While I think there are many sins (lust, pride, greed, envy, unrighteous anger, sloth, gluttony etc.) they all have the same effect - separation from God. I've noticed that in A.A. the 12 steps and 12 traditions book puts the word "sins" in parentheses one time. They are mainly referred to as character defects and not sins. I'm not absolutely certain why but I heard a guy in one of my groups say that the word sin really has no business in A.A. I think it's because the word carries with it the idea of hell and condemnation. They are more looked at as character flaws. You don't hear the word used very often though if at all.
It states on page 48 "Some will be quite annoyed if there is talk about immorality, let alone sin. But all who are in the least reasonable will agree upon one point: that there is plenty wrong with us alcoholics."
Correction to the above post: I meant to say quotation marks in stead of parenthesis.
Sin is only useful in a religious context. Character flaws, moral failure, or human frailty have to do with the aspect of being human, which is not particularly a religous context. It is a human context within the greater context of potential, and/or human society.
I don't think there is any value in talking about sin per se, as when the "sins" of the everyday human are acknowledged, corrected, and taken care of, then, the solution to "sin" is solved.
"Sin" has a connotation of shame, which can hinder acknowledgement. Human frailty has a less shaming effect, because of the solidarity of being human.
Sin separates the sacred and secular aspects of life, because what one does or doesn't do to please God, has the implication of taking one "out of the will of God". Whereas, human failings have to do with one's own personal life, and value.
Donnie McClurklin and myself have both been delivered from the sin of homosexuality. So have thousands of Christians who have received healing from this entrapping behavior through various groups (Exodus, Narth, etc).
Homosexuality is an unnatural sexual behavior. You can look at a man and a woman's body and tell "who is supposed to be with who." The fact that you can believe you were born gay and acknowledge that homosexual sin is more intense, more compulsive and may even physically "feel better" because of its intensity, and then still come out of it proves that conventional psychology doesn't have a clue. It is a higher level of immorality... you can easily compare it to "two consenting adults" of adult incest - but you are not used to this comparison.
Getting healing and getting completely delivered from homosexual entrapment takes time. You can't get back at first... there are reasons for this. But you CAN indeed get back to heterosexual normal desires if you are willing to let God heal you. Question everything.
As far as "sins" of thought are concerned... actions speak louder than thoughts. You can wish someone would die, but this is NOT the exact same thing as killing them (however you HAVE committed the thought murder in your heart). Yes, they are both evil...but one actually ends a life and gives eternal consequences which are different than the eternal consequences of thoughts which can be forgiven.
Please understand, murder and rape and adultery and all of these sins can be forgiven too...but actions which affect other people for eternity are different from fantasy. Fantasy, however, DOES sin against God. Q.E.
Critics of Christianity should talk about this more often. I’ve seen non-Christians attack Christians for believing that Anne Frank is burning in hell for being Jewish. I’ve seen Christian apologists, say, roughly, “It’s a misrepresentation of Christianity to say Christians believe God damned Anne Frank for being Jewish. What we believe is that God damned her for failing Ray Comfort’s good person test.” (The Christian might add, by way of further explanation, that God forgives Christians and only Christians for failing the Comfort’s test.) I’ve never seen an atheist go after a Christian for saying that, even though those two claims are roughly equal in moral insanity.
I go after them for it, all the time - but I generally feel as though I'm fighting a lone battle.
Of course, when I say I go after them, I mean that I talk about them. I rarely talk to them, for the simple reason that they aren't worth addressing.
In any case, although I understand what Hallquist is saying, and I agree - in the end, it amounts to the same thing. According to the psychopaths, God sends people to hell for not being Christians. All the rest is just verbal detour.
"...The fact that you can believe you were born gay and acknowledge that homosexual sin is more intense, more compulsive and may even physically "feel better" because of its intensity, and then still come out of it proves that conventional psychology doesn't have a clue."
You're telling us that you are never secretly attracted to men any more?
Bullshit!
You just see your denial of your attractions as righteousness.
That would be like as if I decided that women were yucky and filled with cooties, and now I choose to be attracted to men.
Never happen.
I have always been enamoured of the female form, and I don't think there's any "choice" involved, any more than you exercised a "choice" to be attracted to men.
I wonder what jesus really thought about homosexuality. as far as i know he never comdemned it, and spent most of his time alone with twelve other nubile young men. He even washed their feet, which from Johns post the other day apparently sometimes means something else entirely.
If when you're having intercourse with a woman (assuming you DO have women in your life now as opposed to just an absence of men), do you feel like it's distasteful, but that you're "obliged" to enjoy it?
I got you beat. I have no ex wives. I stayed a bachelor 40 years, enjoying the pleasure of different womens company the entire time, until I finally settled down 2 years ago.
(that sound you hear is your battleship breaking in half as it sinks forever into the deep abyss)
GearHead: You're telling us that you are never secretly attracted to men any more?
Bullshit!
You just see your denial of your attractions as righteousness.
Let's say you feel periodically feel an impulse to shop lift, or to strike someone in anger, or to cheat on your spouse or to drink too much. Don't you think it's a good thing to resist that impulse?
Only animals mindlessly follow whatever impulse springs into their head. Is that what you consider a noble, rational way to live life? Do you really apply this concept of "authenticity" uniformly, or just selectively, since you have bought into the lies of homosexual propagandists?
I can never understand how secularists can miss that they are being inconsistent and illogical when they say stuff like this. Feh.
That's a fallacious argument. Gearhead, like most heterosexual people, only has yearnings for people of the opposite sexual persuasion. Breckmin, if he is gay, will always have sexual yearnings for other men. Thinking about shop lifting or hitting someone you're mad at or drink too much ISN'T the same as going against the natural inclination of an individual person. If the person only gets off on sex dolls then that's what he/she's going to get off on.
You're comparing a natural urge to a thought. Gay people don't just say, "hey, I think I'll be straight today", and people who brainwash them into something other than their natural self will reap a negative reward because the subconscious of the person being brainwashed in this manner is almost destined to snap mentally.
Of COURSE nature only meant for man to be with woman but all across the spectrum of the animal kingdom, something that humans are a part of, homosexual relations are common.
"Let's say you feel periodically feel an impulse to shop lift, or to strike someone in anger, or to cheat on your spouse or to drink too much. Don't you think it's a good thing to resist that impulse?"
Homosexuality isn't driven by "impulse". It's driven by attraction.
"Yes, let's preach a bit more about sin, brothers and sisters">
by faith, it is not a question of having to prove ourselves right -- or without sin in order to avoid punishment ( a lot of work and image maintenance) but do we have a safe place to surrender and confess (not promote or defend or offend with) sin and receive grace and mercy for such? When we confess sin to Christ, we are set free from fear of condemnation. Condemnation, whether of ourselves or others, is a sin.
I had a conversation on the phone with an old fundy friend today. He just became aware that I am now an agnostic. Of course he tried to reason me back into the faith. His conclusion was that I was never saved in the first place, imagine that. We talked about that for about an hour until I brought up Hell.
I said, “so when you go all the way back to the beginning, you have God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit that have always existed”. “According to your theology, God did not have to create man. He was perfectly content within himself and could have stayed in that state for all eternity. “Why did he have to create a place such as Hell”? Eternal conscience torment that never, ever, ends.
His answer
“God had to create Hell, he could not have done otherwise”. Why? Because he is perfectly just and eternal. So he had to make his punishment for sin eternal, and if you don’t’ agree with hell, then you don’t understand how bad sin is.
exreformed, In this way of thinking, humans are really only extensions of 'God. They are not significant in any way other than to further enlarge God's "SELF" (even though he is self-existant and self-sustaining and doesn't need humans...He chose to "use" humans for his own ends.)
Since God only needs humans for his own plans, purposes and the enlarging of "His Kingdom", then, He either predestines those who will suffer to "prove" his justice in eternal punishment, OR he must judge those that do not submit or choose what he has already chosen for them. HOW IS THIS CONSIDERED "GOOD"??? Because he is inscrutable, His ways are past "finding out", etc. ...it calls for irrational faith. This is why "good" must be judged apart from "God", because otherwise, good becomes an arbitray assessment of those who are "in power". Whatever those in power say is God's will (how they interpret the text for those under them) must be submitted to, otherwise, one is "out of order" and in danger of discipline or "hell-fire".
Terms like Sin God Transcendent Immaterial Incorporeal Supernatural are all non-cognitive. Lines of discourse addressing such terms make no sense because non-cognitive terms have no specific meaning stemming from primary attributes. An argument From Non-Cognitivism and a defense against argument from imagination here can convince an honest person that god talk is meaningless.
Your previous homosexual identification has been "replaced" by tranferrence to another 'master'. In this sense, you have "been born again". You have placed your faith in the delierance promised, because those that have mentored you, and have your respect say that "it works". Pray, fast, and do what is suggested and then "you will be free".
Such "mentoring relationships" are not evil, but they can lead to cultish following of leaders, without developing one's critical ability to think for oneself. This is damaging not just to what you "could become", but a lack of critical thinking allows the "empowered" a lack of accountability. This could lead you down a primrose path, to your own destruction. You must make your own decisions, and not allow others to determine the 'course of your life' for you.
Breckmin, supposedly Christ is the cure and he lives in your heart; therefore, Christians hypothetically posses the "cure" to an imaginary disease called "sin".
Is there really any difference between the Biblical concept of sin and any other tribal group's taboo? If there is, I fail to see it. The Bible orders the death penalty for all sorts of foolish things - I guess that was because they couldn't spare the manpower to build a prison in those days, and no-one wanted a slave with bad ju-ju attached to him.
over thirty years with no homosexual fantasies or activity
over 23 years with no serious effectual temptation (which would have been brought on by either heterosexual pornography or alleged bi-sexual men propositioning me).
The fact is people are NOT born homosexual. This is a huge deception. Thousands of people who come out of homosexual lifestyle to live normal heterosexual relationships demonstrate the deception. The complication is that different people have different potentials for homosexual unnatural behavior. Lack of male intimacy, low testosterone, male to male molestation as a child, etc. etc. Even getting locked up in prison with men who abuse you can cause you to fall into the sin of homosexuality. This are things the world does NOT understand... because there is a chemical aspect to what takes place with regards to attraction as well as spiritual consequences. Romans 1 spells it out correctly. Depraved mind, degrading passions, etc. The more time you spend in homosexuality the more time it takes to heal you of the abberation and get back.
When you are in the middle of homosexual entrapping behavior... the opposite sex will often do absolutely nothing for you in terms of sexual attraction.
Consequences for actions. That is why you feel like you can't get back. You CAN. But only if you follow proper steps toward healing.
"Which is worse: being gay or pretending not to be gay and lying to yourself and everyone else around you for the rest of your life?"
Worse would be to stay in the homosexual unnatural addiction (bestiality, necrophilia or pornography addictions apply as well)and not get deliverance from it.
By God's grace I was delivered from such addiction. It's not a learned behavior...it is an entrapping behavior that changes you.. but there are steps to change you back..Question everything! (like why there are so many who DO)
"so when you go all the way back to the beginning, you have God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit that have always existed”. “According to your theology, God did not have to create man."
God did not create out of need. He already had the angels - but He did NOT create these angels out of need or loneliness either. Such would be utterly foolish and a petty God-concept.
"He was perfectly content within himself"
unnecessary for an Infinite Omniscient existence.
"and could have stayed in that state for all eternity."
An infinite existence is not like a finite being that should have to somehow "wait" on a consecutive linear timeline. The angels already existed, btw. God's temporal experience with them and among them would be eternal (this last sentence will need more clarification and can never be fully defined in the English - Q.E.).
“Why did he have to create a place such as Hell”?"
Lucifer actually fell and became satan. a third of the angels fell with him. hell was created for them originally (but clearly an omniscient Creator knew that other beings of choice who did not receive payment for the negative debt they created in God's universe would also have to be separated there because of God Order and Justice (consequences for actions) and other mult-faceted reasons relating to the Holiness of God, the image of man, the nature of sin and eternal state of the universe in contrast to the temporary creation.
"Eternal conscience torment that never, ever, ends."
Multi-faceted reasons for this.
"His answer
“God had to create Hell, he could not have done otherwise”. Why? Because he is perfectly just and eternal. So he had to make his punishment for sin eternal, and if you don’t’ agree with hell, then you don’t understand how bad sin is.
What are your thoughts?"
Hell was "first" created because of the angels who fell. He is correct in that people who don't agree with hell's existence do NOT realize how evil sin is...and clearly this is because they have no concept or understanding (they are often blind to it)how incredibly Holy God is. The incredible state of Perfect Infinite Glory requires moral perfection for fellowship.
This moral perfection can only come through Jesus Christ and HIS Perfect Holiness being imputed to you.
disagreeing with God in any way is not only just disobedience..but it is also making yourself an "idol" over a Holy God Whom it is logical for you to worship (FOR YOU! not for God).
We don't worship God because He needs us or because it makes an omniscient Creator just somehow feel better. This is a creator you've wrongly constructed in your mind which is too small and you expect way too little from such Creator. We worship God (fellowship with Him)because it is good for us. It is a blessing to us. It is right (optimal for us) because it is what we were created for (fellowship with a Holy Creator).
But God wants willing hearts NOT puppets or robots. We can say no and not love God.
This is a bad thing and will taint you as a being of choice for all of eternity and cause you to stay separated from His fellowship if you do not repent and receive forgiveness.
Question everything. This is a good line of reasoning to go much deeper into..(i.e. How can it be a choice if the consequences for not doing it are eternal suffering, etc - for "starters")
Breckmin, you give a powerful testimony that we are NOT condemned to be in bondage to sin, and most people cannot stand this, since they would like to justify their own sin, no matter *what* that sin is.
Remember the end of Romans 1 when Paul describes sinners of all stripes: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Stay strong in the faith, and do not be surprised at the attacks and sneering directed at your way. I wonder if these people would support a reformed ex con or alcoholic or wife beater, or if they would encourage him to "be sincere" and give into his temptations?
I hate to break it to you, but wife-beating isn't the same as homosexuality, no matter what fundy retards say. Christians say that homosexuality is sooo evil, but when you ask them why, eventually it comes down to, "because the Bible says so!". Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, avoiding the typical "they feel guilty and hate themselves(gee, I wonder if the few gays who this way feel because of the Christians who constantly tell them they're wicked and god hates them)", "they spread disease(heterosexuals are just as likely to catch STDs as gays)", and any other bit of Christian propaganda.
I hate to break it to you, but wife-beating isn't the same as homosexuality, no matter what fundy retards say.
I hate to break it to you, but you completely missed the point of my analogy. Are you certain about who's the retard here? ;>)
I wasn't saying that all sins are the same. I'm saying that when people overcome sin, that's a *good* thing. There's nothing self deceiving or hypocritical about it. On the contrary, it's what separates adults from children. Do you agree?
Christians say that homosexuality is sooo evil, but when you ask them why, eventually it comes down to, "because the Bible says so!".
Atheists pretend to condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than question begging ones.
Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong,
The Levitical condemnations of homosexuality are bookendended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. Do you consider those immoral? What about necro? If you say yes, why are you so narrow minded and bigoted in your condemnation of these other sexual minorities?
Think about it: do you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?
Homosexuality is two consenting adults of the same gender having sex. Wife-beating is one partner subjugating the other through physical violence; equating the two is the type of generalization I expect from morons trying to defend their out-dated morality. And then you try to cover that up with the whole "do you support re-rehabilitating sinners" crap. I support people overcoming harmful, perverted addictions that are destroying their lives- and Christians can't tag any of this on homosexuality. Are you certain about who's the retard here?;^)
Atheists typically do the right thing because it's the right thing. I know that to a theist, the concept of doing good without the promise of eternal reward in Happyplayland must be mind-boggling, but that's why they do it. As for objective morality, throughout history, this has always been a rather convenient excuse for depraved groups to impose their morality on others and commit mass murder towards those who wouldn't conform.
And finally, under pressure, the mental retardation resulting from brain-washing rears it's head. Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions. As for Necrophilia... congratulation. You are only the second fundy I've seen on the Internet who's severely retarded enough to draw a parallel between Homosexuality and necrophilia. In order for something to be real sex and not a perversion, it must always be between two consenting adults, and must not be between relatives. Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head; no such risks stem from reasonable homosexual behavior, so therefore Christians have absolutely no logical, ethical, scientific, medical, or intelligent reason to oppose homosexuality, apart from the fact that it jars with their personal, "justified" moral intuition. It's also interesting how you try to justify this primitive hogwash with a verse from the old testament, the section of the bible that says it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery(Leviticus 22;44-46), beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die within one day of the beating(Exodus 20;20-21), and also justifies mass murder(of pagans and homosexuals). Funny how you insinuate that atheists don't have ethics, sexual(see Solomon and just about every major male character in the O.T.; how many wives do we see?) or otherwise when anyone who reads the bible can clearly see that secular morals and ethics are totally superior to the ones in the Wholly Babble. Cherry-picking morals out of the old testament... Are you certain who the retard around here is?;) So wanting the right to legally marry each other and have their basic human rights recognized by the law is "pushy special interests"? Like the fundys who want Creationism taught in schools? Or demand the dissolution of Separation of Church and State? Or people who condemn and persecute homosexuals based on a discredited religious text that's been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in recorded history? Are you certain who the retard here is?;)
B.R. said: Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong.
C. Andiron responded: The Levitical condemnations of homosexuality are bookendended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. Do you consider those immoral? What about necro? If you say yes, why are you so narrow minded and bigoted in your condemnation of these other sexual minorities?
So you concede you can’t meet B.R.’s challenge.
Unlike you, I won’t dodge:
The basic concept is simple: That which minimizes suffering is moral. (Yes, yes, there’s no “suffering-o-meter,” so we’ve got to take the best relative measurements we can, as we go. Such is life.)
Because a parent holds such disproportionate power in the relationship, parent/child incest can never be consensual (even when both are adults). Non-consensual sex is called rape. Causing suffering is immoral.
To the extent it causes animal suffering, and I suspect it does, bestiality is immoral "animal rape."
Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral.
(Relatedly: Where does the Bible condemn necrophilia? Per the explicit Biblical proscriptions, wouldn’t it be just fine for a husband to have sex with the body of his dead wife? Presumably you’d object to this as immoral. Why?)
But to the extent it's just some guy bangin' a corpse or a cow ("moo" means "yes"!), it's not immoral at all. Severly pathological, yes. Immoral, no.
There, no Bible required.
So to repeat: What’s the non-Biblical problem with homosexuality, again?
Now I’ll allow myself to take a page from your playbook, and answer a question with a question:
[D]o you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?
First, why are you now talking about ethics, not morality? Anyway, are you suggesting the Bible offers a coherent view of sexual ethics?
What I said was that you DON'T choose what you are attracted to.
When you see something that appeals to you, you don't say,
"I'm going to choose to like that",
you say,
"I like that, and I want it."
Whether you want to admit it or not, if you liked it enough to be gay for some portion of your life, it was because you LIKED being gay. I'm not condemning this. If you're gay, be gay. Simple. I'm also not denying that what you say about now being only attracted by women may be true; but you believe some other things on pretty flimsy evidence, and I suspect that there are still times when...
Having brought the subject up in the first place without anyone asking for that information shows us all that just talking about "sin" made you think about your homosexual past long enough to type out a three paragraph comment and let it ride long enough to be the first comment you made on this thread.
"...Atheists pretend to condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than question begging ones."
Christians actually DO condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than bare assertions and fairy tales.
"Think about it: do you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?"
Like your local Christian community? I've never met a pushier special interest group in my life than Christians.
"Homosexuality is two consenting adults of the same gender having sex."
B.R., what about two consenting adults such as a mother and her son or an adult daughter and her biological father? These are two consenting adults... will you claim that this is wrong, but not homosexuals?
"Having brought the subject up in the first place without anyone asking for that information shows us all that just talking about "sin" made you think about your homosexual past long enough to type out a three paragraph comment and let it ride long enough to be the first comment you made on this thread."
Actually, I read the Chris' article. I addresses homosexuality and even the picture addresses the controversy.
"It's still bugs you."
Why should it bug me? It gave me tremendous understanding as to what homosexuality really is. Also, I am completely forgiven because of the power of Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross. Romans 8:1
Hoot! It's so fun to read how those scary homos rove in bands "entrapping" purely straight guys into sex. (I hear they also make you watch Yentl.) And Larry Craig just happened to end up in a stall adopting a "wide stance." And Ted Haggard was "ministering" to that male masseuse and is now a heterosexual. Love that the poster had to get sweaty with another man in order to know what homosexuality "really" is. So much for the "You can look at a man and a woman's body and tell who is supposed to be with who" silliness. Guess he needed to look really really closely. While naked. With "Real Prison Diary" running in the background.
And does Andiron's belief in Levitical proscriptions translate into the belief that masturbation is a sin? Or sex during menstruation? Or is it one of those "Paul didn't say I couldn't" things? Just curious.
