also, all the proposed “damage” will be speculative and in the future. Perhaps also, those who support conservative views regarding polygamy will be slurred as being “afraid”, for their projected concerns, as valid as they might be. See my point? Your standards are as questionable as mine, if we accept the criteria mostly used by homosexual marriage advocates. quote: I’m not for hanging adulterers or burning witches. For you to even bring it up is to identify me with an extremist fringe? The founding fathers also realized that the very foundation of law were principles extracted from the Judeo-Christian worldview. “Inalienable rights endowed by our Creator” is an explicitly religious statement, not a nebulous or general one. So I think your total separation of religious ethics and state policy represents a contemporary exaggeration and interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended. quote: I’ve maintained that recognizing homosexual marriage, amounts to granting special rights over and above. Neither do I presently have the legal right to marry a man. What would be the vested interest in changing such a biologically and gender based social institution, apart from the questionable assumption that someone’s rights have indeed been violated, not merely here and now, but whenever and whereever marriage has had boundaries of definition? quote: It DOES matter to what the definition and function of marriage will be in a society. If marriage means any two adults regardless of relation, then marriage will be meaningless... nothing but an extension of welfare society. Yeah my brother and uncle got married, for fincancial perks. You see, if you insist that sex doesn’t matter in the question of marriage, just because you can point out exceptions to a very necessary rule, then you lose the ability to protest, on that basis, any form of union that is politically pushed to claim the financial umbrella of “marriage”. quote: Yeah, but you’ve just lost the ability to even say that such a union might encourage something like incest. When the government doesn’t have the right to intrude, or even consider, even statistics lose their voice. There’s no longer the freedom to ask “Will this be good for community as a whole? Will it be destructive or beneficial?” Each case of incest, pedophelia, or sexual abuse of a harem, will have to be treated as individual cases limited to the confines of individual free will alone. Treated rather than avoided. Because all grounds of avoidance are surrendered to the false criteria of present law and immediate demonstration of harm. Incest, just for example, is often willing. Do you really think publically sanctioned marriage between siblings wouldn’t contribute to a marked increase in it? quote: I don’t know. Perhaps you didn’t have any. In which case my argument is that marriage should not be a meaningless financial contract between anyone, any number, for any reason. Yet earlier you did seem to suggest that certain traditional aspects of marriage were self evident and likely to hold out against the common left standards of judgment. quote: Time tested things should be examined as to their overall effectiveness ... as well as the underlying assumptions that has made their longevity possible. So that’s certainly a place to start. Certainly it’s a reason to pause, and ask whether or not it’s in place for a good reason. Tradition? Same answer. Because God said so? Yes, that IS actually a good reason. I have no problem with taking some things on authority, especially when it has so much cultural, biological, and antropological support. Though I’m not arguing this totally from the authority angle, it always gets back to that at some point. Are we hanging and burning witches again? No we’re not. quote: Why would I want to demonstrate this? I am not for child marriage. My whole point is that according to your own standards you may have to rigorously demonstrate that they CAN’T. The burden of proof, seems to be according to you, on the side of tradition. And that proof will be rigorously, if not impossibly mathematical, statistical, and genetic. Intuition, gut feelings, common-sense, is not accepted. And heck, you might not even have time to get the research done. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, I don't mean to be repetitious but I still stand on the same questions as earlier: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000497-18.html#446 What "content" about gender and homosexuality are you making a moral and legal judgement by? You seem to be avoiding speaking directly about gender and homosexuality themselves. But, I think we all need to understand better what those are before we may be more sure about our judgements, and other judgements of the past. What exacty IS gender? AND What exactly IS ("hetero"/"homo") humansexuality? Furthermore, how much do, or why should, these determine social capabilities, rights, and freedoms? [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-10-2005 09:56 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