I just love when Christians just read the first sentence or two of my comments and dodge the rest.
@Breckmin; duuuuh, maybe it has something to do with the risk of inbreeding? Read my first comment. I proved that Christians have no excuse whatsoever to oppose gay rights(human rights that are being withheld from them) and here you are, asking brain-dead questions I've already answer. And while you're at it, read clamat's comment instead of evading it. And no, you obviously don't know what homosexuality is, and as for Jesus, read comment #14 on "25 Hot Topics for a New Book(the one with 17 comments)". And read the scripture I provided on my previous comment here.
Ok great. We seem to be making progress. It seems to be implicitly conceded that just desiring something doesn't make it right (which seems the point of Gearhead's initial posts), and now we've moved on to trying to justify homosexuality as moral.
@clamat:
So you concede you can’t meet B.R.’s challenge.
Unlike you, I won’t dodge:
The basic concept is simple: That which minimizes suffering is moral.
Clamat, I put it to you B.R. was dodging the issue, and so are you. It seems that you an he are being unconsciously hypocritical, or inconsistent in the standards you are trying to hold the Christian to, as opposed to those you espouse. Let me ask you, how does your bare assertion, "That which minimizes suffering ..." differ fron the bare assertion "Bestiality, incest and necro are immoral". And how do those differ from the bare assertion, "Homosexuality is immoral"?
I concede we are both absolutists. I just believe in several more moral principles that you do. When you know why you accept certain moral principles as absolute, you will know why I accept mine.
Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral.
But it is dishonest of you to take a corner case for what we would both agree is paraphilia, but for the homosexual, allow him to justify his behavior with a Potemkin village of "monogamous mutuality", which hardly ever exists. If the incestuous agrees not to have children, if the necrophile cannibal, such as Armin Miewes, a homosexual btw. only agrees to eat his corpse by mutual consent before the suicide, then by your principle there is nothing wrong with the action.
So to repeat: What’s the non-Biblical problem with homosexuality, again?
Even the secularist should be able to see there is ample empirical evidence that this practice is evil. They disproportionately molest children (be honest, do not look at the mere numbers of hetero vs homo molesters, but at the *percentages*). They routinely act lawlessly, such as judge Walker Vaughn, and indeed this is described in the Genesis 19 narrative. You cannot separate this one immoral action out and say, "apart from that, they will be moral". Immorality comes as a package deal. Would you be comfortable having Kevin Jennings instruct your children? Be honest.
@B.R. Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions. As above, what about a Potemkin village justification such as is used by homosexuals, that all parties are adult, consenting, and agree to abort any pregnancies?
Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head;
Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental disorder before the lobby gained enough power to arbitrarily change the definition without giving any medical justification. And of course homosexuality can be condemned on the basis of disease as well. Does anyone deny that abstinence and heterosexual monogamy would 100% eliminate the AIDs pandemic into an unpleasant memory? But people must have their sins.
@B.R. Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions. As above, what about a Potemkin village justification such as is used by homosexuals, that all parties are adult, consenting, and agree to abort any pregnancies?
Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head;
Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental disorder before the lobby gained enough power to arbitrarily change the definition without giving any medical justification. And of course homosexuality can be condemned on the basis of disease as well. Does anyone deny that abstinence and heterosexual monogamy would 100% eliminate the AIDs pandemic into an unpleasant memory? But people must have their sins.
So to reiterate, even if you wanted to justify this one evil action, you cannot isolate it out from the rest of the person. You look at the majority (not just the Potemkin village few held up to try to justify this in public eyes) and you see that these people are morally blind. If you protest them acting immorally in public restrooms in parks where children could walk in, you're a homophobe. If you object to the *content* of their parades, because it is inappropriate, again they are morally blind to what is appropriate public behavior. Say what you like, heterosexuals have never sunk to this level of blindness. Sleazeballs like Peter Tatchell in the U.K. will continue to try to lower the age of consent to 12. Please just answer me. Why are only homosexual activists trying to degrade society in ways like this? This is mainstream for them.
There should be a drinking game where every time Andiron says Potemkin, someone has to take a shot.
@ Andiron: Whoa there, Anita Bryant.
There is most certainly NOT “ample empirical evidence that this practice is evil.” You sloppily confuse pedophilia with child molestation (not all child molesters are pedophiles) and then falsely assert gays are the problem. You conflate homosexuality/heterosexuality (which are considered adult psychological orientations) with the behavior of sexual abuse of children, which is rarely committed by homosexuals. Almost all cases of male-male sexual abuse are committed by what actual professional scientists and medical experts (unlike yourself and the de-gayifying conversion cults you got your mis-information from) categorize as psychologically “fixed” or “regressed” or – gasp!—heterosexual.
Gallo and the consensus of virologists (who, last I heard, aren’t part of some global conspiracy to make sure that Gay Potemkin Village is fully stocked with 500 thread-count sheets) would remind you that the spread of AIDS in Africa is a heterosexual problem and that different forms of the virus prefer different modes of transmission. Your argument sounds suspiciously like Westboro Baptist rhetoric.
“Routinely act lawlessly.” Huh? There’s no evidence that gays and lesbians have higher rates of criminal behavior (and sodomy laws don’t count). I don’t know what parks and restrooms you’re trolling, but I’ve seen just as much public sexual behavior from heteros as gays. And the lesbians? When it comes to anti-social behavior/crime, they make Mother Theresa look like Snookie.
But the focus of your extended rants seems to be on male homosexual behavior and not lesbianism, which leads me to believe there's something more going on with you than you've admitted.
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality? And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then. Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....? The "disease" propaganda is bullshit. I know it, you(deep down, hopefully)know it, hell, I'll bet that the Fundies who made it up know it. There is not one single bit of evidence that gays are more at risk for STDs than heterosexuals just because they're gay. Please tell that you haven't been this badly brainwashed by the Christains. Homosexuals are more likely to catch STDs because overall, lots of them don't practice safe sex. And eliminating homosexuality won't get rid of AIDs. And yes, even monogamous heterosexuals are at risk for AIDs if they don't practice safe sex. Duh. Why must this concept be explained to Christards over and over and over...?
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality? And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then. Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....? The "disease" propaganda is bullshit. I know it, you(deep down, hopefully)know it, hell, I'll bet that the Fundies who made it up know it.
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality? And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then. Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....?
Complete, total abstinence(which will NEVER happen, by the way)would eliminate AIDs; contrary to what Fundy fuckwits have told you, heterosexual monogamy won't. It's called safe sex. Statistically, homosexuals are less likely to practice safe sex, and therefore more likely to catch STDs; not because Gawd has cursed them. So who would deny your claim? Any sane, educated person of average or higher intelligence(who has not been brainwashed by the religious right). And gullible sheeple must have their cults.
I love the way you make these generalizations about "evil" and "majority", and provide not one statistic or poll that even leans your way. I've been to hundreds of parks, and never have I, or anyone I know or have heard of, ever encountered homos getting it on in a public restroom, whether in a park or anywhere else. And some of them do, they hardly count as a "majority". And are you saying that only *gay* perverts have sex in public restrooms?
"...heterosexuals have never sunk to this level of blindness."
Really? Guess you better go tell that to all the polygamists in America(and the heterosexual males in the o.t.), and the straight bondage freaks.
First off, he wanted to lower it to 14, not 12, and secondly, as with your reference to Judge Walker, why don't you apply this criteria to Christians and see how well your own group stands up(and don't forget folks like Jim Jones). Same goes for gay parades with inappropriate content; you can't judge millions of people based on the action of a few; otherwise, Christianity would be eligible for abolition. A better question(for Christians) would be, "why do only small percentages of gayfolk want to degrade society in a sexual way, yet millions of Christians want to effectively destroy modern education by teaching homophobia, Creationism(a discredited teaching), abolish Separation of Church and State, and want to turn our nation into a theocratic hellhole?". Now, if you can't contribute something useful and intelligent to the conversation, then don't bother contributing at all.
Irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals and everything associated with them, usually stemming from old-fashioned religious interests like conservative Christianity. Involves fears such as A; gays spread AIDs, B; gays want to brainwash children, C; granting gays the right to marry will somehow "destroy" traditional marriage and family values, D; gays are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, E; most, if not all gays are involved in sexual practices involving feces(?).
-Christians spread delusion. -Christians want to brainwash children. -Christians wanting to confine the definition of marriage to between one man- one woman destroys equality. -Christians want to theocracize America - *Christianity is dangerous* -Religion poisons everything
is one Christophobic?
I'm disconcerted as at how, (especially where I live in CA), if one is opposed to gay marriage, that is enough to automatically be branded as a homophobic hate-monger.
I think to myself, by that logic, ANY opposition to ANYTHING qualifies as a phobia.
If I were to support gay marriage, but oppose NAMBLA, am I a phobic and hater?
Ana, Yes Christianity is dangerous when one cannot choose their values, think "outside the box", have different opinions where it regards personal decisions, inhibits scientific discovery, undermines human knowledge, politically oppresses, or when it opposes resistance to its supremacy. This is the danger of any religion.
As to your concern about being phobic, I agree. The politically correct view of "groups", is the gay or Muslim populations. There seems to be justification and all kinds of "rights" granted to them, at the costs of other groups. But, then, groups are what drive "herdish" mentality which those that want to use power to manipulate will use!
How does your bare assertion, “That which minimizes suffering…” differ from the bare assertion “Bestiality, incest, and necro are immoral"? And how do those differ from the bare assertion, “Homosexuality is immoral”?
Really? You can’t tell the difference? That explains a lot.
It’s simple:
My assertion articulates a basic moral principle or guideline which can be applied to a particular circumstance, and which (I hope) informs all my moral decisions.
Your assertion, on the other hand is simply a list of specific circumstances themselves, not the principle or guideline you use to evaluate them. Simply declaring “homosexuality is immoral” simply begs the question: Why? Under what moral principle?
You may wish to argue that my assertion, “that which minimizes suffering is moral” also begs the question “Why?” I must admit, I don’t have a rigorous, formal argument supporting this principle. It’s simply my personal distillation of the various moral principles that have made sense to me over a lifetime.
But this is entirely irrelevant: Such an argument is specious unless you disagree with the principle. Do you disagree that it is moral to minimize suffering? If so, please stay far, far away from me and my family.
No, I won’t, because you haven’t articulated any moral principles at all. “The Bible tells me so” is not a moral principle. Rather, you’ve listed specific actions think are condemned by the Bible. (Though, to repeat: Where does the Bible condemn necrophilia?)
But the Bible itself offers no coherent moral principle for these proscriptions ----indeed, “love thy neighbor” would seem to encourage hot guy-on-guy action. This compels you to resort to ad hoc justifications, and scramble to identify “empirical” support for your personal prejudices.
(For that is obviously what they are. My hypothesis: Far more people adopt the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity because they think Christianity justifies their homophobia, than people who come to their homophobia through Christianity. Which is why it is so vehement and virulent: People always cling hardest to the things that they think justify the bigotries they bring to the table.)
As others have pointed out, your “empirical” arguments are laughable, and unsupported by any reference or evidence. You want to condemn homosexuals, as opposed to treating them just like everybody else, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence justifying this condemnation.
“Homosexuals routinely act lawlessly.” To the extent this statement is not fatally vague (“routinely”?), it is asinine: Are you claiming that heterosexuals don’t routinely act lawlessly? Well that explains why our prison populations pretty much look just like Harvey Fierstien and John Waters, and are all Judy Garland fans. Seriously, this is just stupid.
So is the notion homosexuals disproportionately molest children. (Again, cite please?) You asked if I would be comfortable having Kevin Jennings teach my children. I admit, I had to google him. Based on his Wikipedia entry, though, I’d be more than comfortable - I’d be ecstatic.
True story: A teacher at one of our local middle schools was recently arrested for having sexual contact with a 14-year old. A married, male teacher. With a 14-year old girl. Should I fear my daughter’s straight male teachers from now on? What do your moral coherent “principles” say about this scenario?
Christians want to convert as many people to their religion as they can. That nails "spread delusion" and "brainwash".
Well, I don't exactly see homosexuals lining up to change their orientation at the whim of Christian Morality, do you?
Unlike C. Andiron, I am not quite biased or arrogant enough to make such a broad blanket statement. Most Christians are thankfully intelligent enough to see that we need Separation of C/S, but unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of rabid Fundamentalists who don't agree and spend loads of money each year expressing their desire to mold this country on the morally perfect, unquestionable Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, which brings us to your "Christianity is dangerous" point.
That's a moronic generalization that I'll leave to materialist blow-hards, thank you. Religion, in it's proper place, can be greatly beneficial to a society; but that depends on the religion.
If someone doesn't support something, I don't think they should be labeled as a "hater"; although it is true, as I've pointed out, that Christians really don't have any valid reason to oppose gay marriage, apart from the fact that it soothes their silly allegiance to a deified dead man and a meaningless dogma.
NAMBLA is a bunch of pedophiles, so no, opposing them would make you a decent person.
@ana: "If I were to support gay marriage, but oppose NAMBLA, am I a phobic and a hater?" Well, I think "hater" is an funny term, kinda like Bush's "decider," so I wouldn't choose it. The answer is no. But you knew that before you even posted the question. The fact that you rhetorically equate pedo/hebe-philias with gay marriage between consenting adults says quite a bit.
You say that "if one is opposed to gay marriage, that is enough to automatically be branded" homophobic. I agree folks should be careful about the application of labels, but guess what? I've heard few explanations of opposition to gay marriage that would not deserve the label, so yup, I sometimes skip the "tell me why" part and cut to the chase. I'd be happy to replace "homophobic" with "heterosexist" if the shoe fits.
My question to you is this: Why haven't you rhetorically distanced youself from Andiron and his ilk? Do you NOT think Andrion's words are indicative of homophobia? If not, then what word would you choose to condemn his statments?
@clamat: Your moniker always makes me think of Bloody Mary's.
You said: "My hypothesis: Far more people adopt the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity because they think Christianity justifies their homophobia, than people who come to their homophobia through Christianity."
Right on. There's clearly more going on in the vitriol of folks like Andiron and Breckmin, which is apparent in the bizarre examples and in the focus on gay men and not lesbians. I think part of the explanation lies in cultural notions of masculinity (gender not sex). Regardless, there's social/political science research that supports the notion that sexual attitudes predict religiosity.
>>Christians want to convert as many people to their religion as they can. That nails "spread delusion" and "brainwash".<<<
That presupposes that Christianity is a delusion and evangelism a form of "brainwashing", each of which is an entire topic of its own.
(But on the evangelism/spreading point - there are those who are quite confortable with the idea of proselytizing atheism. I just listened to a podcast dialogue in which Dan Barker participated, and he talked about how he's fine with the term "atheist evangelist" being applied to him if it means he is spreading "the good news that there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no threat of judgement, and all that")
>>NAMBLA is a bunch of pedophiles, so no, opposing them would make you a decent person.<<
The implication is that you feel pedophilia is wrong and indecent. What makes pedophilia indecent if it is consensual?(which is what NAMBLA stands in support of - consensual relations between a minor male and an adult male, which by the way, isn’t necessarily pedophilia. It can be ephebophilia.)
People who rally for gay-marriage and what they perceive as “marriage equality” always seem to forget that prohibition of gay marriage is not the only example of state-regulated marriage law.
In my state of California, if I were 15 years old, and were in a consensual relationship with and engaged to a 29 year old man, I would need parental consent to marry . Are you ready to fight and rally for my right to an autonomous decision to marry at 15?
Half of the states don’t allow marriage between first-cousins. Where is the outrage at this? Where is the proclamation that this is a “violation” of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment?
Whenever I face the topic of gay marriage, here is the point I aim to make– the average human being in our society is more than ready to draw the line somewhere on the spectrum of marriage and sexual practices. The difference between conservative Christians (such as myself) and secularists being, that conservative Christians draw the line earlier on in the spectrum.
Ana, Fair enough... But, since conviction is a matter of conscience, then one should be tolerant of differences in opinion. Evaluate the reasons why or why not "this or that". Our country does support liberty of conscience in matters of religious conviction...
The problem becomes when conservatives think that "God" is going to interevene. We have heard how many times God was going to judge the nation for this or that...I am not supporting anything goes attitude, here. I am just suggesting that the radicals of both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and come to a civil decision...not a theocratic one.
>>The fact that you rhetorically equate pedo/hebe-philias with gay marriage between consenting adults says quite a bit.<<
You are correct that it was a rhetorical question. You are incorrect that I was equating.
My point was to induce a secularist explanation for why (and not merely the claim that) 'opposition to NAMBLA doesn't constitute as a phobia and/or hate expression.'
>>Do you NOT think Andrion's words are indicative of homophobia? If not, then what word would you choose to condemn his statments?<<
I do not condemn his statements, at least not the ones that I read. If there is a specific statement of his that you feel is homophobic or hateful, tell which one it is and I will look it over and give you my thoughts.
There is a tendency for people to cry "hate speech!" or "--phobia" when they encounter a comment that they dislike. Merely disliking a comment does not render it hateful or phobic.
>>Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding<<
I have a notebook in which I have written my thoughts on the gay marriage controversy, and in which a point similar to the above I considered. I wrote the following (rough draft, so kind of a sloppy format):
" What is the basis for disallowing incestuous marriages?
- Preventing incestuous couples from having children that are genetically defective.
Question: What are the actual statistics on this issue? How many children that have been born to incestuous parents were born defective? And what is the % liklihood that the child of an incestuous couple (e.g. father-daughter) will be defective?
Weakness of the argument: - Assumption that the couple will have a child
What if the couple does not have a child?
What if one or both partners are infertile?
What if the couple does not wish to reproduce and will commit to the use of contraceptives?
The objection would surely arise that while there may be incestuous couples that do NOT seek to procreate, there may be incestuous couples that will seek to procreate.
A respondent question to which may be:
Are we really going to bar ALL incestuous couples from getting married - on the basis that some will aim to have children - not taking into consideration ones that will not aim to reproduce?
>>"What does opposing the National Associatiaon of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with Gay marriage?"<<
My whole point with my rhetorical question, was this: It is odd, that the same people that would readily call me a homophobic, hating, bigot for opposing gay marriage, would NOT readily call me the same names for opposing NAMBLA. I would like to know why.
I mean, if I were to support NAMBLA, that's an expression of tolerance!
So if I DON'T support it, what keeps people from calling me "INTOLERANT!" ?
The difference between conservative Christians…and secularists [is] that conservative Christians draw the line [on the spectrum of marriage and sexual practices] earlier[.]
No, the difference is that conservative Christians draw the line arbitrarily and inconsistently, and tend to conflate morality and legality.
Equating the marriage rights of adult homosexuals to those of children is entirely specious. The consensus is that children are too immature and too ignorant to make informed, independent decisions regarding certain important questions. Because we do not have the resources to determine maturity on a case-by-case basis, we draw bright, legal lines: You can’t drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. This is also why we have statutory rape laws (because of the power disparity, minors can’t give informed consent to sex with an adult – and the adult knows this). It’s also why minors cannot legally enter into contracts, including marriage contracts.
As to “first-cousin marriage,” you’ve answered your own question: There is no “outrage” because millions of first cousins aren’t demanding the right to marry. If tomorrow legions of first cousins descended on the nation’s city halls demanding to get hitched, we’d have to examine the potential moral (and ethical, and social) impact of such a change. Unlike other secularists on the board, aside from the "birth defect" reason (which I do not know the actual science on) I’ll admit I can’t come up with a good reason to think first-cousin marriage would be immoral.
(Much as it will undoubtedly cause some of my secular brethren to bristle: I don’t see how brother-sister marriage would be immoral. (I have explained several times why I believe parent-child incest is immoral.) Pathological, almost certainly. Socially harmful, quite probably. Immoral to the extent such inbreeding would result in children suffering from birth-defects (not to mention suffering from psychological trauma). But immoral per se? I don’t see it. Fortunately, as with first cousins, hordes of siblings aren’t staging sit-ins for their right to get married.)
It is odd, that the same people that would readily call me a homophobic, hating, bigot for opposing gay marriage, would NOT readily call me the same names for opposing NAMBLA. I would like to know why.
Because. Homosexuality. Is. Not. The. Same. As. Pedophilia.
Did I use too many big words?
“NAMBLA” stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association. Not the North American Man/Young Man Love Association. Man/Boy Love Association. Men (adults) who want to “love” (have sex with) boys (children). NAMBLA is abhorrent because they are a bunch of G-D pedophiles.
Get it into your head: Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals.
Is that simple enough for you? Do you now “know why?”
It is odd, that the same people who would readily call me a xenophobic, hating, bigot for opposing German immigration, would not readily call me the same names for opposing the Neo-Nazi Party. I would like to know why.
Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery? Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.
The point: on the spectrum of sexual morality, there's just not all that much for conservative Christians to say. Why is it wrong for two men or women to have sex with each other, but not wrong to have multiple wives, handmaidens and concubines?
If you aren’t drawing some sort of analogy between pedo/hebe-philia and gay marriage, then why is it you persist on talking about the former and not the latter? I’m don’t see where you’ve demonstrated that opposition to legalizing "man/boy love" constitutes hate expression or a phobia. I’m not afraid of guys who want to bugger minor boys, I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors. I haven’t seen you or Andiron provide valid NON-BIBLICAL arguments for why as a society we should disallow gay marriage. (And slippery slope arguments are lame, unless you can provide a rational link between the first step and the rest, as opposed to silly "dogs and cats living together" stuff.)
You say: "people cry ‘hate speech’ or ‘phobia’ when they encounter a comment that they dislike. Merely disliking a comment does not render it hateful or phobic" and repeat a similar concern in another of your replies. I already said I agree with the general sentiment that prefers arguments to labels. But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT? I don’t see a single post above that labeled Andiron or you without providing an argument. No one has called you a bigot or hateful or homophobic.
Let’s be clear: I don’t dislike Andiron’s comments because they hurt my feelings (although as a straight woman with gay friends and family, I grieve that I live in a society where they face such talk). I dislike his claims that are false or misleading and I think his rhetoric is indicative of a deep fear that goes well beyond rational disagreement about social policy.
You say: “I do not condemn [Andiron’s] statements, at least not the ones that I read.” Sweet Jesus why NOT?? Even if you would not choose the word “homophobia” the fact that you cannot find anything in his statements from which you would RUSH to distance yourself is really too bad.
"...The consensus is that children are too immature and too ignorant to make informed, independent decisions regarding certain important questions. Because we do not have the resources to determine maturity on a case-by-case basis, we draw bright, legal lines: You can’t drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21."
Here's a first-hand testimony:
I have been married three times. In each case, the woman(!) I married turned out to be immature, and married for selfish and frivolous reasons (the first was 18, the second was 29 (but was also a psychotic bitch), and the third was 20).
Ultimately, all three ended in divorce when the women(!) in each case decided to be unfaithful to her promises to me (Note, just so y'all know, I don't have "problems", I can perform any time without medical assistance, and my libido is as well-developed as most healthy men).
There SHOULD be a minimum age for entering into a marriage, even a monogamous, Christian one, of at least 25 years old, and further to have completed a series of training classes on interpersonal relationships.
But there isn't, and the percentage of divorces is indicative of the level of immaturity of the people who enter into marriages for less than honorable reasons.
NAMBLA should be opposed, because it advocates sexual relations with MINORS.
>>Get it into your head: Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals<<
You missed my point entirely. My comments were never to suggest that "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" are interchangeable terms.
My point was that if people are going to call gay marriage (namely, marriage between same-sex CONSENTING adults) opponents names like haters or "bigots", then why resist calling people who oppose love relationships and sex between a CONSENTING boy and man, I repeat, CONSENTING CONSENTING CONSENTING, boy and man (i.e. " My choice, my body, my freedom, our bedroom, our privacy, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS " ) a bigot?
It's quite the simple point-driven question: Are we intolerant for opposing NAMBLA?
Solipsister,
>>I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors.<<
reasons such as?
>>of your replies. I already said I agree with the general sentiment that prefers arguments to labels. But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT? I don’t see a single post above that labeled Andiron or you without providing an argument.<<
I was more referring to people I've engaged with in my personal life. Such as opponents to Prop 8.
>>Equating the marriage rights of adult homosexuals to those of children is entirely specious.<<
Is a 15 year old a child? Why or why not?
>>If tomorrow legions of first cousins descended on the nation’s city halls demanding to get hitched, we’d have to examine the potential moral (and ethical, and social) impact of such a change<<
This could easily raise the question of "why should we wait until these legions appear? We need not wait for 'legions' in order to legalize such marriage".
And remember, half of our states, (actually, a little over half if we include states that allow it under specific conditions)already allow it.
>>I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors.<<
Reasons such as?
>>But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?<<
I was more referring to people from my personal life experience. Such as people I interacted with who are opposed to Prop 8.
1)"Reasons such as?" How sad that you can't come up with reasons of your own for why we should have laws that say adult men can't fuck minors. Seems like a number of us have explained in clear, non-biblical terms why homosexual marriage is not at all related to pedophilia or hebephilia, and why society is correct to draw bright lines related to power and consent. If our explanations didn't get through to you, that's your problem.
2) When are YOU going to provide a valid non-biblical reason to oppose gay marriage? Tick tock.
3) You said, "I was more referring to people from my personal life experience. Such as people I interacted with who are opposed to Prop 8." Thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry that people were rude to you. I wish they had made arguments and listened to yours instead of/before they called you names. Thanks also for the implicit concession that no poster on this thread has labeled you unfairly.
4) Why aren't you willing to step up? We don't know the people you say interacted badly with you and we don't know the words they used or their context, but I (and no doubt others here) distance ourselves from them and say so. On the other hand, you have a record in front of you of what Andiron said and you are still unwilling to distance yourself from his position. At this point I take your refusal to condemn anything he said as your approval of his claims. That's a real shame.
My point was never to suggest that "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" were interchangeable terms...
Yet you continue to insist on drawing this faulty analogy between a group of pedophiles, on one hand, and homosexuals generally, on the other. Which strongly suggests this is exactly what you believe.
I have already commented on age-of-consent laws and their moral underpinnings, did you not see that? Sigh. Once more, then.
Of course, because you are a theist, you insist we first wallow in semantics: “Child” doesn’t refer to an age, it refers to a level of maturity, emotional and psychological development and knowledge. Do you really know any fifteen year olds who aren’t children? I certainly don’t.
Because we want to protect children from their own immaturity and ignorance, we have age of consent laws. We establish a (necessarily arbitrary) “maturity line,” and assume people on the wrong side of the line simply cannot give informed consent.
NAMBLA’s stated objective is sex with boys, all of whom are almost certainly are on the wrong side of the maturity line. And to hell with the consequences, i.e., the potential for lifelong trauma to a child who thinks he’s ready, but isn’t. This is why it’s immoral: NAMBLA members seek to satisfy their own desires at the very-real risk of serious, lifelong trauma to their would-be “partners.”
Put it this way: I’m forming the North American Forty-Year-Old Man / Ten-Year-Old Girl Love Association. NAFYOMTYOGLA. All the girls have signed consent forms (though some of their parents are horrified). I assume we have your support?
Your reasoning on all of this is so bass-ackward I have to wonder if you are putting everyone on. But I’ve done my best to answer your questions. Now it’s your turn: Do you support NAMBLA?
Seriously, I’ve explained why I think NAMBLA is wrong, but you continue to pick at my reasoning, without offering any of your own. This suggests you actually think NAMBLA is just dandy. If so, you are a sick fuck.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a sick fuck. So why don't you support NAMBLA? You've suggested it's for the same (or similar) reasons you don't support gay marriage.
But if your reason boils down to “NAMBLA members are gay,” this simply begs the question “what’s wrong with being gay,” and your analogy to gay marriage fails. If your reason boils down to “consent,” your analogy to gay marriage fails. If your reason does not apply equally to gay marriage, your analogy to gay marriage fails. (Even if your reason for objecting to NAMBLA applies equally to gay marriage, this doesn’t mean the reason for objecting is valid, but we’ll tackle that if you get there.)
>>Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery? Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.<<
No, I do not think we should do these things. I speak in the present tense, as your questions are in the present tense.
Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. It was a man-invented system. It was not "unique" to the Hebrews. Yet, the Hebrews were given very specific laws as to what they could and could not do with slaves, which I'm glad that they were given, instead of adopting a copy-cat version of neighboring slave systems.
Your question, is just a subset of the broad question that critics always ask, which is why Christians don't preserve the entirety of what is found in OT law. The answer to that is very simple: because we are not mandated to.
(And, a Christian does not need to look at the OT to conclude " Oh, same-sex intercourse is a sin." Why? Because the NT condemns the act as well. That conclusion can be gathered by looking at the NT alone.)
OT law was a covenant and also very clearly designed for Israel to remain distinct from its surrounding pagan nations. To prevent the Israelites from adopting the Customs of pagan cultures. To prevent assimilation. (Hence why so many of the practices and probibitions that to 21st century eyes seem outrigth bizarre)
It’s fairly common to see Christian theologians separate old testament law into 3 categories: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law
The first one being unchanging moral truths – applying to and beyond ancient Hebrew theocratic system, the latter two pertaining exclusively to that System. Civil law dealing with legal matters, like issues of property for example. Ceremonial concerning ritual and temple procedures.
(but separating the laws into these categories does not go without criticism. Main one being, that OT scriptures do NOT themselves make these distinctions)
This is a fair objection (although I do think the categories help give perspective).
What we DO find explicitly in the old testament, is the promise of a new covenant Jerimiah 31:31 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and of course the new covenant having everything to do with Jesus.
New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, idolatery, sorcery and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT.
There is an observable area of overlap, and observable area of difference.
>>Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery? Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.<<
No, I do not think we should do these things. I speak in the present tense, as your questions are in the present tense.
Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. It was a man-invented system. It was not "unique" to the Hebrews. Yet, the Hebrews were given very specific laws as to what they could and could not do with slaves, which I'm glad that they were given, instead of adopting a copy-cat version of neighboring slave systems.
Your question, is just a subset of the broad question that critics always ask, which is why Christians don't preserve the entirety of what is found in OT law. The answer to that is very simple: because we are not mandated to.
(And, a Christian does not need to look at the OT to conclude " Oh, same-sex intercourse is a sin." Why? Because the NT condemns the act as well. That conclusion can be gathered by looking at the NT alone.)
OT law was a covenant and also very clearly designed for Israel to remain distinct from its surrounding pagan nations. To prevent the Israelites from adopting the Customs of pagan cultures. To prevent assimilation. (Hence why so many of the practices and probibitions that to 21st century eyes seem outrigth bizarre)
It’s fairly common to see Christian theologians separate old testament law into 3 categories: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law
The first one being unchanging moral truths – applying to and beyond ancient Hebrew theocratic system, the latter two pertaining exclusively to that System. Civil law dealing with legal matters, like issues of property for example. Ceremonial concerning ritual and temple procedures.
(but separating the laws into these categories does not go without criticism. Main one being, that OT scriptures do NOT themselves make these distinctions)
This is a fair objection (although I do think the categories help give perspective).
What we DO find explicitly in the old testament, is the promise of a new covenant Jerimiah 31:31 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and of course the new covenant having everything to do with Jesus.
New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT.
There is an observable area of overlap, and observable area of difference.
Back to the issue of homosexual marriage. People who would readily oppose incest marriage but support gay marriage, do you realize that you would be looking to bar the possibility of gay-incest marriages?
Should we make an "exception" to the incest laws, so that they take into account and allows for gay-incest?
"maybe it has something to do with the risk of inbreeding? ....and here you are, asking brain-dead questions I've already answer. "
I will re-ask the question. What if a mother who has had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed wants to have sex with her adult son?
There is NO risk of reproduction.
Is it wrong? and why or why not?
Two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
What about an adult daughter who has had her tubes tied and her father has also had a vasectomy?? No risk of inbreeding. Is it wrong for these two consenting adults to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?
This question has always existed whether the media ever asks it or addresses it. (just as ten thousand other questions that never get asked which expose agendas)
"Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral."
What if the only living family member wants to engage in this activity with their deceased loved one? What if a spouse (widower) wants to engage in this activity with his wife's dead corpse? Why is it wrong? Please be specific.
This question already exists whether or not I ask it.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, idolatery, sorcery and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT."
The second time:
"New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT."
Did anyone else notice that idolatry and sorcery were removed the second time around?
Question, Ana:
Did you pull those two because they are not "crimes" as such (idolatry just believing something different than YHWH & Co., sorcery because, well it doesn't even really exist)?
Another Question:
If Paul and Jesus specifically condemned sorcery (which doesn't exist), can we postulate that Jesus wasn't God/omniscient? And if you start re-defining "sorcery" or making excuses for Jesus being "human", I'm going to pull what's left of my hair out and scream.
@GearHed: Points for the patience to read the same crap twice.
@clamat: Likewise, you’ve got the patience of Job. I’m to the point where I do not, so on this topic, from here on in it’s no longer about discourse, but sport.
@Ana: --After reading your latest posts, I'm beginning to feel sympathy for the folks in CA you allege verbally attacked you.
--Regarding your contorted efforts to explain your “thoughts” re OT/NT covenants, I can only muster the will to say:
1) I’m as likely to take advice from Paul on sexuality as I am to seek a restaurant recommendation from an anorexic.
2) That you rush to assure us that the Hebrews were less-cruel slave owners would be funny if it weren’t so terrifying for what it tell us about you.
3) Since your Jesus does not say anything about homosexuality but does say something about adultery and divorce, why aren’t you out there lobbying to criminalize those heterosexual scandals?
4) You and your pals in the thread still haven’t provided a non-biblical valid objection to legalizing gay marriage. And you haven’t provided anything near a coherent rationale for drawing an analogy from homosexuality to NAMBLA (how many times do you have to be told that pedophilia isn’t homosexuality?) so the rest of what you say is irrelevant to the point.
Breckmin said: "This question has always existed whether the media ever asks it or addresses it. (just as ten thousand other questions that never get asked which expose agendas)" and "This question already exists whether I ask it or not."
--Yes, yes, if the tree fell it made a sound while the Pope shat in the woods.
--You and Ana and Andiron seem to believe that there is a secret gay conspiracy/"agenda" that will shove us down some slippery slope from gay marriage to incest to pedophilia to...but of course you wingnuts are the only people out there who see such a link.
And guess what? Even if there were a bunch of NAMBLA dudes out there saying, "Let's support the gays, cuz we're next in line!" they'd lose at the point they ever proffered legislation to decriminalize "man/boy love." Sigh. I suppose ya'll think that once we allow gay marriage the whole of society will become so catatonic from listening to ABBA tunes that we won't notice the hordes of bro/sis lovers and NAMBLA chapters creeping up behind us. So to speak.
Breckmin: What the hell is wrong with you? Sterile Daddy/ligated adult daughter sex? What if a widower wants to fuck his dead wife? "Why is it wrong? Please be specific." DUDE. SLOWLY. PUT DOWN THE PORN. STEP AWAY FROM THE FORUM LETTERS.
Breckmin, I'm gonna beg you to please stay Christian because apparently Jesus is the only thing standing between you and your mother. And you and some serious cemetery vandalism. Fortunately the rest of us don't need that crutch.
Same old tune and dance, I see. Oh well. It's not like I haven't come to expect this from Christians.
Ana, you completely missed the moral point I was bringing up(and as an ex-Christian, I don't really require a lecture on the way theologians categorize the Mosaic law(s)). The point is that if the Christian god was divine, perfect, loving benevolent, and incapable of evil, then the O.T. would not be a fucked-up guide to building a theocracy. Fallible men fabricate laws allowing them to brutalize their daughters and slaves; a perfect God does not. Fallible men started the despicable practice of slavery; A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing. Fallible men contrive religious reasons to exterminate rival tribes and feel "righteous" or "holy" about it; a perfect God would not command such a thing. And spare the whole "it was a different time and culture" crap. It doesn't matter that the Hebrews didn't initiate slavery; if they were half as holy as you Christians claim, they would have refused to take ownership of another human being. Nazi Germany was a completely different time and culture, you know, but I don't exactly see loads of Christian apologists defending the Third Reich's use of slave labor and mass murder.
And FYI, Christians ARE obligated to obey every law in the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Matthew 5;17-21...
"[17]Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.[18]For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means perish from the Law until everything is accomplished.[19]Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches men so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever upholds these and teaches men so(Fundamentalists, perhaps)shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[20]For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
And yes, Christians, by spreading their religion are spreading delusion. I'll expand upon that this weekend at my blog.
Yes, Breckmin, if they are consenting adults and there remains no chance of inbreeding, then they can get as freaky as they want, as long as it stays in their bedroom. Now why did your statement make me think of Harold and Maud?
I think I'm done posting on this thread. It's obvious that the Christians can't come up with a rational reason to oppose gay marriage without making vague inquiries after bestially and Necrophilia, so I'm going to go play some Medievil II(after work that is).
And to Breckmin and Ana; here's a quick tip to debating from the Almighty;
DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION.
And Breckmin, don't even get me started on agendas; I think the Christians have already taken enough of a clobbering on this thread.
>>Yet you continue to insist on drawing this faulty analogy between a group of pedophiles, on one hand, and homosexuals generally, on the other. Which strongly suggests this is exactly what you believe.<<
My whole point was always about LABELS. Phobic, hating, bigots.
I would have posed to you the SAME question whether we were talking about NAMBLA or a NAMGLA (North American Man/Girl Love Association).
Am I INTOLERANT for opposing such an organization?
Perhaps you’ll get my point if I present it to you in a slightly different way. Suppose I engage myself in a conversation with 3 supporters of NAMBLA who are doing some kind of demonstration on the corner of a street. I express to them my disapproval of the organization and my hope that their philosophy is never legislated. Now suppose they call me an a “narrow-minded Bigot, how would you like it if YOU weren’t allowed to be with the person of your choice?”
Clamat, should I nod my head and say “Yes, since I oppose your organization, you’re right. I’m a bigot”
I oppose NABMLA< or any pedophilic behavior promoting organization, be it homosexual, heterosexual or both, because I regard sex as a consecrated union, not something to be taken for granted, not something to be done outside of the context of marriage. That sex, should be within the bounds of marriage, consenting male and female, private, not publicized (allusion to pornography), not three-somes, etc. And yes, because the youth, emphasis especially on the pre-pubescent, are biologically and mentally pre-mature for the sex act.
I oppose gay sex, like I and multiple (3+) person sex, and bestiality, and necrophilic acts all of which are perverse and sick distortions of what is CLEARLY, the SELF-EVIDENT, ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL DESIGN OF HUMAN SEX.
But too politically correct people want to encourage “sexual diversity”. Well guess what? Sexual diversity is one heck of a BROAD term!
>>Of course, because you are a theist, you insist we first wallow in semantics: “Child” doesn’t refer to an age, it refers to a level of maturity, emotional and psychological development and knowledge. Do you really know any fifteen year olds who aren’t children? I certainly don’t.<<
It’s the fact that I can look beyond the boundaries of modern western society, which has supplied to you, your concept of a child. and thus has influenced your thinking that a 15 year old isn’t prepared to marry. This view is relatively recent to history.
Chicken-and-egg question for you: Are 15 year olds not prepared to marry because their mental immaturity is self-contained or because we TREAT them like children (external factor), and behold, you get child like mentalities.
You’re presupposing. You say it doesn’t exist, because you regard the supernatural as fiction.
You can deny that there are no such things as RESULTS from sorcerey, or witchraft, or occult practice (i.e.successful communication with spirits, the fulfillment of a spell, etc) But you cannot deny that there are real human beings that ENGAGE in the activity (i.e. make ATTEMPTS to bring about the results.)
(engangement in activities like “incantations” or attempts to “communicate with the dead”, you name it, that partaking in these activities is what is being condemned as wrong.
Ex: It doesn’t matter whether you, an atheist, think the ouija is a hoax or not. REGARDLESS if it’s a hoax, there are people who have the intention of communicating to say for example, the dead or other spirits (even if they don’t actually succeed, which would be your position). It’s that intention, manifest in the action, that is being condemned. )
But by focusing on the issue of sorcerey you missed my point!The point was very simply that we have solid examples of actions and practices that are condemned in BOTH the Old and New Testament.
Furthermore, even if a particular 15 year old is too immature to get married, SO WHAT to you? How would the 15 year old girl getting married hurt your marriage? Or your relationship? Or your family? IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what this girl does. (sound like a familiar argument?)
You insist on the maturity point. Look, it’s a fine point to make. The REASON why I don’t treat your point as good as I otherwise would, is because of how it is inconsistently applied by secularists. To understand what I mean, I have to digress a bit, because it’s important that I bring attention to this.
I find it incredibly absurd for secularists to hail the maturity argument all while they don’t as passionately hail that argument when it comes to a 15 year old girl having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. I don’t hear them passionately discouraging such activity on that basis that this CHILD is “too young” or too immature” to have sex. It’s “Yes, go ahead and have sex, just where protection!”
And what if the 15 year old becomes pregnant. Abortion? “It’s a woman’s right to choose”. Wait a minute, I thought this 15 year old is a CHILD, not a woman. “It’s a female’s right to choose”. And what about parental consent? In my state a minor does not need parental consent or notification. So, if I were 15 and wanted to get an abortion, a SURGICAL PROCEDURE, I can without parental consent. I’m not too “immature” for that decision! But if I want to get MARRIED at 15, I’m too immature and need parental consent!!
The irony and absurdity is stunning. Absolutely stunning. And most people don’t even realize it.
So if you want to use the maturity argument, I applaud you, but be TRUE to it. Be one to stand out among your fellow secularists and use it consistently.
Of course Jesus didn’t abolish the law - he was still alive- it served as the standard to measure his sinlessness. Hence him saying came to “fulfill” it. But upon his death, the fulfillment was accomplished.
Ephesians 2:14–15 "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace."
The OT covenant laws was for the Jews. A specific people. The New covenant has done away with the exclusive law, hence welcoming the Gentiles.
"To understand what I mean, I might have to digress a bit." Priceless. The ravings of Batty McNuttenheimer continue. Seriously, add a stinky coat, some newspaper-stuffed shoes and mumble the posts aloud and it becomes eerily like the homeless guy who once followed me around NYC.
Ana! Snap out of it. You're going after arguments no one here made. When you're done addressing your remarks to the voices in your head, feel free to provide a valid non-biblical reason to oppose gay marriage.
>>A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing.<<
According to what, is this a true statement?
Solipsister,
The problem is the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage. (They put upon themselves the requirement to provide the basis, since it is they who wish to introduce the new institution.)
The most commonly chanted basis is "EQUALITY". It is the "RIGHT TO BE WITH THE PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE".
Hence, the slippery-slope is inherent in the basis. I repeat, it is inherent.
Because you can apply that exact same basis to a number of other hypothetical marriage scenerios.
If you want to avoid the slippery slope, the basis for gay marriage will need to be articulated differently.
Ana, Jesus said, very clearly, "til heaven and earth pass away". Pretty freaking obvious. I don't know where you wake up every morning, but I wake on planet Earth(I know, dreadful name, isn't it? You might as well call it "Planet Dirt"). And Earth hasn't passed away yet.
"According to what, is this statement true?"
Typical. The questions raised by the barbarism of the O.T., if pursued long enough, provide enough evidence for us to completely dismiss the Jewish Sky Zombie Cult, but directly ask a Christian how their god is loving and perfect, yet acts like a petty tyrant in the O.T., and all they can respond with is silly semantics and pathetic word games. According to what? Modern subjective morality, that was NOT fabricated by misogynistic, primitive screwheads to pardon and condone horrific acts of violence and depravity on rival tribes in the Bronze Age, that's what.
And as for your slippery slope, let's explain this concept to Christians one more time. The "slippery slope" doesn't exist. Incest won't be legalized because there are multiple, sound, ethical reasons to outlaw it, not the least of which is the psychological trauma that will likely be experienced by the child, and the same with Necrophilia and bestiality. See the reasons for these above. And FYI, Ana, homosexual behavior is exhibited by multiple species in nature, so homosexuality is hardly "unnatural". I love how you guys keep dancing around the point here. You simply can't give a valid reason to oppose gay marriage because the only thing you've got is a self-contradictory tome of fairy tales, myths, and bastardized legends. Pretty sad thing to base your life on. Oh well.
And yes, Paul disagreed with Jesus on the Law. This is probably the largest contradiction(s) in the New Testament. Try visiting some skeptical sites to see why Paul was forced into this.
"Perhaps you’ll get my point if I present it to you in a slightly different way. Suppose I engage myself in a conversation with 3 supporters of NAMBLA who are doing some kind of demonstration on the corner of a street. I express to them my disapproval of the organization and my hope that their philosophy is never legislated. Now suppose they call me an a “narrow-minded Bigot, how would you like it if YOU weren’t allowed to be with the person of your choice?”"
This doesn't fix the argument any better than the last attempt.
Buggery, sodomy, lesbianism, between two (or more) consenting adults is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, except in some socially retarded areas of the deep south.
Sex with MINORS is.
If I was you, and had that conversation on the street corner with the Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, I wouldn't CARE if they called me a bigot. I'd come back with,
"You're pissed because what you want to do to little boys is against the law. Go use your hand, dumbass."
Ana said (apparently in reply to my assertion that sorcery doesn't exist),
"...You can deny that there are no such things as RESULTS from sorcerey, or witchraft, or occult practice (i.e.successful communication with spirits, the fulfillment of a spell, etc) But you cannot deny that there are real human beings that ENGAGE in the activity (i.e. make ATTEMPTS to bring about the results.)"
IF:
Someone practices hollow and impotent rituals that look like "sorcery" but have no RESULTS, then that person is a dumbass and is deceiving only him- or herself.
What I deny is that there are or even CAN BE results.
And Jesus would have too, if he's really God, which is the point I was making.
"Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd. Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined. Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time. Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg and owlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf, Witches' mummy, maw and gulf Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark, Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark, Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and slips of yew Silver'd in the moon's eclipse, Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips, Finger of birth-strangled babe Ditch-deliver'd by a drab, Make the gruel thick and slab: Add thereto a tiger's chaudron, For the ingredients of our cauldron. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. Cool it with a baboon's blood, Then the charm is firm and good. O well done! I commend your pains; And every one shall share i' the gains; And now about the cauldron sing, Live elves and fairies in a ring, Enchanting all that you put in. By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes."
If sorcery is REAL, then why aren't you out there not suffering witches to live?
Assuming for the moment that objective morals do not exist,, then, if your subjective morality says "A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing" and someone else's subjective morality says " A perfect God would have tolerated such a thing ", then, both statements hold equal weight! There is nothing that makes the former FACTUALLY true, and the latter, FACTUALLY wrong.
You've offered nothing more than opinion.
>>The "slippery slope" doesn't exist. Incest won't be legalized because there are multiple, sound, ethical reasons to outlaw it, not the least of which is the psychological trauma that will likely be experienced by the child<<
I noticed you automatically assumed incest involves a child. Why do you assume this?
Also, did you not read my comment about how barring incestuous marriages means barring homosexual-incest marriages? unless that latter is explicitly exempted.
I will repeat this point one last time: the problem is the basis on which people wish to legislate gay marriage.
Whenever we wish to introduce law into this country or a particular state, we should do it responsibly. Proposed legislation should have a concrete basis to it. The basis for introducing gay marriage is a HEAVILY emotional one. We need a logical basis.
So long as the driving philosophy behind gay marriage advocates is "the right to marry the person you love", they've just shot themselves in the foot.
>>And Jesus would have too, if he's really God, which is the point I was making.<<<
I have to disagree, and say its quite the opposite! If Jesus was God, (i.e. if the supernatural exists), then sorcerey (which involves supernatural forces) can exist!
"...I find it incredibly absurd for secularists to hail the maturity argument all while they don’t as passionately hail that argument when it comes to a 15 year old girl having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. I don’t hear them passionately discouraging such activity on that basis that this CHILD is “too young” or too immature” to have sex. It’s “Yes, go ahead and have sex, just where protection!”"
FYI:
I have a daughter who just turned 18 in May. I have NOT been condoning a sexually active lifestyle for her, for many reasons:
1) Sex leads to babies. 2) If you (my daughter) are not economically ready to have a family, then DON'T. 3). You'll BE economically ready to have children when you have a stable family unit, including a committed husband who has a JOB / CAREER, and have an education / job / career YOURSELF, which includes heaklth insurance and enough income to support your children (you know, the unintended results of SEX).
See?
No GOD necessary.
Take a responsible position, because it's responsible, not because some invisible God commanded it a couple thousand years ago.
I admire that approach. But, I was nonetheless bringing attention to how an inconsistent approach exists in this society. Namely, deeming (using the my original example) a 15 year old to "immature" to makecertain relationship-related decisions (i.e. marriage), but not others (i.e. sex with her high school boyfriend properly using a condom).
"...Whenever we wish to introduce law into this country or a particular state, we should do it responsibly. Proposed legislation should have a concrete basis to it. The basis for introducing gay marriage is a HEAVILY emotional one. We need a logical basis."
There are thousands, if not millions of monogamously committed gay couples living in the U.S. What the gay marriage lobby is after is equal protection and equal rights under the law, and your continual referencing of Prop * tells us all that you understand the argument.
So:
On what basis do you DENY rights to committed couples who have the unfortunate problem of being both of the same gender, the rights (next of kin, community property, insurance benefits, survivor benefits, etc.) that are granted without question to couples who happen to be of opposite gender?
I can tell you that the ONLY justification for this atrocity I've ever heard is because the OT prohibits it (in some cases, since lesbianism is not mentioned in Leviticus, where man-man homosexuality is).
I admire that approach. But, I was nonetheless bringing attention to how an inconsistent approach exists in this society."
How is it that an atheist can do admirable things (not to mention my daughter, who also claims to be an atheist: but I cautioned both my children to not just adopt my beliefs, that they should read the Bible as I have done and come to their own conclusions... How many Christian parents are willing to put that much trust in their children?)?
An inconsistent approach exists in this society for one main reason:
People tell their children "Do as I say, not as I do", instead of treating their children like PEOPLE (albeit immature and dependent people).
Parents need to first take responsibility for their own actions and failings as well as successes, and teach their children the same.
I personally would not have responded (actually, I DIDN'T) to appeals to an invisible authority. I learned how to be a responsible adult from two things:
1) the positive role model of my mother, and 2). the negative role model of my father.
You don't understand what slippery slope argumentation means. Typically, as in your case, it is a fallacy. (If you've staked the camel properly the risk of him getting in your tent isn't all that much and you can smack him on the nose if he gets loose.)
Regardless, I'll grant that in a democracy we often are perched on a slope. Not all slopes are slippery, Ana. You still have to prove the link from the top to the next point on the slope and you still haven't done that. Finally, sometimes the bottom of the hill means cognac by a warm fire (e.g., the slippery slope from emancipation of blacks to letting those uppity women have the vote), so the mere existence of a slope and dicey weather doesn't mean we aren't gonna head outdoors.
"I have to disagree, and say its quite the opposite! If Jesus was God, (i.e. if the supernatural exists), then sorcerey (which involves supernatural forces) can exist!"
But I'm an atheist.
I don't believe in supernatural, divine, holy, etc.
Those terms only have meaning in a mythological context.
Spare me. Subjective morality does not deny objective *morals* exist, just objective *morality*. For example, Christian Objective morality is actually subjective. You guys claim that you don't have to follow the Law for salvation, yet, this is precisely what Jesus said. Now let me take a leaf out of your book. According to your logic, Ana, it is perfectly alright for me to sell my daughter as a sex-slave, murder the Muslim family down the street(except for their young children, whom I'll sell into slavery), and kill the drunken teenager who lives across the street. Why? 'Cuz the Bible says so, Jesus says so, and you can't offer any more than an opinion as to why I shouldn't.
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that most cases of incest involve children(look at the statistics) and there is always a risk of inbreeding.
Gay-incest, eh? I doubt it. Most homosexuals are opposed to incest in any form, so it's very unlikely that this will be legalized. And there's very few people trying to legalize it. Yes, some of the arguments used in defense of gay marriage are overly-emotional, but the logic of the matter remains. There is not one medical, ethical, scientific or even moral reason to oppose gay marriage because it is not causing any harm whatsoever. Period. Unless uber-macho homophobia and discredited religious texts from the Iron Age count, and they don't. While I'm sure that perverts like NAMBLA will continue to attempt to legalize their revolting practices, there are multiple, sound reasons not to do so. Try reading all comments about sexual ethics posted by GearHedEd, clamat, Solipsister, and I.
Somewhere in there, Ana said: "I oppose gay sex" and clarified that her opposition to gay marriage stems from her belief that homosexuality is a "perverse distortion" of what she calls the "self-evident actual biological design of human sex." I believe this is also known as the "Outties can only go in the particular Innie which can get you a baby" argument.
Later, she says in two different posts that the "problem" is about "the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage." Bull.
Her first statement makes clear that there is NO basis under which we could persuade her to approve of gay marriage. So why should she want us to make arguments that she has already admitted she has no possibility of accepting?
Seems to me that her position is fixed, unless or until Jesus shows up to declare "How blessed are those that batteth for the other team, for theirs is the Kingdom of Pottery Barn."
>>Yes, some of the arguments used in defense of gay marriage are overly-emotional, but the logic of the matter remains.<<
Well let's hear the logical foundation of gay marriage! And encourage the pro-gay marriage advocates to present their logic-based case more often than the emotional one (leave the emotional one for namely rallies and protests).
>>Later, she says in two different posts that the "problem" is about "the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage." Bull.<<
No it is not "bull" as you say. It is a response to your "give me a non-biblical reason to oppose it".
If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question!
I addressed it: RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATION has CONCRETE and LOGICAL BASIS. I find that severely missing by the pro-gay marriage side of the debate. Foolishness it would be for me to automatically side with proposed leglislation whose real momentum is derived from emotional rhetoric and accusing labels. Strip away the emotional argument and accusing labels, and what are you left with?
>>Gay-incest, eh? I doubt it<<
Ok look, here is my point with the gay incest marriage. It is immune the argument of inbreeding. And, it friendly to the pro-gay marriage advocates.
Hence, leaving me to wonder whether secularists (in general) would support such, oppose such, or find themselves baffled as to how address that one.
Some final thoughts:
I, would ideally, like a "separation of marriage and state". To me, that would solve this issue. The institution of marriage would be emancipated from the hands of the state.
Unfortunately, this is highly impractical and an unrealistic wish.
*sigh* We've already GIVEN you the logical reasons, Ana. While I can't speak for everyone else, I am not going to repeat my points on gay marriage. I've proven that Christians do not have a single valid reason to oppose it, and just because you ignore this does not make your points valid. Again, the vast majority of gays are adamantly opposed to incest of any kind, so it's more than a little stupid to say that this is favor of gay marriage advocates. No matter which way you cut it, I just don't see gay incest being legalized anytime this century.
Perhaps you should have read the comments about sexual ethics. We have already explained multiple times why we support some things and why we don't support others, so stop ignoring them and pretending that atheists don't have morals or ethics. A cursory glance at world history and the bible shows that ours is superior to yours, so stop being deliberately obtuse.
What if a mother who has had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed wants to have sex with her adult son?
What about an adult daughter who has had her tubes tied and her father has also had a vasectomy??
What if the only living family member wants to engage in this activity with their deceased loved one? What if a spouse (widower) wants to engage in this activity with his wife's dead corpse? Why is it wrong? Please be specific.
[These] question[s] already exist[] whether or not I ask [them].
True. But perhaps, rather than simply asking stale questions over and over, it would be more helpful if you actually attempted to answer a single one of them yourself.
It would also be helpful, before you pick apart my posts to try to come up with a “gotcha!” question, for you to read them in their entirety. I think you’ll find I’ve already answered your questions, several times.
Okay. Once more.
Because I actually attempt to utilize a simple, uncontroversial moral principle -- unlike you and Ana, who address every conceivable hypothetical on an ad hoc basis – I can answer your hypethetical simply, and likewise hypothetically: >If truly no suffering is caused, there is nothing morally wrong with any of these actions. They may be gross, even pathologically so, but that doesn’t make them morally wrong.
"...Well let's hear the logical foundation of gay marriage! And encourage the pro-gay marriage advocates to present their logic-based case more often than the emotional one (leave the emotional one for namely rallies and protests)."
P(1). Gay people exist, in large numbers.
P(2). Gay people are people first, and as such are guaranteed protection under the constitution and other anti-discrimination laws.
P(3). Gay people are being discriminated against and denied civil rights (that are routinely granted without question to heterosexual married couples) on the basis of their sexual orientation.
P(4). Nowhere has it been shown that gay marriage is a threat to any other group(s), or their rights.
C(1). Discrimination is illegal in this country, and denying gay couples the same civil rights married couples enjoy as a matter of routine is a real issue affecting millions of citizens.
C(2). No one will suffer if Gay marriage is "legalized", and many people will benefit.
"...I, would ideally, like a "separation of marriage and state". To me, that would solve this issue. The institution of marriage would be emancipated from the hands of the state."
What if they enacted legislation that called gay "marriages" 'civil unions' instead, and conferred all the same legal benefits rights and considerations that are given to "married" couples?
>>We've already GIVEN you the logical reasons, Ana. <<
Logical positive (i.e. affirmative) case for gay marriage?
No. What you guys have done is tried to undermine OTHER forms of "sexual diversity" that myself an other theists brought up, by rendering them as immoral. And somehow, you think this equates to positive arguments in favor of gay-marriage.
Bullshit. We've provided reasons not to support some practices and have proven that there is no reason to discriminate against gays. And you're pretty desperate at this point, I think. Otherwise, you would actually try to answer our comments instead of waving your hands and accusing us of "undermining other sexual diversities brought up by other theists" because they were dodging the question, and, like over-Christianized idiots, trying to make associations between gays and perverts. Read Gear's post at 10:51 and stop ignoring our arguments.
>>Gay people are being discriminated against and denied civil rights (that are routinely granted without question to heterosexual married couples) on the basis of their sexual orientation.<<
I don't enjoy the same legal rights as a person in a marriage. And if I am in a relationship with a male, we're a couple, and we're not married, I am not enjoying the legal benefits either. I am not enjoying these "civil rights". But no one would seem to call that discrimination.
I'm fine with it, if people press for a seperate category, such that couples can be recognized so that they receive legal benefits.
Because the issue is about the word marriage, and its definition. The issue as to whether the definition should become genderless.
Thanks for the kudos, but like many others on this thread, I don’t have the energy to maintain my Job impersonation any longer.
@Ana
I’ve debated many theists on many blogs. I am snarky, sarcastic, and snide in addressing theistic arguments. In fact, I delight in it. But I try very hard not to let disagreement and frustration cause me to stoop to certain levels in my interaction with folks of your ilk.
But you. With your contorted reasoning and loose grasp of the basic principles of formal logic. Your persistent, insistent, despicable equivocations between pedophilia and homosexuality. Your constant sidestepping and evading, always answering a question with a question. Your “I hear nothink” refusal to address the arguments that have been made, even when they are repeated, repeated, repeated. Incapable of staying on point or acknowledging points that have been made, you drive me to lower my standards:
You are painfully dense. Or unforgivably disingenuous. Or both. Or worse.
Children do not have the same rights as adults. This explains the prohibition on “consenting” pedophilia and 15-year-old marriages. If you really need a further explanation, or can’t see how children are not analogous to adult homosexuals, you are painfully dense.
Under the simple moral principle I’ve articulated, to the extent necrophilia and bestiality truly do not cause any suffering, they are not immoral. If you really need a further explanation of why I take this position, you are painfully dense.
To the extent you claim to disagree that morality must in some way be informed by the concept of suffering, you are disingenuous. Or worse.
The Constitution promises equal protection under the law to every adult citizen, absent a compelling secular reason for disparate treatment. It’s not up to us to come up with reasons “for” gay marriage; under fundamental American principles the default position must be to allow gays to marry. You want to treat gays differently than everybody else. It’s up to you to come up with a compelling secular reason to do so.
And here, finally, you deign to actually answer a question! Jeebus be praised!
[I object to] multiple (3+) person sex, and bestiality, and necrophilic acts all of which are perverse and sick distortions of what is CLEARLY, the SELF-EVIDENT, ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL DESIGN OF HUMAN SEX.
Wow, no threesomes, either? Under your morality, toys, anal and blow jobs must be out, too. What a fun gal you are.
Even assuming for the sake of argument these practices are “against design”…
Why are they immoral? Why is a "perversion" inherently immoral? Even more to the point, why is "sickness" inherently immoral?
Even more to the point, why sex, specifically? A moral principle of “it is immoral to go against biological design, period” is patently ludicrous. (Else eyeglasses, pacemakers, antibiotics and enemas are immoral, too. ) So why is “”biological design” the arbiter of morality only when it comes to sex? Is there a larger moral principle you can articulate that would explain your application of the “biological design” moral principle just to sex?
Never mind. Please, for Xenu's sake, don’t answer. You can’t. You are simply hung up on sex, just like many, many others in this society. Theist and atheists alike are heirs to both the Puritans and Freud.
But mostly theists.
You think certain sex practices are gross. So gross they should be banned as "immoral."
I think eating bleu cheese is gross. Look out, all you gross, moldy cheese-loving couples, I’m calling my Congressman in the morning! No marriages for you!
That is a common misconception. Discrimination is NOT illegal in this country. It is probitited in certain contexts. Like voting (if we don't include isenfranchisement of felons) or use of public property, or say in the process of employing someone at TARGET.
If a 16 year old wishes to go see an R-Rated movie at the theatre, (often the the 17+ age restriction is not enforced), in terms of the rules, the can't. That's age discrimation right there.
Unfortunately, if I give an example (like the one immediately above) you guys will automatically go on to justifying the prohibition, missing the point entirely: That justification or not, discrimination is discrimination. Discrimination is simply unequal treatment of /granting of oppurtunities to individuals.
But because the word "discrimination" has such a negative connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are immoral.
"I don't enjoy the same legal rights as a person in a marriage. And if I am in a relationship with a male, we're a couple, and we're not married, I am not enjoying the legal benefits either. I am not enjoying these "civil rights". But no one would seem to call that discrimination."
1. the moment you DO get married, those benefits are yours.
2. In some states, if you live with a man for a specified minimum time period, you're married according to the state. Florida has this law, and the time period is (was, the last time I lived in Florida, back in the 1980s) 1 year.
1. the moment you DO get married, those benefits are yours.
Ed, If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against. Because we are not able to enjoy the benefits married people enjoy. Hence, we're being "discriminated" against on the basis of our marital status.
The point about discrimination with regards to this issue is one of massive confusion among people.
This is what REAL discrimination on THIS particular issue would look like:
You're married, you're marriage is recognized by the state, and DESPITE BEING MARRIED, you are being refused the legal and economic benefits ("civil rights") other married people enjoy. THAT is discrimination. THAT is unequal protection of the law.
>>But because the word "MARRIAGE" has such a CHRISTIAN connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are MORAL.<<
The latter part is fine. The beginning part, extends beyond Christian. A better word is Traditional. Historical. Long-established. Cross-cultural.
>>So you admit that its really all semantics.<<
Yes, yes it is. I think this is an important case of semantics. One in which people don't want the word marriage to be redefined according to whatever the new flavor of the month is.
"Ed, If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against. Because we are not able to enjoy the benefits married people enjoy. Hence, we're being "discriminated" against on the basis of our marital status."
But this is an entirely different issue from where it started.
The point is that even should a gay couple wish to become a lrgitimate, legal family unit, in most states they can't even legally do that. You, as you stated have a CHOICE to either "jump de broom" or not.
And that gay couple doesn't have an alternative such as 'civil union' (equal benefits to "marriage" without the WORD marrriage being somehow 'sullied'); they're STILL out in the cold as far as the state recognizing their status as a family unit.
No tax breaks No survivor's rights in cases where one member dies intestate No legal recourse in cases of breakup of the pair (no 'gay marriage', no 'gay divorce') regarding community property.
1) Please clarify: --If your “partner” is not merely a hypothetical you created for purposes of argument, are you sexually active?
--Do you think there should be laws making adultery and fornication illegal?
--If the "goal" of sex is procreation, then do you believe that sex acts which are not directed toward that goal should be considered sinful?
2) Yes, your confusion regarding the appropriate use of the term discrimination in a legal context is “massive.” In an informal sense, people “discriminate” (make fine distinctions or prefer one thing to another) on a daily basis. I discriminate between wine coolers and cabernet and have banned the former from my home, but that is not what our legal system means by the term discrimination. And if as an adult citizen of this country you do not know that, then you have some work to do before you start arguing about the legal basis for gay marriage.
Sorry, dumb me had to delete and add a missing phrase (contrary to).
@Ana: I cain't quit yew. Part II.
3) Please do not make the assumption that any particular poster on here is necessarily interested in keeping “marriage” as a construct involving State sanction and definition. At the end of the day, maybe I want to do away with any governmental notion of marriage and instead allow individual religions to privately define “matrimony” in whatever way they wish. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not the point.
I want to live in a society where religion is not used as the basis for law, even if some of the laws we end up with might coincidentally comport with particular religious doctrines. Since there will inevitably be laws that discriminate, like you, I want the government to meet particular standards before we say it's OK for the State to do so. But again, that’s not the point. The point is you object to homosexuality per se.
4) You said “same sex intercourse is a sin,” and homosexuality is “perverse” and "sick distortion," and you oppose gay marriage because it involves gay sex, which you assert to be contrary to the “self-evident, actual biological design of human sex.”
THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR OPPOSITION. You gin up pseudo-arguments (which none of the folks here have made) about incest and pedophilia and Marmoset/Badger Love to create a cover story for what is at its basis for you a religiously derived objection to not just gay marriage, but homosexuality itself.
There is no possible argument any of us could make that would persuade you to approve of gay marriage. Do you honestly think that any of what you've said might persuade a rational, non-religious person to disapprove of gay marriage?
>>" If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against." No, you chose to forego those benefits that are available to you should you choose otherwise.<<
If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male.
Ed and Solipsister,
I am not in a relationship. I used the hypothetical to demonstrate that legal-economic benefits is on the basis of your marital status, not your “orientation”, and that the same benefits that aren’t being granted to homosexual unmarried couples are likewise not being granted to heterosexual unmarried couples. That is how weak the discrimination argument is. It works just as well for ANY couple that is not married and thus is not receiving these “civil rights” married people receive. So again, gay persons are not being “uniquely discriminated” against on this issue, as is so often portrayed by gay activists who know that such portrayal has emotional kick to it, which many people fall for. I don’t. And without the claim to unique discrimination, their case crumbles.
I’ll give my example from my previous post in slightly modified way.
I’ll use Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, gay marriage is legal. If, despite gay marriage being legal, there is a gay couple being DENIED marriage, then that couple can cite unequal protection of the law.
Or, if in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, a gay couple becomes married, and despite being married is being neglected “civil rights”, then they can cite unequal protection of the law.
Also widely spread, is the misnomer phrase that a gay person cannot marry. That is incorrect. A gay person can marry. It’s not an issue of WHETHER such a person can marry; it is an issue of WHO that person can marry.
Again, it always falls back to the claim that “You should be able to marry the person of your choice”. I cannot emphasize that enough. It always falls back to that claim.
No I am not sexually active. I think adultery and fornication are sinful. I would encourage people to not engage in such things.
Yes I view marriage as primarily for procreation, and that it is a stable, committed, official hence structured (so to speak) relationship to supportively birth and raise children. And secondarily for pleasure (the sex) - physical and spiritual intimacy. So no, I do not maintain procreation is the ONLY valid reason to have sex (however, it is the MAIN one, biologically and theologically.)
I was recently in a conversation with a friend of mine, through email, over the issue of fornication, and I explained to him that :
" I go by the ABC approach. Abstinence, Be faithful (that - the fewer sexual partners/relationships one has in a lifetime, the safer. But if you do become sexually involved, be faithful while in that relationship. If the relationship ends, don't get loose with your sexuality. Practice abstinence, until another serious relationship comes your way.), Correct condom use.
Secular society puts so much emphasis on the last one, many times at the expense of the first two."
Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract. )
As to fornication, that boils down to morality and whose morality (e.g. conservative; liberal) we will legislate. Nevertheless, enforcement of these laws is extremely weak
So, in short, I don’t have a problem for the laws to exist, but I will not actively press for them to remain or be established in all states. Because, of the issue of impracticality. How impractical it is to enforce those laws, because they are done in private. In cultures and societies in which adultery and fornication were (for past cultures) / are (in any present cultures) near unanimously looked down upon, it still might have been/be difficult to enforce, however, consistent social pressure against committing such acts would be the means to keep their occurrence at a low. In our society, this pressure is absent. Hence, rampant sexual activity.
And adultery and fornication are not “institutions”. Marriage however, is an institution. It is easier to regulate an institution than individual private acts. And marriage laws are regulated. Our federal constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, therefore marriage regulation laws are left up to individual states.
@Ana. 1) I’m sure comforted to know that you are not denying gay people the right to marry. They just have to stop being gay.
You bizarrely think these two situations are equivalent: a) unmarried gay people who DO want to be married are denied the privileges and obligations of marriage; and b) heterosexual people who DO NOT want to be married are denied the privileges and obligations of marriage. It escapes me how you think these are equivalent. Oh, right. You would say they’re equivalent “Because straight people can always decide to get married. And so can gay people, as long as they decide not to be gay.” (Which brings us completely around the bend back to Breckmin’s ridiculous assertion that he was “cured” of homosexuality.)
Ana, the point is the gay people should be able to decide to say “no thanks” to the option of secular marriage without having to magically become not-gay and pick a new partner. And the basis for telling them they can’t have the right to say no thanks has to be something other than “God said so,” “What you do is icky,” or “I’m afraid that next we’ll have to give the right to squirrels.” So far those three categories of objections are all we’ve heard from you.
2) You think it’s good that adultery and fornication are illegal in some states and believe they should be illegal in all states, but because such laws are so dang hard to enforce, it’s not worth the time to press to change the laws or increase their enforcement. If they were easier to enforce you’d be all for ‘em, right? What would be the penalty, if enforcement became easier? Stoning? A fine? An A sewn on their clothing? That the ease of enforcement is the only impediment to your support for these laws is terrifying.
3) Your philosophy of heterosexual morality amounts to: Don’t do it, but have as few partners as possible over a lifetime regardless of whether you marry any of them; fornicate but only if you are faithful with your co-fornicator for as long as the fornicatin’ lasts; and practice abstinence “until another serious relationship” comes along if you can. And always use condoms correctly. I’m ok with that, I guess. I’m damn sure a number of your co-religionists wouldn’t be. And for darn tootin' Paul wouldn’t be, but I’ve already said I think he’s a moron when it comes to sex, so who cares?
I did not say that both situations are equivalent Solipsister (of course they have their differences), simply that the word "discrimination" can be appealed to in either one.
>>If they were easier to enforce you’d be all for ‘em, right? What would be the penalty, if enforcement became easier?<<
I believe (I don't know if this is the case for all of the states that have these acts as illegal) but the ones I looked at had them as misdemeanors, so yes something like fine or loss of some privileges. Fines are fine with me.
I remember coming across a comment once on this issue in regards to imprisonment for such acts, and the person said something to the effect of " you couldn't build enough prisons! "
yes indeed, talk about having the bulk of the population behind bars. Impracticality and costly.
When it’s a minority of people doing acts that the majority disapproves of and abstains from, imprisonment wouldn’t seem radical.
Reverse the situation, to where it’s the majority of people doing acts that a minority disapproves of and abstains from (the current situation), then imprisonment seems radical.
>>That the ease of enforcement is the only impediment to your support for these laws is terrifying.<<
Why is it terrifying?
Perhaps you find it terrifying because of the mentality our society has in regard to sexuality, which is truly a very liberal one. That is probably why, the idea of adultery and fornication as illegal seem bizarre, or radical, or terrifying to you. Again, this is a mentality popular really only in recent history, which has abandoned a view of respect towards sex, and replaced it with the view that takes sex for granted. To the point that 'One-night stands are ok, just remember, wear protection!'
Whereas, I would say, no look, protection or not, one night stands are NOT ok. It is irresponsible, you hardly know the person. Honor YOUR body, and honor the body of others. Do not treat them solely as the vehicles to your personal pleasure. That is self-centered.
--“I did not say…..” Yeah, you did. And you still don’t understand what discrimination means.
--“Fines are fine with me.” And no doubt in your theocracy, you’ll define “fornication” broadly, with some kind of a sliding scale of penalties, with a larger fine for a blow job than for a feel-up. Whole new meaning to stiff penalties.
--From the “you couldn’t build enough prisons” through “reverse the situation” paragraphs helps explain what is so scary about your beliefs. It’s not just that you to hold a view; you want a position that is only derived from your religion to be imposed on the rest of us, if only it were enforceable.
--You’d fit right into Uganda. And there are a bunch of other American evangelicals diddling around with that country’s laws on sexuality, too, so you’d have plenty of company. Onward, Christian Soldier!
--“Perhaps you find it terrifying because…” Please, don’t make ill-informed assumptions about my opinions regarding the legal status of adultery and fornication or what I would consider an appropriate view of sex. You guessed wrong.
--“To the point that ‘one-night stands are ok, just remember, wear protection!’” Since no one actually made that point, you’re talking to your invisible friends, again.
--“Do not treat them solely as the vehicle to your personal pleasure. That is self-centered.” Um, again, not sure who around here said we should treat people as means, rather than as ends. But go right ahead and keep on arguing about things no one said. It’s getting to the point where I’m finding it amusing.
--At the end of the day, you just don’t approve of gay marriage because of your religious-based disapproval of homosexuality. And that's not good enough. In some places.
>>And you still don’t understand what discrimination means.<<
I do. I had even defined it: "Discrimination is simply unequal treatment of /granting of oppurtunities to individuals."
And people have to desperately present it as if gays have a unique claim to discrimination on the issue of not receiving the same legal benefits married people enjoy.
>>Since no one actually made that point, you’re talking to your invisible friends, again.<<
Did you miss the various times, in my posts, in which I spoke of "society" ? Did you just, completely gloss over that? My points were a reference to liberalized societal mentality.
We're all a product of society (influenced by it), so in a conversation that deals with social topics, it's just kinda important that I mention society. (That's an understatement)
"...If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male."
Problem is, people don't "choose" to be gay.
You're attracted to what you're attracted to, and that's the way it is (and THAT is the essence of being gay; attraction to same-gendered individuals). No choice involved. See my posts above regarding this, and there's plenty of solid research that backs this notion up. I'm not posting a plethora of links; do your own research, but if you limit it to Leviticus, you're not being "fair and balanced".
Ana said,
"...I used the hypothetical to demonstrate that legal-economic benefits is on the basis of your marital status, not your “orientation”, and that the same benefits that aren’t being granted to homosexual unmarried couples are likewise not being granted to heterosexual unmarried couples. That is how weak the discrimination argument is. It works just as well for ANY couple that is not married and thus is not receiving these “civil rights” married people receive."
This is uterly beside the point; the discrimination occurs (and we ALL agree that it DOES) at the point where hetero-couples marry and homo-couples are denied not just the civil rights granted without question to the hetero-couples, but the right to enter into a legal arrangement (call it a marriage, call it a civil union; doesn't matter) that has those benefits attached to it IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(P.S., not yelling; just don't know how to do bold or italics yet).
Ana said,
"...Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
In Michigan where I live, adultery is still on the books as being against the law, but it is never enforced, since most, if not all states have adopted "no-fault" divorce laws that require neutral statements like this, pulled verbatim from my latest divorce, and required by statute):
"...it satisfactorily appears to this Court that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved..."
i.e., you can't say "He was beating me", or "She was fooling around with her boss"; those statements are forbidden. And I'll bet that California is at least as liberal as Michigan if not more so, the chances that CA's divorce law is MORE stringent than Michigan's is practically nil.
What this all means is that you DON"T NEED VALID JUSTIFICATION to end a marriage; all it requires is for one person to say, "I quit". (For the record, I don't agree with the no-fault law: it allows people to behave badly with minimal consequence).
The only case I've heard of in recent memory where adultery was invoked was brought on the same grounds that you mentioned: as a breach of contract (the stakes were pretty high, lots of assets as I recall).
"Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?
This question ALONE destroys any argument that you may hold under which you propose to deny gays the right to enter into such a contract.
Ana said: Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
GearHedEd said: If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?
Boom!
Nicely done.
I’d just like to add that unlike the ridiculous laws which criminalize adultery and fornication, breach of contract is a civil, not criminal, action. There’s already a civil action for breach of the marriage contract by adultery, it’s called divorce.
>>"...If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male."
Problem is, people don't "choose" to be gay.<<
Notice I didn't say people choose to be gay. I said they choose to forego the benefits. I agree people do not choose an orientation. Whereas people do choose who to partner with. The statement above in quotes was just your statement with my substitutions to it.
>>If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?<<
Again, a gay person CAN enter a marriage contract. It's not about whether you can enter it or not, it's about WHO you intend to enter it with.
The basis..a person's intention as is while seeking the contract. If a person's intention is to marry someone of the same-sex, the contract is not available to act out on that intention.
If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention.
And I could say " a one year age difference doesn't justify denying us (the *couple*) the contract!"
clamat,
Well, divorce is itself a contract.
It seems to me that whether divorce is a breach of a marriage contract, depends on what the terms of the contract are. If the terms are such that the couple should remain married until death, then, divorce breaches the contract. If the terms explicitly or implicitly communicate a sort of “till divorce do us part” message, then, divorce doesn’t breach the contract.
So, if I use a purely human and secular standpoint… yes, whether divorce is a breach of contract depends on what the language of the marriage contract is. So to revise what I had said earlier, for adultery, whether it is a breach of contract, depends on whether the contract includes fidelity as one of its terms. And not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
I didn’t realize you were so young. I know it will come off as condescending to say this, but this is not my intent. Just the opposite, actually. I don’t know if I would have engaged the issues so tenaciously and sincerely at eighteen. Good on you.
That said, your reasoning remains profoundly flawed, and (possibly as a function of your youth) incredibly blinkered, to the point of willful ignorance.
If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention.
I and others have explained innumerable times why, as a society, we legally separate the age of minority, when children enjoy limited rights, from the age of majority, when adults are granted the full rights of citizens.
Society has an interest in protecting its children from their own inexperience and the adults who will take advantage of it. On the other hand, all other things being equal, society must assume there is an age of “adulthood” when one is capable of making his or her own independent decisions.
There is a tension between these two principles, and yes, some 17 year olds may be mature enough to decide to get married, vote, drink, etc. But society does not have the resources to adequately evaluate every teenager under every circumstance, so we set a bright line: You can’t get married under 18. It may not be fair to a particular, individual 17-year old, but it fair to 17-year olds generally.
Surely you understand this?
Your reasoning equating child marriage to gay marriage boils down to this: "We treat children differently, why can’t we treat gays differently?” Please stop equating gays and children without explaining why they are equivalent.
As to divorce:
First, divorce is not a contract, nor is it a breach of the marriage contract. Divorce is a legal proceeding resulting in the dissolution of a marriage contract. This proceeding may result in certain terms of divorce (child support, alimony, etc.), just as a civil action for breach of any other contract may result in terms of judgment. But divorce is not a contract itself.
More importantly, you once again miss my point: You reasoned that adultery should be illegal because it constitutes breach of the marriage contract, and breach of contract is illegal. My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal. Adultery may constitute breach of the marriage contract (of course, in some marriages, it may not), and therefore grounds for divorce, i.e., the dissolution of the contract. There is a significant difference between this and the legal prohibition on adultery you have endorsed.
a gay person CAN enter [into] a marriage contract…it's about WHO you intend to enter it with….If a person's intention is to marry someone of the same-sex, the contract is not available to act out on that intention.
You did not respond when I plugged “Germans / Nazis” into your disgusting equivocation of Homosexuals and NAMBLA. Maybe you’ll do us the courtesy of responding to this:
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
I said: Adultery may constitute breach of the marriage contract (of course, in some marriages, it may not), and therefore grounds for divorce, i.e., the dissolution of the contract. There is a significant difference between this and the legal prohibition on adultery you have endorsed.
This is to say that adultery may have civil legal consequences (though it may not). This is not justify making adultery "illegal," i.e., prohibited, with criminal consequences.
That may not be any clearer at all, actually. What the hey, it's typed.
[W]hether [adultery] is a breach of contract, depends on whether the contract includes fidelity as one of its terms. And not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
PRECISELY.
It is up to the contracting parties to determine whether adultery is a breach of the marriage contract, or, if it is a breach, whether any damages have resulted, and if any damages have resulted, what the consequences should be.
Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.
>>My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal.<<
Yes, you're right. Civil law and criminal law are different, and breaching falls under the former. I had merged the two types of law in the case of adultery, which I shouldn't have done.
>>Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.<< (emphasis mine)
Ok - I agree with your conclusion (bolded).
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal).
It is a common analogy, to compare prohibiting interracial marriage to prohibiting gay marriage. What is the difference? people say.
"Race" is a very subjective social contruct, that allows us to categorize people for socio-political, cultural, and economic motives.
In effect, our social perceptions have produced an inflated categorization of humans (which we refer to as "races") that while may be defensible for matters of practicality, are nonetheless biologically irrelevant.
Now, what do I mean by that? Well, there are certainly genetic variations between human individuals and populations, and for the latter, the variations are so negligible that we do not translate them into subspecies. That is to say, that taxonomically we do not sub-categorize Homo-Sapiens.
Gender, on the other hand, is biologically very relevant. The continuity of life- reproduction, hinges upon our recognition that procreation is accomplished by a male and a female. The continuity of life, reproduction, does not hinge upon recognizing the concept of "race".
Ok, @Anyone on this thread who had directed comments toward me
I’m not going to continue commenting on this thread because doing so is getting kind of exhausting at this point. I don't say that to be mean, I say it honestly. (Just look how long this thread is).
So I’ll leave you with this: A pointer- because no one seemed to hit upon what the central burden is.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
Here you go: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
(scroll down)
And don’t forget to ponder the 7 questions on the right!
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage
Ana, Ana, Ana.
Why is one legal, and the other not? Why can't you prohibit interracial marriage?
Your response? You can't prohibit interracial marriage because its legal.
That's not even circular reasoning. Is there such a thing as "point" reasoning, I wonder?
The analogy to anti-miscegenation laws is entirely apt. Your discussion of the social construction of notions of “race” is basically correct, as is your point about gender being “biologically relevant.” But they are entirely irrelevant to the question of civil rights with which we are confronted. Marriage simply isn’t about procreation, even for straights. In the first place, it’s obviously not necessary to be married to have kids. More to the point: Should infertile couples be prohibited from marrying? How about couples who simply choose not to have children? Should married couples be forced to procreate? Under your reasoning, they should.
Again, we had been discussing contract theory. You'll have to trust me, but "right to contract" is a foundational concept in American jurisprudence. Another foundational principle is that, absent a compelling reason to deny them, every citizen has equal rights. The default position in America is equal rights. It's up to you, the person who would deny civil rights to some, to explain why this denial is justified.
Despite volumes of attempts, you have failed. Utterly.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
I get an error message for the website you provided, but seeing as it’s from a law school, and seeing as I’m a lawyer, I’ll let myself feel qualified to comment:
Did black people have to establish that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right, before being allowed to marry whites (and vice-versa)? How about Jews / Gentiles? Irish / English? Short / tall? If so, it has been established that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right, and gays don’t have to do it all over again.
>>I and others have explained innumerable times why, as a society, we legally separate the age of minority, when children enjoy limited rights, from the age of majority, when adults are granted the full rights of citizens.<<
And yet, despite the age of majority, in Mississippi, I have to be 21 to marry without consent. Or 19 in Nebraska. Some states require BOTH parents, of the underage partner(s) to give consent, some require only ONE parent. Some states require a court order, and some do not.
Intuitively, the above can seem unfair. But, that's the result of federalism, which we operate under. Different states, different marriage regulations.
>>My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal.<<
Yes, you're right. Civil law and criminal law are different, and breaching falls under the former. I had merged the two types of law in the case of adultery, which I shouldn't have done.
>>Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.<< (emphasis mine)
Ok - I agree with your conclusion (bolded).
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal).
It is a common analogy, to compare prohibiting interracial marriage to prohibiting gay marriage. What is the difference? people say.
"Race" is a very subjective social contruct, that allows us to categorize people for socio-political, cultural, and economic motives.
In effect, our social perceptions have produced an inflated categorization of humans (which we refer to as "races") that while may be defensible for matters of practicality, are nonetheless biologically irrelevant.
Now, what do I mean by that? Well, there are certainly genetic variations between human individuals and populations, and for the latter, the variations are so negligible that we do not translate them into subspecies. That is to say, that taxonomically we do not sub-categorize Homo-Sapiens.
Gender, on the other hand, is biologically very relevant. The continuity of life- reproduction, hinges upon our recognition that procreation is accomplished by a male and a female. The continuity of life, reproduction, does not hinge upon recognizing the concept of "race".
Ok, @Anyone on this thread who had directed comments toward me
I’m not going to continue commenting on this thread because doing so is getting kind of exhausting at this point. I don't say that to be mean, I say it honestly. (Just look how long this thread is).
So I’ll leave you with this: A pointer- because no one seemed to hit upon what the central burden is.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
Here you go: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttom arry.htm
(scroll down)
And don’t forget to ponder the 7 questions on the right!
[Different ages of consent are] the result of federalism, which we operate under. Different states, different marriage regulations.
True. This doesn’t address my point in any way, though, much less undermine it. You apparently now do not disagree that age of consent laws make sense in principle, and understand the principles behind them. Whether it’s the state or the federal government implementing them is of no consequence to the basic question: Why are children (however they are defined) treated differently? We've answered that. If you want to analogize to age-of-consent laws, it’s up to you to demonstrate that coherent secular principles underpin anti-gay laws. You still haven’t done so.
All of your arguments are variations on “We treat kids differently than adults, ergo, we can treat gays differently than straights.” Makes absolutely no sense.
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract…” blah, blah, blah.
Right, it’s legal because it’s legal.
It wasn’t always legal, though. There were anti-miscegenation laws. If someone had asked you then why blacks weren’t allowed to marry, would your response have been “because it’s illegal”?
Why are blacks afforded the full, free Right to Contract with the person of their choice, and gays are not? Why are gays different?
Good luck in your continued studies, as I'm sure you would wish for all of us, since it is a never-ending process, IMO.
I am happy to see you share a secular site that explores from a legal perspective the constitutional background of this issue, since my position from the start has been that: a) you don't fully understand what the concept of "discrimination" means in a legal sense (as opposed to an everyday feeling about "unfairness"); and b) Your reasons to oppose gay marriage in the secular setting should be based on something other than your religion.
"If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention."
If you, at 18 wish to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, and the contract is therefore unavaliablre to you as an option, all you have to do is WAIT A FEW MONTHS until he's 18, and then it's wedding bells.
If you're an 18 year old lesbian (not saying you are) who wishes to marry your 17 year old lover, you'll be waiting until marriage is legal for gay couples which may be NEVER.
The state is arbitrarily discriminating against you and denying you benefits that are given freely to other groups, the only criterion being that you happen to love someone of the wrong gender.
This is manifestly WRONG, no matter how you try to dance around it.
"“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<"
Ana's reply:
"The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal)."
Missed the point again.
You may not be old enough to be aware of this (although I doubt it, given your usual high level of discussion), but interracial marriages WERE illegal in most states until fairly recently; in some states having not been repealed until well into the 1960's.
That interracial (hetero) couples are now routinely granted civil rights attached to marriage contracts where it was once illegal based ONLY on the difference in skin color is a PERFECT example of the reason HOW gay couples ARE being discriminated against illegally and WHY this discrimination should stop.
164 comments:
First. And that is all I have to say at this time. Except that the debunking of Original Sin more or less debunks "sin" in general.
While I think there are many sins (lust, pride, greed, envy, unrighteous anger, sloth, gluttony etc.) they all have the same effect - separation from God. I've noticed that in A.A. the 12 steps and 12 traditions book puts the word "sins" in parentheses one time. They are mainly referred to as character defects and not sins. I'm not absolutely certain why but I heard a guy in one of my groups say that the word sin really has no business in A.A. I think it's because the word carries with it the idea of hell and condemnation. They are more looked at as character flaws. You don't hear the word used very often though if at all.
It states on page 48 "Some will be quite annoyed if there is talk about immorality, let alone sin. But all who are in the least reasonable will agree upon one point: that there is plenty wrong with us alcoholics."
Correction to the above post: I meant to say quotation marks in stead of parenthesis.
Sin is only useful in a religious context. Character flaws, moral failure, or human frailty have to do with the aspect of being human, which is not particularly a religous context. It is a human context within the greater context of potential, and/or human society.
I don't think there is any value in talking about sin per se, as when the "sins" of the everyday human are acknowledged, corrected, and taken care of, then, the solution to "sin" is solved.
"Sin" has a connotation of shame, which can hinder acknowledgement. Human frailty has a less shaming effect, because of the solidarity of being human.
Sin separates the sacred and secular aspects of life, because what one does or doesn't do to please God, has the implication of taking one "out of the will of God". Whereas, human failings have to do with one's own personal life, and value.
Donnie McClurklin and myself have both been delivered from the sin of homosexuality. So have thousands of Christians who have received healing from this entrapping behavior through various groups (Exodus, Narth, etc).
Homosexuality is an unnatural sexual behavior. You can look at a man and a woman's body and tell "who is supposed to be with who." The fact that you can believe you were born gay and acknowledge that homosexual sin is more intense, more compulsive and may even physically "feel better" because of its intensity, and then still come out of it proves that conventional psychology doesn't have a clue. It is a higher level of immorality... you can easily compare it to "two consenting adults" of adult incest - but you are not used to this comparison.
Getting healing and getting completely delivered from homosexual entrapment takes time. You can't get back at first... there are reasons for this. But you CAN indeed get back to heterosexual normal desires if you are willing to let God heal you.
Question everything.
As far as "sins" of thought are concerned... actions speak louder than thoughts. You can wish someone would die, but this is NOT the exact same thing as killing them (however you HAVE committed the thought murder in your heart).
Yes, they are both evil...but one actually ends a life and gives eternal consequences which are different than the eternal consequences of thoughts which can be forgiven.
Please understand, murder and rape and adultery and all of these sins can be forgiven too...but actions which affect other people for eternity are different from fantasy. Fantasy, however, DOES sin against God. Q.E.
From Hallquist's post:
Critics of Christianity should talk about this more often. I’ve seen non-Christians attack Christians for believing that Anne Frank is burning in hell for being Jewish. I’ve seen Christian apologists, say, roughly, “It’s a misrepresentation of Christianity to say Christians believe God damned Anne Frank for being Jewish. What we believe is that God damned her for failing Ray Comfort’s good person test.” (The Christian might add, by way of further explanation, that God forgives Christians and only Christians for failing the Comfort’s test.) I’ve never seen an atheist go after a Christian for saying that, even though those two claims are roughly equal in moral insanity.
I go after them for it, all the time - but I generally feel as though I'm fighting a lone battle.
Of course, when I say I go after them, I mean that I talk about them. I rarely talk to them, for the simple reason that they aren't worth addressing.
In any case, although I understand what Hallquist is saying, and I agree - in the end, it amounts to the same thing. According to the psychopaths, God sends people to hell for not being Christians. All the rest is just verbal detour.
Of course the Christians MUST maintain this ridiculous story about how humanity is "fallen', otherwise, there is no need for a "redeemer".
They insist we're diseased (sin), and conveniently propose that they are in sole posession of the only cure.
Self-serving BS is what it is.
Breckmin said,
"...The fact that you can believe you were born gay and acknowledge that homosexual sin is more intense, more compulsive and may even physically "feel better" because of its intensity, and then still come out of it proves that conventional psychology doesn't have a clue."
You're telling us that you are never secretly attracted to men any more?
Bullshit!
You just see your denial of your attractions as righteousness.
That would be like as if I decided that women were yucky and filled with cooties, and now I choose to be attracted to men.
Never happen.
I have always been enamoured of the female form, and I don't think there's any "choice" involved, any more than you exercised a "choice" to be attracted to men.
@ gearhead. women ARE yucky and filled with cooties. didn't you learn that in grade school? lol
I wonder what jesus really thought about homosexuality. as far as i know he never comdemned it, and spent most of his time alone with twelve other nubile young men. He even washed their feet, which from Johns post the other day apparently sometimes means something else entirely.
@ matt:
I saw that pass you made at Jeff. Trying to score with me now?
Hmmm?
Question for Breckmin:
Which is worse: being gay or pretending not to be gay and lying to yourself and everyone else around you for the rest of your life?
Another question for Breckmin.
If when you're having intercourse with a woman (assuming you DO have women in your life now as opposed to just an absence of men), do you feel like it's distasteful, but that you're "obliged" to enjoy it?
Then you're still gay.
I know.
That was a rhetorical question.
nope gearhead, I like the feminine form just as much as you, maybe more. I still wonder if jesus was gay, based on his lifestyle however.
@ matt:
Let's count ex-wives, and whoever has more wins.
Ready?
Go!
I have three.
I got you beat. I have no ex wives. I stayed a bachelor 40 years, enjoying the pleasure of different womens company the entire time, until I finally settled down 2 years ago.
(that sound you hear is your battleship breaking in half as it sinks forever into the deep abyss)
HAHA
Breckmin, please don't get married and make some poor woman miserable!
Did you see the movie "Brokeback Mountain?"
GearHead:
You're telling us that you are never secretly attracted to men any more?
Bullshit!
You just see your denial of your attractions as righteousness.
Let's say you feel periodically feel an impulse to shop lift, or to strike someone in anger, or to cheat on your spouse or to drink too much. Don't you think it's a good thing to resist that impulse?
Only animals mindlessly follow whatever impulse springs into their head. Is that what you consider a noble, rational way to live life? Do you really apply this concept of "authenticity" uniformly, or just selectively, since you have bought into the lies of homosexual propagandists?
I can never understand how secularists can miss that they are being inconsistent and illogical when they say stuff like this. Feh.
C. Andiron
That's a fallacious argument. Gearhead, like most heterosexual people, only has yearnings for people of the opposite sexual persuasion. Breckmin, if he is gay, will always have sexual yearnings for other men. Thinking about shop lifting or hitting someone you're mad at or drink too much ISN'T the same as going against the natural inclination of an individual person. If the person only gets off on sex dolls then that's what he/she's going to get off on.
You're comparing a natural urge to a thought. Gay people don't just say, "hey, I think I'll be straight today", and people who brainwash them into something other than their natural self will reap a negative reward because the subconscious of the person being brainwashed in this manner is almost destined to snap mentally.
Of COURSE nature only meant for man to be with woman but all across the spectrum of the animal kingdom, something that humans are a part of, homosexual relations are common.
C. Andiron said,
"Let's say you feel periodically feel an impulse to shop lift, or to strike someone in anger, or to cheat on your spouse or to drink too much. Don't you think it's a good thing to resist that impulse?"
Homosexuality isn't driven by "impulse". It's driven by attraction.
...and we don't "choose" to whom we are attracted.
@ matt:
You got some catching up to do...
;o)
"Yes, let's preach a bit more about sin, brothers and sisters">
by faith, it is not a question of having to prove ourselves right -- or without sin in order to avoid punishment ( a lot of work and image maintenance) but do we have a safe place to surrender and confess (not promote or defend or offend with) sin and receive grace and mercy for such? When we confess sin to Christ, we are set free from fear of condemnation. Condemnation, whether of ourselves or others, is a sin.
You may have noticed, B. Feet, that no one here condemned Breckmin for admitting what he did.
Condemnation for homosexuality, if it's a contest between the atheists and the Christians, is ALWAYS won by the Christians, hands down.
It's the atheists who are generally non-judgemental on this issue.
I had a conversation on the phone with an old fundy friend today. He just became aware that I am now an agnostic. Of course he tried to reason me back into the faith. His conclusion was that I was never saved in the first place, imagine that. We talked about that for about an hour until I brought up Hell.
I said, “so when you go all the way back to the beginning, you have God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit that have always existed”. “According to your theology, God did not have to create man. He was perfectly content within himself and could have stayed in that state for all eternity. “Why did he have to create a place such as Hell”? Eternal conscience torment that never, ever, ends.
His answer
“God had to create Hell, he could not have done otherwise”. Why? Because he is perfectly just and eternal. So he had to make his punishment for sin eternal, and if you don’t’ agree with hell, then you don’t understand how bad sin is.
What are your thoughts?
exreformed,
In this way of thinking, humans are really only extensions of 'God. They are not significant in any way other than to further enlarge God's "SELF" (even though he is self-existant and self-sustaining and doesn't need humans...He chose to "use" humans for his own ends.)
Since God only needs humans for his own plans, purposes and the enlarging of "His Kingdom", then, He either predestines those who will suffer to "prove" his justice in eternal punishment, OR he must judge those that do not submit or choose what he has already chosen for them.
HOW IS THIS CONSIDERED "GOOD"??? Because he is inscrutable, His ways are past "finding out", etc. ...it calls for irrational faith. This is why "good" must be judged apart from "God", because otherwise, good becomes an arbitray assessment of those who are "in power". Whatever those in power say is God's will (how they interpret the text for those under them) must be submitted to, otherwise, one is "out of order" and in danger of discipline or "hell-fire".
"They insist we're diseased (sin), and conveniently propose that they are in sole posession of the only cure."
Actually, Christians do not have the cure. We can only point to the cure (that being the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross).
I haven't had a homosexual thought in 20 or 30 years. I am only attracted to women sexually now.
Question everything.
You have been deceived about homosexuality and some day this will be revealed to you.
Jesus Christ is able to completely heal sin and deliver people from such abborations. This is what you do not understand.
Terms like Sin God Transcendent Immaterial Incorporeal Supernatural are all non-cognitive. Lines of discourse addressing such terms make no sense because non-cognitive terms have no specific meaning stemming from primary attributes. An argument From Non-Cognitivism and a defense against argument from imagination here can convince an honest person that god talk is meaningless.
Your previous homosexual identification has been "replaced" by tranferrence to another 'master'. In this sense, you have "been born again". You have placed your faith in the delierance promised, because those that have mentored you, and have your respect say that "it works". Pray, fast, and do what is suggested and then "you will be free".
Such "mentoring relationships" are not evil, but they can lead to cultish following of leaders, without developing one's critical ability to think for oneself. This is damaging not just to what you "could become", but a lack of critical thinking allows the "empowered" a lack of accountability. This could lead you down a primrose path, to your own destruction. You must make your own decisions, and not allow others to determine the 'course of your life' for you.
Breckmin, supposedly Christ is the cure and he lives in your heart; therefore, Christians hypothetically posses the "cure" to an imaginary disease called "sin".
Breckmin said,
"I haven't had a homosexual thought in 20 or 30 years. I am only attracted to women sexually now.
Question everything."
Are you SURE?
(just questioning...)
:oP
Is there really any difference between the Biblical concept of sin and any other tribal group's taboo? If there is, I fail to see it. The Bible orders the death penalty for all sorts of foolish things - I guess that was because they couldn't spare the manpower to build a prison in those days, and no-one wanted a slave with bad ju-ju attached to him.
GearHedEd said "Are you SURE?"
over thirty years with no homosexual fantasies or activity
over 23 years with no serious effectual temptation (which would have been brought on by either heterosexual pornography or alleged bi-sexual men propositioning me).
The fact is people are NOT born homosexual. This is a huge deception. Thousands of people who come out of homosexual lifestyle to live normal heterosexual relationships demonstrate the deception.
The complication is that different people have different potentials for homosexual unnatural behavior. Lack of male intimacy, low testosterone, male to male molestation as a child, etc. etc.
Even getting locked up in prison with men who abuse you can cause you to fall into the sin of homosexuality. This are things the world does NOT understand... because there is a chemical aspect to what takes place with regards to attraction as well as spiritual consequences. Romans 1 spells it out correctly. Depraved mind, degrading passions, etc. The more time you spend in homosexuality the more time it takes to heal you of the abberation and get back.
When you are in the middle of homosexual entrapping behavior... the opposite sex will often do absolutely nothing for you in terms of sexual attraction.
Consequences for actions. That is why you feel like you can't get back. You CAN. But only if you follow proper steps toward healing.
Question everything.
"Which is worse: being gay or pretending not to be gay and lying to yourself and everyone else around you for the rest of your life?"
Worse would be to stay in the homosexual unnatural addiction (bestiality, necrophilia or pornography addictions apply as well)and not get deliverance from it.
By God's grace I was delivered from such addiction. It's not a learned behavior...it is an entrapping behavior that changes you.. but there are steps to change you back..Question everything! (like why there are so many who DO)
"so when you go all the way back to the beginning, you have God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit that have always existed”. “According to your theology, God did not have to create man."
God did not create out of need. He already had the angels - but He did NOT create these angels out of need or loneliness either. Such would be utterly foolish and a petty God-concept.
"He was perfectly content within himself"
unnecessary for an Infinite Omniscient existence.
"and could have stayed in that state for all eternity."
An infinite existence is not like a finite being that should have to somehow "wait" on a consecutive linear timeline. The angels already existed, btw. God's temporal experience with them and among them would be eternal (this last sentence will need more clarification and can never be fully defined in the English - Q.E.).
“Why did he have to create a place such as Hell”?"
Lucifer actually fell and became satan. a third of the angels fell with him. hell was created for them originally (but clearly an omniscient Creator knew that other beings of choice who did not receive payment for the negative debt they created in God's universe would also have to be separated there because of God Order and Justice (consequences for actions) and other mult-faceted reasons relating to the Holiness of God, the image of man, the nature of sin and eternal state of the universe in contrast to the temporary creation.
"Eternal conscience torment that never, ever, ends."
Multi-faceted reasons for this.
"His answer
“God had to create Hell, he could not have done otherwise”. Why? Because he is perfectly just and eternal. So he had to make his punishment for sin eternal, and if you don’t’ agree with hell, then you don’t understand how bad sin is.
What are your thoughts?"
Hell was "first" created because of the angels who fell. He is correct in that people who don't agree with hell's existence do NOT realize how evil sin is...and clearly this is because they have no concept or understanding (they are often blind to it)how incredibly Holy God is. The incredible state of Perfect Infinite Glory requires moral perfection for fellowship.
This moral perfection can only come through Jesus Christ and HIS Perfect Holiness being imputed to you.
disagreeing with God in any way is not only just disobedience..but it is also making yourself an "idol" over a Holy God Whom it is logical for you to worship (FOR YOU! not for God).
We don't worship God because He needs us or because it makes an omniscient Creator just somehow feel better. This is a creator you've wrongly constructed in your mind which is too small and you expect way too little from such Creator. We worship God (fellowship with Him)because it is good for us. It is a blessing to us. It is right (optimal for us) because it is what we were created for (fellowship with a Holy Creator).
But God wants willing hearts NOT puppets or robots. We can say no and not love God.
This is a bad thing and will taint you as a being of choice for all of eternity and cause you to stay separated from His fellowship if you do not repent and receive forgiveness.
Question everything. This is a good line of reasoning to go much deeper into..(i.e. How can it be a choice if the consequences for not doing it are eternal suffering, etc - for "starters")
Breckmin, you give a powerful testimony that we are NOT condemned to be in bondage to sin, and most people cannot stand this, since they would like to justify their own sin, no matter *what* that sin is.
Remember the end of Romans 1 when Paul describes sinners of all stripes:
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Stay strong in the faith, and do not be surprised at the attacks and sneering directed at your way. I wonder if these people would support a reformed ex con or alcoholic or wife beater, or if they would encourage him to "be sincere" and give into his temptations?
I hate to break it to you, but wife-beating isn't the same as homosexuality, no matter what fundy retards say. Christians say that homosexuality is sooo evil, but when you ask them why, eventually it comes down to, "because the Bible says so!". Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, avoiding the typical "they feel guilty and hate themselves(gee, I wonder if the few gays who this way feel because of the Christians who constantly tell them they're wicked and god hates them)", "they spread disease(heterosexuals are just as likely to catch STDs as gays)", and any other bit of Christian propaganda.
I hate to break it to you, but wife-beating isn't the same as homosexuality, no matter what fundy retards say.
I hate to break it to you, but you completely missed the point of my analogy. Are you certain about who's the retard here? ;>)
I wasn't saying that all sins are the same. I'm saying that when people overcome sin, that's a *good* thing. There's nothing self deceiving or hypocritical about it. On the contrary, it's what separates adults from children. Do you agree?
Christians say that homosexuality is sooo evil, but when you ask them why, eventually it comes down to, "because the Bible says so!".
Atheists pretend to condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than question begging ones.
Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong,
The Levitical condemnations of homosexuality are bookendended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. Do you consider those immoral? What about necro? If you say yes, why are you so narrow minded and bigoted in your condemnation of these other sexual minorities?
Think about it: do you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?
Homosexuality is two consenting adults of the same gender having sex.
Wife-beating is one partner subjugating the other through physical violence; equating the two is the type of generalization I expect from morons trying to defend their out-dated morality. And then you try to cover that up with the whole "do you support re-rehabilitating sinners" crap. I support people overcoming harmful, perverted addictions that are destroying their lives- and Christians can't tag any of this on homosexuality. Are you certain about who's the retard here?;^)
Atheists typically do the right thing because it's the right thing. I know that to a theist, the concept of doing good without the promise of eternal reward in Happyplayland must be mind-boggling, but that's why they do it. As for objective morality, throughout history, this has always been a rather convenient excuse for depraved groups to impose their morality on others and commit mass murder towards those who wouldn't conform.
And finally, under pressure, the mental retardation resulting from brain-washing rears it's head.
Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions. As for Necrophilia... congratulation. You are only the second fundy I've seen on the Internet who's severely retarded enough to draw a parallel between Homosexuality and necrophilia. In order for something to be real sex and not a perversion, it must always be between two consenting adults, and must not be between relatives. Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head; no such risks stem from reasonable homosexual behavior, so therefore Christians have absolutely no logical, ethical, scientific, medical, or intelligent reason to oppose homosexuality, apart from the fact that it jars with their personal, "justified" moral intuition. It's also interesting how you try to justify this primitive hogwash with a verse from the old testament, the section of the bible that says it's okay to sell pagan children into
slavery(Leviticus 22;44-46), beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die within one day of the beating(Exodus 20;20-21), and also justifies mass murder(of pagans and homosexuals).
Funny how you insinuate that atheists don't have ethics, sexual(see Solomon and just about every major male character in the O.T.; how many wives do we see?) or otherwise when anyone who reads the bible can clearly see that secular morals and ethics are totally superior to the ones in the Wholly Babble. Cherry-picking morals out of the old testament...
Are you certain who the retard around here is?;)
So wanting the right to legally marry each other and have their basic human rights recognized by the law is "pushy special interests"? Like the fundys who want Creationism taught in schools? Or demand the dissolution of Separation of Church and State? Or people who condemn and persecute homosexuals based on a discredited religious text that's been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in recorded history?
Are you certain who the retard here is?;)
@C. Andiron
B.R. said: Give us one good, non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong.
C. Andiron responded: The Levitical condemnations of homosexuality are bookendended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. Do you consider those immoral? What about necro? If you say yes, why are you so narrow minded and bigoted in your condemnation of these other sexual minorities?
So you concede you can’t meet B.R.’s challenge.
Unlike you, I won’t dodge:
The basic concept is simple: That which minimizes suffering is moral. (Yes, yes, there’s no “suffering-o-meter,” so we’ve got to take the best relative measurements we can, as we go. Such is life.)
Because a parent holds such disproportionate power in the relationship, parent/child incest can never be consensual (even when both are adults). Non-consensual sex is called rape. Causing suffering is immoral.
To the extent it causes animal suffering, and I suspect it does, bestiality is immoral "animal rape."
Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral.
(Relatedly: Where does the Bible condemn necrophilia? Per the explicit Biblical proscriptions, wouldn’t it be just fine for a husband to have sex with the body of his dead wife? Presumably you’d object to this as immoral. Why?)
But to the extent it's just some guy bangin' a corpse or a cow ("moo" means "yes"!), it's not immoral at all. Severly pathological, yes. Immoral, no.
There, no Bible required.
So to repeat: What’s the non-Biblical problem with homosexuality, again?
Now I’ll allow myself to take a page from your playbook, and answer a question with a question:
[D]o you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?
First, why are you now talking about ethics, not morality? Anyway, are you suggesting the Bible offers a coherent view of sexual ethics?
I'll answer this last one myself: Hahahahahaha!
Breckmin said,
"The fact is people are NOT born homosexual."
I never said they were.
What I said was that you DON'T choose what you are attracted to.
When you see something that appeals to you, you don't say,
"I'm going to choose to like that",
you say,
"I like that, and I want it."
Whether you want to admit it or not, if you liked it enough to be gay for some portion of your life, it was because you LIKED being gay. I'm not condemning this. If you're gay, be gay. Simple. I'm also not denying that what you say about now being only attracted by women may be true; but you believe some other things on pretty flimsy evidence, and I suspect that there are still times when...
Having brought the subject up in the first place without anyone asking for that information shows us all that just talking about "sin" made you think about your homosexual past long enough to type out a three paragraph comment and let it ride long enough to be the first comment you made on this thread.
It's still bugs you.
C. Andiron said,
"...Atheists pretend to condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than question begging ones."
Christians actually DO condemn certain actions as evil, but when you ask them why, they cannot give any justification for their moral intuitions, other than bare assertions and fairy tales.
"Think about it: do you really have a coherent view of sexual ethics, or ethics at all, or are you just blindly following the propaganda of one particular loud, pushy, special interest group?"
Like your local Christian community? I've never met a pushier special interest group in my life than Christians.
"Homosexuality is two consenting adults of the same gender having sex."
B.R.,
what about two consenting adults such as a mother and her son or an adult daughter and her biological father? These are two consenting adults... will you claim that this is wrong, but not homosexuals?
"Having brought the subject up in the first place without anyone asking for that information shows us all that just talking about "sin" made you think about your homosexual past long enough to type out a three paragraph comment and let it ride long enough to be the first comment you made on this thread."
Actually, I read the Chris' article. I addresses homosexuality and even the picture addresses the controversy.
"It's still bugs you."
Why should it bug me? It gave me tremendous understanding as to what homosexuality really is. Also, I am completely forgiven because of the power of Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross. Romans 8:1
Hoot! It's so fun to read how those scary homos rove in bands "entrapping" purely straight guys into sex. (I hear they also make you watch Yentl.) And Larry Craig just happened to end up in a stall adopting a "wide stance." And Ted Haggard was "ministering" to that male masseuse and is now a heterosexual. Love that the poster had to get sweaty with another man in order to know what homosexuality "really" is. So much for the "You can look at a man and a woman's body and tell who is supposed to be with who" silliness. Guess he needed to look really really closely. While naked. With "Real Prison Diary" running in the background.
And does Andiron's belief in Levitical proscriptions translate into the belief that masturbation is a sin? Or sex during menstruation? Or is it one of those "Paul didn't say I couldn't" things? Just curious.
Jeez. What nonsense.
I just love when Christians just read the first sentence or two of my comments and dodge the rest.
@Breckmin; duuuuh, maybe it has something to do with the risk of inbreeding? Read my first comment. I proved that Christians have no excuse whatsoever to oppose gay rights(human rights that are being withheld from them) and here you are, asking brain-dead questions I've already answer. And while you're at it, read clamat's comment instead of evading it. And no, you obviously don't know what homosexuality is, and as for Jesus, read comment #14 on "25 Hot Topics for a New Book(the one with 17 comments)".
And read the scripture I provided on my previous comment here.
Ok great. We seem to be making progress. It seems to be implicitly conceded that just desiring something doesn't make it right (which seems the point of Gearhead's initial posts), and now we've moved on to trying to justify homosexuality as moral.
@clamat:
So you concede you can’t meet B.R.’s challenge.
Unlike you, I won’t dodge:
The basic concept is simple: That which minimizes suffering is moral.
Clamat, I put it to you B.R. was dodging the issue, and so are you.
It seems that you an he are being unconsciously hypocritical, or inconsistent in the standards you are trying to hold the Christian to, as opposed to those you espouse. Let me ask you, how does your bare assertion, "That which minimizes suffering ..." differ fron the bare assertion "Bestiality, incest and necro are immoral". And how do those differ from the bare assertion, "Homosexuality is immoral"?
I concede we are both absolutists. I just believe in several more moral principles that you do. When you know why you accept certain moral principles as absolute, you will know why I accept mine.
Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral.
But it is dishonest of you to take a corner case for what we would both agree is paraphilia, but for the homosexual, allow him to justify his behavior with a Potemkin village of "monogamous mutuality", which hardly ever exists. If the incestuous agrees not to have children, if the necrophile cannibal, such as Armin Miewes, a homosexual btw. only agrees to eat his corpse by mutual consent before the suicide, then by your principle there is nothing wrong with the action.
So to repeat: What’s the non-Biblical problem with homosexuality, again?
Even the secularist should be able to see there is ample empirical evidence that this practice is evil. They disproportionately molest children (be honest, do not look at the mere numbers of hetero vs homo molesters, but at the *percentages*). They routinely act lawlessly, such as judge Walker Vaughn, and indeed this is described in the Genesis 19 narrative. You cannot separate this one immoral action out and say, "apart from that, they will be moral". Immorality comes as a package deal. Would you be comfortable having Kevin Jennings instruct your children? Be honest.
@B.R.
Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions.
As above, what about a Potemkin village justification such as is used by homosexuals, that all parties are adult, consenting, and agree to abort any pregnancies?
Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head;
Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental disorder before the lobby gained enough power to arbitrarily change the definition without giving any medical justification. And of course homosexuality can be condemned on the basis of disease as well. Does anyone deny that abstinence and heterosexual monogamy would 100% eliminate the AIDs pandemic into an unpleasant memory? But people must have their sins.
@B.R.
Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding; there's two solid, good reasons to ban this practice that does not require a magic Sky Guy or justified moral intuitions.
As above, what about a Potemkin village justification such as is used by homosexuals, that all parties are adult, consenting, and agree to abort any pregnancies?
Necrophilia is a mental disorder because you're risking your life by participating in it(and of course, the corpse is not a willing, consenting partner); physical contact with a cadaver's bodily fluids can result in gangrene, Syphilis, necrosis, and more diseases and infections than I can recite off the top of my head;
Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental disorder before the lobby gained enough power to arbitrarily change the definition without giving any medical justification. And of course homosexuality can be condemned on the basis of disease as well. Does anyone deny that abstinence and heterosexual monogamy would 100% eliminate the AIDs pandemic into an unpleasant memory? But people must have their sins.
So to reiterate, even if you wanted to justify this one evil action, you cannot isolate it out from the rest of the person. You look at the majority (not just the Potemkin village few held up to try to justify this in public eyes) and you see that these people are morally blind. If you protest them acting immorally in public restrooms in parks where children could walk in, you're a homophobe. If you object to the *content* of their parades, because it is inappropriate, again they are morally blind to what is appropriate public behavior. Say what you like, heterosexuals have never sunk to this level of blindness. Sleazeballs like Peter Tatchell in the U.K. will continue to try to lower the age of consent to 12. Please just answer me. Why are only homosexual activists trying to degrade society in ways like this? This is mainstream for them.
There should be a drinking game where every time Andiron says Potemkin, someone has to take a shot.
@ Andiron: Whoa there, Anita Bryant.
There is most certainly NOT “ample empirical evidence that this practice is evil.” You sloppily confuse pedophilia with child molestation (not all child molesters are pedophiles) and then falsely assert gays are the problem. You conflate homosexuality/heterosexuality (which are considered adult psychological orientations) with the behavior of sexual abuse of children, which is rarely committed by homosexuals. Almost all cases of male-male sexual abuse are committed by what actual professional scientists and medical experts (unlike yourself and the de-gayifying conversion cults you got your mis-information from) categorize as psychologically “fixed” or “regressed” or – gasp!—heterosexual.
Gallo and the consensus of virologists (who, last I heard, aren’t part of some global conspiracy to make sure that Gay Potemkin Village is fully stocked with 500 thread-count sheets) would remind you that the spread of AIDS in Africa is a heterosexual problem and that different forms of the virus prefer different modes of transmission. Your argument sounds suspiciously like Westboro Baptist rhetoric.
“Routinely act lawlessly.” Huh? There’s no evidence that gays and lesbians have higher rates of criminal behavior (and sodomy laws don’t count). I don’t know what parks and restrooms you’re trolling, but I’ve seen just as much public sexual behavior from heteros as gays. And the lesbians? When it comes to anti-social behavior/crime, they make Mother Theresa look like Snookie.
But the focus of your extended rants seems to be on male homosexual behavior and not lesbianism, which leads me to believe there's something more going on with you than you've admitted.
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
Wrong.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-news-correction-false_n_311734.html
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality?
And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then.
Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....?
The "disease" propaganda is bullshit. I know it, you(deep down, hopefully)know it, hell, I'll bet that the Fundies who made it up know it. There is not one single bit of evidence that gays are more at risk for STDs than heterosexuals just because they're gay.
Please tell that you haven't been this badly brainwashed by the Christains. Homosexuals are more likely to catch STDs because overall, lots of them don't practice safe sex. And eliminating homosexuality won't get rid of AIDs. And yes, even monogamous heterosexuals are at risk for AIDs if they don't practice safe sex. Duh. Why must this concept be explained to Christards over and over and over...?
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
Wrong.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-news-correction-false_n_311734.html
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality?
And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then.
Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....?
The "disease" propaganda is bullshit. I know it, you(deep down, hopefully)know it, hell, I'll bet that the Fundies who made it up know it.
Actually, moron, that would be you dodging the issue. I specifically requested a valid non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong, and you completely evaded the challenge then and are still evading it now.
Duh, maybe you could actually read his comment and refrain from wrapping your own stupidity in sophistry. Suffering stems directly from necro, bestiality, and incest but not from being gay.
Like slave-beating? Or murdering lazy teenagers? Or killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? And don't forget, Christians are still obligated to obey the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Monogamous mutuality hardly exists in gay relationships? Prove this, please, of bugger off. As for the rest of your statement, I'll let clamat handle it.
Wrong.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
This claim has been debunked so many times that you literally have to be retarded to still cling to it. Also, provide these *percentages*. Where did you find them? A *Christian* website? And only a biased retard would try to say that a group or practice is immoral based on the actions of one individual. Why don't you apply the same criteria to Christians and see how well your own group holds up? And only an idiot would try to glean morals from the same book that justifies slavery, slave-beating, polygamy, mass murder and selling children into slavery. As for Kevin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-news-correction-false_n_311734.html
Do you ever THINK about the bullshit you believe in, or do you just mindlessly suck it up?
Abortion is separate issue, C., so cut the generalizations. Can you provide us with one *valid* non-biblical reason to get rid of homosexuality?
And before you respond, know that the Almighty says, "DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKIN' QUESTION".
Give a medical justification, then.
Of course, there is zero evidence for it being a mental disorder, but I doubt that will stop you. Surely you're up to the challenge....?
Complete, total abstinence(which will NEVER happen, by the way)would eliminate AIDs; contrary to what Fundy fuckwits have told you, heterosexual monogamy won't. It's called safe sex. Statistically, homosexuals are less likely to practice safe sex, and therefore more likely to catch STDs; not because Gawd has cursed them.
So who would deny your claim? Any sane, educated person of average or higher intelligence(who has not been brainwashed by the religious right). And gullible sheeple must have their cults.
I love the way you make these generalizations about "evil" and "majority", and provide not one statistic or poll that even leans your way. I've been to hundreds of parks, and never have I, or anyone I know or have heard of, ever encountered homos getting it on in a public restroom, whether in a park or anywhere else. And some of them do, they hardly count as a "majority". And are you saying that only *gay* perverts have sex in public restrooms?
"...heterosexuals have never sunk to this level of blindness."
Really? Guess you better go tell that to all the polygamists in America(and the heterosexual males in the o.t.), and the straight bondage freaks.
First off, he wanted to lower it to 14, not 12, and secondly, as with your reference to Judge Walker, why don't you apply this criteria to Christians and see how well your own group stands up(and don't forget folks like Jim Jones). Same goes for gay parades with inappropriate content; you can't judge millions of people based on the action of a few; otherwise, Christianity would be eligible for abolition.
A better question(for Christians) would be, "why do only small percentages of gayfolk want to degrade society in a sexual way, yet millions of Christians want to effectively destroy modern education by teaching homophobia, Creationism(a discredited teaching), abolish Separation of Church and State, and want to turn our nation into a theocratic hellhole?".
Now, if you can't contribute something useful and intelligent to the conversation, then don't bother contributing at all.
B.R. please define
"homophobia", according to what it means to YOU when you use it.
Irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals and everything associated with them, usually stemming from old-fashioned religious interests like conservative Christianity. Involves fears such as
A; gays spread AIDs,
B; gays want to brainwash children,
C; granting gays the right to marry will somehow "destroy" traditional marriage and family values,
D; gays are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals,
E; most, if not all gays are involved in sexual practices involving feces(?).
Is there anything else I can do for you, Ana?
If one believes the following:
-Christians spread delusion.
-Christians want to brainwash children.
-Christians wanting to confine the definition of marriage to between one man- one woman destroys equality.
-Christians want to theocracize America
- *Christianity is dangerous*
-Religion poisons everything
is one Christophobic?
I'm disconcerted as at how, (especially where I live in CA), if one is opposed to gay marriage, that is enough to automatically be branded as a homophobic hate-monger.
I think to myself, by that logic, ANY opposition to ANYTHING qualifies as a phobia.
If I were to support gay marriage, but oppose NAMBLA, am I a phobic and hater?
Ana,
Yes Christianity is dangerous when one cannot choose their values, think "outside the box", have different opinions where it regards personal decisions, inhibits scientific discovery, undermines human knowledge, politically oppresses, or when it opposes resistance to its supremacy. This is the danger of any religion.
As to your concern about being phobic, I agree. The politically correct view of "groups", is the gay or Muslim populations. There seems to be justification and all kinds of "rights" granted to them, at the costs of other groups. But, then, groups are what drive "herdish" mentality which those that want to use power to manipulate will use!
@C. Andiron
How does your bare assertion, “That which minimizes suffering…” differ from the bare assertion “Bestiality, incest, and necro are immoral"? And how do those differ from the bare assertion, “Homosexuality is immoral”?
Really? You can’t tell the difference? That explains a lot.
It’s simple:
My assertion articulates a basic moral principle or guideline which can be applied to a particular circumstance, and which (I hope) informs all my moral decisions.
Your assertion, on the other hand is simply a list of specific circumstances themselves, not the principle or guideline you use to evaluate them. Simply declaring “homosexuality is immoral” simply begs the question: Why? Under what moral principle?
You may wish to argue that my assertion, “that which minimizes suffering is moral” also begs the question “Why?” I must admit, I don’t have a rigorous, formal argument supporting this principle. It’s simply my personal distillation of the various moral principles that have made sense to me over a lifetime.
But this is entirely irrelevant: Such an argument is specious unless you disagree with the principle. Do you disagree that it is moral to minimize suffering? If so, please stay far, far away from me and my family.
No, I won’t, because you haven’t articulated any moral principles at all. “The Bible tells me so” is not a moral principle. Rather, you’ve listed specific actions think are condemned by the Bible. (Though, to repeat: Where does the Bible condemn necrophilia?)
But the Bible itself offers no coherent moral principle for these proscriptions ----indeed, “love thy neighbor” would seem to encourage hot guy-on-guy action. This compels you to resort to ad hoc justifications, and scramble to identify “empirical” support for your personal prejudices.
(For that is obviously what they are. My hypothesis: Far more people adopt the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity because they think Christianity justifies their homophobia, than people who come to their homophobia through Christianity. Which is why it is so vehement and virulent: People always cling hardest to the things that they think justify the bigotries they bring to the table.)
As others have pointed out, your “empirical” arguments are laughable, and unsupported by any reference or evidence. You want to condemn homosexuals, as opposed to treating them just like everybody else, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence justifying this condemnation.
“Homosexuals routinely act lawlessly.” To the extent this statement is not fatally vague (“routinely”?), it is asinine: Are you claiming that heterosexuals don’t routinely act lawlessly? Well that explains why our prison populations pretty much look just like Harvey Fierstien and John Waters, and are all Judy Garland fans. Seriously, this is just stupid.
So is the notion homosexuals disproportionately molest children. (Again, cite please?) You asked if I would be comfortable having Kevin Jennings teach my children. I admit, I had to google him. Based on his Wikipedia entry, though, I’d be more than comfortable - I’d be ecstatic.
True story: A teacher at one of our local middle schools was recently arrested for having sexual contact with a 14-year old. A married, male teacher. With a 14-year old girl. Should I fear my daughter’s straight male teachers from now on? What do your moral coherent “principles” say about this scenario?
*sigh*
Christians want to convert as many people to their religion as they can.
That nails "spread delusion" and "brainwash".
Well, I don't exactly see homosexuals lining up to change their orientation at the whim of Christian Morality, do you?
Unlike C. Andiron, I am not quite biased or arrogant enough to make such a broad blanket statement. Most Christians are thankfully intelligent enough to see that we need Separation of C/S, but unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of rabid Fundamentalists who don't agree and spend loads of money each year expressing their desire to mold this country on the morally perfect, unquestionable Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, which brings us to your "Christianity is dangerous" point.
http://www.infidels.org./library/modern/tony_kuphaldt/word.shtml
That's a moronic generalization that I'll leave to materialist blow-hards, thank you. Religion, in it's proper place, can be greatly beneficial to a society; but that depends on the religion.
If someone doesn't support something, I don't think they should be labeled as a "hater"; although it is true, as I've pointed out, that Christians really don't have any valid reason to oppose gay marriage, apart from the fact that it soothes their silly allegiance to a deified dead man and a meaningless dogma.
NAMBLA is a bunch of pedophiles, so no, opposing them would make you a decent person.
By the way, clamat, you've been talking about the sexual coherency of the Bible. Read Exodus 21;7.
Apparently, it was perfectly acceptable in Hebrew society to sell your daughter as a sex-slave.
@ana: "If I were to support gay marriage, but oppose NAMBLA, am I a phobic and a hater?" Well, I think "hater" is an funny term, kinda like Bush's "decider," so I wouldn't choose it. The answer is no. But you knew that before you even posted the question. The fact that you rhetorically equate pedo/hebe-philias with gay marriage between consenting adults says quite a bit.
You say that "if one is opposed to gay marriage, that is enough to automatically be branded" homophobic. I agree folks should be careful about the application of labels, but guess what? I've heard few explanations of opposition to gay marriage that would not deserve the label, so yup, I sometimes skip the "tell me why" part and cut to the chase. I'd be happy to replace "homophobic" with "heterosexist" if the shoe fits.
My question to you is this: Why haven't you rhetorically distanced youself from Andiron and his ilk? Do you NOT think Andrion's words are indicative of homophobia? If not, then what word would you choose to condemn his statments?
Cheers!
@clamat: Your moniker always makes me think of Bloody Mary's.
You said: "My hypothesis: Far more people adopt the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity because they think Christianity justifies their homophobia, than people who come to their homophobia through Christianity."
Right on. There's clearly more going on in the vitriol of folks like Andiron and Breckmin, which is apparent in the bizarre examples and in the focus on gay men and not lesbians. I think part of the explanation lies in cultural notions of masculinity (gender not sex). Regardless, there's social/political science research that supports the notion that sexual attitudes predict religiosity.
Cheers!
>>Christians want to convert as many people to their religion as they can. That nails "spread delusion" and "brainwash".<<<
That presupposes that Christianity is a delusion and evangelism a form of "brainwashing", each of which is an entire topic of its own.
(But on the evangelism/spreading point - there are those who are quite confortable with the idea of proselytizing atheism. I just listened to a podcast dialogue in which Dan Barker participated, and he talked about how he's fine with the term "atheist evangelist" being applied to him if it means he is spreading "the good news that there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no threat of judgement, and all that")
>>NAMBLA is a bunch of pedophiles, so no, opposing them would make you a decent person.<<
The implication is that you feel pedophilia is wrong and indecent. What makes pedophilia indecent if it is consensual?(which is what NAMBLA stands in support of - consensual relations between a minor male and an adult male, which by the way, isn’t necessarily pedophilia. It can be ephebophilia.)
People who rally for gay-marriage and what they perceive as “marriage equality” always seem to forget that prohibition of gay marriage is not the only example of state-regulated marriage law.
In my state of California, if I were 15 years old, and were in a consensual relationship with and engaged to a 29 year old man, I would need parental consent to marry . Are you ready to fight and rally for my right to an autonomous decision to marry at 15?
Half of the states don’t allow marriage between first-cousins. Where is the outrage at this? Where is the proclamation that this is a “violation” of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment?
Whenever I face the topic of gay marriage, here is the point I aim to make– the average human being in our society is more than ready to draw the line somewhere on the spectrum of marriage and sexual practices. The difference between conservative Christians (such as myself) and secularists being, that conservative Christians draw the line earlier on in the spectrum.
Ana,
Fair enough...
But, since conviction is a matter of conscience, then one should be tolerant of differences in opinion. Evaluate the reasons why or why not "this or that". Our country does support liberty of conscience in matters of religious conviction...
The problem becomes when conservatives think that "God" is going to interevene. We have heard how many times God was going to judge the nation for this or that...I am not supporting anything goes attitude, here. I am just suggesting that the radicals of both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and come to a civil decision...not a theocratic one.
>>The fact that you rhetorically equate pedo/hebe-philias with gay marriage between consenting adults says quite a bit.<<
You are correct that it was a rhetorical question. You are incorrect that I was equating.
My point was to induce a secularist explanation for why (and not merely the claim that) 'opposition to NAMBLA doesn't constitute as a phobia and/or hate expression.'
>>Do you NOT think Andrion's words are indicative of homophobia? If not, then what word would you choose to condemn his statments?<<
I do not condemn his statements, at least not the ones that I read. If there is a specific statement of his that you feel is homophobic or hateful, tell which one it is and I will look it over and give you my thoughts.
There is a tendency for people to cry "hate speech!" or "--phobia" when they encounter a comment that they dislike. Merely disliking a comment does not render it hateful or phobic.
Ana said,
"...If I were to support gay marriage, but oppose NAMBLA, am I a phobic and hater?"
What does opposing the National Associatiaon of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with Gay marriage?
B.R.
>>Incest is wrong because it's child abuse and results in inbreeding<<
I have a notebook in which I have written my thoughts on the gay marriage controversy, and in which a point similar to the above I considered. I wrote the following (rough draft, so kind of a sloppy format):
" What is the basis for disallowing incestuous marriages?
- Preventing incestuous couples from having children that are genetically defective.
Question: What are the actual statistics on this issue? How many children that have been born to incestuous parents were born defective? And what is the % liklihood that the child of an incestuous couple (e.g. father-daughter) will be defective?
Weakness of the argument:
- Assumption that the couple will have a child
What if the couple does not have a child?
What if one or both partners are infertile?
What if the couple does not wish to reproduce and will commit to the use of contraceptives?
The objection would surely arise that while there may be incestuous couples that do NOT seek to procreate, there may be incestuous couples that will seek to procreate.
A respondent question to which may be:
Are we really going to bar ALL incestuous couples from getting married - on the basis that some will aim to have children - not taking into consideration ones that will not aim to reproduce?
That would seem a little unfair, wouldn't it? "
@GearHed:
"What does opposing the National Associatiaon of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with Gay marriage?"
The horrrror....the horrrror
Ed,
>>"What does opposing the National Associatiaon of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with Gay marriage?"<<
My whole point with my rhetorical question, was this: It is odd, that the same people that would readily call me a homophobic, hating, bigot for opposing gay marriage, would NOT readily call me the same names for opposing NAMBLA. I would like to know why.
I mean, if I were to support NAMBLA, that's an expression of tolerance!
So if I DON'T support it, what keeps people from calling me "INTOLERANT!" ?
@Ana
The difference between conservative Christians…and secularists [is] that conservative Christians draw the line [on the spectrum of marriage and sexual practices] earlier[.]
No, the difference is that conservative Christians draw the line arbitrarily and inconsistently, and tend to conflate morality and legality.
Equating the marriage rights of adult homosexuals to those of children is entirely specious. The consensus is that children are too immature and too ignorant to make informed, independent decisions regarding certain important questions. Because we do not have the resources to determine maturity on a case-by-case basis, we draw bright, legal lines: You can’t drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. This is also why we have statutory rape laws (because of the power disparity, minors can’t give informed consent to sex with an adult – and the adult knows this). It’s also why minors cannot legally enter into contracts, including marriage contracts.
As to “first-cousin marriage,” you’ve answered your own question: There is no “outrage” because millions of first cousins aren’t demanding the right to marry. If tomorrow legions of first cousins descended on the nation’s city halls demanding to get hitched, we’d have to examine the potential moral (and ethical, and social) impact of such a change. Unlike other secularists on the board, aside from the "birth defect" reason (which I do not know the actual science on) I’ll admit I can’t come up with a good reason to think first-cousin marriage would be immoral.
(Much as it will undoubtedly cause some of my secular brethren to bristle: I don’t see how brother-sister marriage would be immoral. (I have explained several times why I believe parent-child incest is immoral.) Pathological, almost certainly. Socially harmful, quite probably. Immoral to the extent such inbreeding would result in children suffering from birth-defects (not to mention suffering from psychological trauma). But immoral per se? I don’t see it. Fortunately, as with first cousins, hordes of siblings aren’t staging sit-ins for their right to get married.)
@Ana
It is odd, that the same people that would readily call me a homophobic, hating, bigot for opposing gay marriage, would NOT readily call me the same names for opposing NAMBLA. I would like to know why.
Because. Homosexuality. Is. Not. The. Same. As. Pedophilia.
Did I use too many big words?
“NAMBLA” stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association. Not the North American Man/Young Man Love Association. Man/Boy Love Association. Men (adults) who want to “love” (have sex with) boys (children). NAMBLA is abhorrent because they are a bunch of G-D pedophiles.
Get it into your head: Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals.
Is that simple enough for you? Do you now “know why?”
Jesus.
@Ana
It is odd, that the same people who would readily call me a xenophobic, hating, bigot for opposing German immigration, would not readily call me the same names for opposing the Neo-Nazi Party. I would like to know why.
Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery?
Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.
The point: on the spectrum of sexual morality, there's just not all that much for conservative Christians to say. Why is it wrong for two men or women to have sex with each other, but not wrong to have multiple wives, handmaidens and concubines?
@Ana
If you aren’t drawing some sort of analogy between pedo/hebe-philia and gay marriage, then why is it you persist on talking about the former and not the latter? I’m don’t see where you’ve demonstrated that opposition to legalizing "man/boy love" constitutes hate expression or a phobia. I’m not afraid of guys who want to bugger minor boys, I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors. I haven’t seen you or Andiron provide valid NON-BIBLICAL arguments for why as a society we should disallow gay marriage. (And slippery slope arguments are lame, unless you can provide a rational link between the first step and the rest, as opposed to silly "dogs and cats living together" stuff.)
You say: "people cry ‘hate speech’ or ‘phobia’ when they encounter a comment that they dislike. Merely disliking a comment does not render it hateful or phobic" and repeat a similar concern in another of your replies. I already said I agree with the general sentiment that prefers arguments to labels. But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT? I don’t see a single post above that labeled Andiron or you without providing an argument. No one has called you a bigot or hateful or homophobic.
Let’s be clear: I don’t dislike Andiron’s comments because they hurt my feelings (although as a straight woman with gay friends and family, I grieve that I live in a society where they face such talk). I dislike his claims that are false or misleading and I think his rhetoric is indicative of a deep fear that goes well beyond rational disagreement about social policy.
You say: “I do not condemn [Andiron’s] statements, at least not the ones that I read.” Sweet Jesus why NOT?? Even if you would not choose the word “homophobia” the fact that you cannot find anything in his statements from which you would RUSH to distance yourself is really too bad.
Cheers!
clamat said,
"...The consensus is that children are too immature and too ignorant to make informed, independent decisions regarding certain important questions. Because we do not have the resources to determine maturity on a case-by-case basis, we draw bright, legal lines: You can’t drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21."
Here's a first-hand testimony:
I have been married three times. In each case, the woman(!) I married turned out to be immature, and married for selfish and frivolous reasons (the first was 18, the second was 29 (but was also a psychotic bitch), and the third was 20).
Ultimately, all three ended in divorce when the women(!) in each case decided to be unfaithful to her promises to me (Note, just so y'all know, I don't have "problems", I can perform any time without medical assistance, and my libido is as well-developed as most healthy men).
There SHOULD be a minimum age for entering into a marriage, even a monogamous, Christian one, of at least 25 years old, and further to have completed a series of training classes on interpersonal relationships.
But there isn't, and the percentage of divorces is indicative of the level of immaturity of the people who enter into marriages for less than honorable reasons.
NAMBLA should be opposed, because it advocates sexual relations with MINORS.
clamat,
>>Get it into your head: Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals<<
You missed my point entirely. My comments were never to suggest that "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" are interchangeable terms.
My point was that if people are going to call gay marriage (namely, marriage between same-sex CONSENTING adults) opponents names like haters or "bigots",
then why resist calling people who oppose love relationships and sex between a CONSENTING boy and man, I repeat, CONSENTING CONSENTING CONSENTING, boy and man (i.e. " My choice, my body, my freedom, our bedroom, our privacy, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS " ) a bigot?
It's quite the simple point-driven question: Are we intolerant for opposing NAMBLA?
Solipsister,
>>I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors.<<
reasons such as?
>>of your replies. I already said I agree with the general sentiment that prefers arguments to labels. But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT? I don’t see a single post above that labeled Andiron or you without providing an argument.<<
I was more referring to people I've engaged with in my personal life. Such as opponents to Prop 8.
Clamat,
>>Equating the marriage rights of adult homosexuals to those of children is entirely specious.<<
Is a 15 year old a child? Why or why not?
>>If tomorrow legions of first cousins descended on the nation’s city halls demanding to get hitched, we’d have to examine the potential moral (and ethical, and social) impact of such a change<<
This could easily raise the question of "why should we wait until these legions appear? We need not wait for 'legions' in order to legalize such marriage".
And remember, half of our states, (actually, a little over half if we include states that allow it under specific conditions)already allow it.
Solipsister,
>>I just don't want it to be legal for them to do so because I think there are valid social and psychological reasons why we as a society should prefer to not legalize NAMBLAfied behaviors.<<
Reasons such as?
>>But WHO THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?<<
I was more referring to people from my personal life experience. Such as people I interacted with who are opposed to Prop 8.
@Ana:
1)"Reasons such as?" How sad that you can't come up with reasons of your own for why we should have laws that say adult men can't fuck minors. Seems like a number of us have explained in clear, non-biblical terms why homosexual marriage is not at all related to pedophilia or hebephilia, and why society is correct to draw bright lines related to power and consent. If our explanations didn't get through to you, that's your problem.
2) When are YOU going to provide a valid non-biblical reason to oppose gay marriage? Tick tock.
3) You said, "I was more referring to people from my personal life experience. Such as people I interacted with who are opposed to Prop 8." Thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry that people were rude to you. I wish they had made arguments and listened to yours instead of/before they called you names. Thanks also for the implicit concession that no poster on this thread has labeled you unfairly.
4) Why aren't you willing to step up? We don't know the people you say interacted badly with you and we don't know the words they used or their context, but I (and no doubt others here) distance ourselves from them and say so. On the other hand, you have a record in front of you of what Andiron said and you are still unwilling to distance yourself from his position. At this point I take your refusal to condemn anything he said as your approval of his claims. That's a real shame.
Cheers!
@Ana
My point was never to suggest that "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" were interchangeable terms...
Yet you continue to insist on drawing this faulty analogy between a group of pedophiles, on one hand, and homosexuals generally, on the other. Which strongly suggests this is exactly what you believe.
I have already commented on age-of-consent laws and their moral underpinnings, did you not see that? Sigh. Once more, then.
Of course, because you are a theist, you insist we first wallow in semantics: “Child” doesn’t refer to an age, it refers to a level of maturity, emotional and psychological development and knowledge. Do you really know any fifteen year olds who aren’t children? I certainly don’t.
Because we want to protect children from their own immaturity and ignorance, we have age of consent laws. We establish a (necessarily arbitrary) “maturity line,” and assume people on the wrong side of the line simply cannot give informed consent.
NAMBLA’s stated objective is sex with boys, all of whom are almost certainly are on the wrong side of the maturity line. And to hell with the consequences, i.e., the potential for lifelong trauma to a child who thinks he’s ready, but isn’t. This is why it’s immoral: NAMBLA members seek to satisfy their own desires at the very-real risk of serious, lifelong trauma to their would-be “partners.”
Put it this way: I’m forming the North American Forty-Year-Old Man / Ten-Year-Old Girl Love Association. NAFYOMTYOGLA. All the girls have signed consent forms (though some of their parents are horrified). I assume we have your support?
Your reasoning on all of this is so bass-ackward I have to wonder if you are putting everyone on. But I’ve done my best to answer your questions. Now it’s your turn: Do you support NAMBLA?
Seriously, I’ve explained why I think NAMBLA is wrong, but you continue to pick at my reasoning, without offering any of your own. This suggests you actually think NAMBLA is just dandy. If so, you are a sick fuck.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a sick fuck. So why don't you support NAMBLA? You've suggested it's for the same (or similar) reasons you don't support gay marriage.
But if your reason boils down to “NAMBLA members are gay,” this simply begs the question “what’s wrong with being gay,” and your analogy to gay marriage fails. If your reason boils down to “consent,” your analogy to gay marriage fails. If your reason does not apply equally to gay marriage, your analogy to gay marriage fails. (Even if your reason for objecting to NAMBLA applies equally to gay marriage, this doesn’t mean the reason for objecting is valid, but we’ll tackle that if you get there.)
Good luck.
>>Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery?
Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.<<
No, I do not think we should do these things. I speak in the present tense, as your questions are in the present tense.
Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. It was a man-invented system. It was not "unique" to the Hebrews. Yet, the Hebrews were given very specific laws as to what they could and could not do with slaves, which I'm glad that they were given, instead of adopting a copy-cat version of neighboring slave systems.
Your question, is just a subset of the broad question that critics always ask, which is why Christians don't preserve the entirety of what is found in OT law. The answer to that is very simple: because we are not mandated to.
(And, a Christian does not need to look at the OT to conclude " Oh, same-sex intercourse is a sin." Why? Because the NT condemns the act as well. That conclusion can be gathered by looking at the NT alone.)
OT law was a covenant and also very clearly designed for Israel to remain distinct from its surrounding pagan nations. To prevent the Israelites from adopting the Customs of pagan cultures. To prevent assimilation.
(Hence why so many of the practices and probibitions that to 21st century eyes seem outrigth bizarre)
It’s fairly common to see Christian theologians separate old testament law into 3 categories: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law
The first one being unchanging moral truths – applying to and beyond ancient Hebrew theocratic system, the latter two pertaining exclusively to that
System. Civil law dealing with legal matters, like issues of property for example. Ceremonial concerning ritual and temple procedures.
(but separating the laws into these categories does not go without criticism. Main one being, that OT scriptures do NOT themselves make these distinctions)
This is a fair objection (although I do think the categories help give perspective).
What we DO find explicitly in the old testament, is the promise of a new covenant Jerimiah 31:31 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and of course the new covenant having everything to do with Jesus.
New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, idolatery, sorcery and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT.
There is an observable area of overlap, and observable area of difference.
>>Just out of curiosity, Ana, do you think that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters as sex slaves? Exodus 21;7.
And do you think that it's okay to sell pagan children into slavery?
Leviticus 25;44-46.
And do you believe that slave owners have the right to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave does not die on the day he/she was administered the beating? 20;21-22.<<
No, I do not think we should do these things. I speak in the present tense, as your questions are in the present tense.
Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. It was a man-invented system. It was not "unique" to the Hebrews. Yet, the Hebrews were given very specific laws as to what they could and could not do with slaves, which I'm glad that they were given, instead of adopting a copy-cat version of neighboring slave systems.
Your question, is just a subset of the broad question that critics always ask, which is why Christians don't preserve the entirety of what is found in OT law. The answer to that is very simple: because we are not mandated to.
(And, a Christian does not need to look at the OT to conclude " Oh, same-sex intercourse is a sin." Why? Because the NT condemns the act as well. That conclusion can be gathered by looking at the NT alone.)
OT law was a covenant and also very clearly designed for Israel to remain distinct from its surrounding pagan nations. To prevent the Israelites from adopting the Customs of pagan cultures. To prevent assimilation.
(Hence why so many of the practices and probibitions that to 21st century eyes seem outrigth bizarre)
It’s fairly common to see Christian theologians separate old testament law into 3 categories: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law
The first one being unchanging moral truths – applying to and beyond ancient Hebrew theocratic system, the latter two pertaining exclusively to that
System. Civil law dealing with legal matters, like issues of property for example. Ceremonial concerning ritual and temple procedures.
(but separating the laws into these categories does not go without criticism. Main one being, that OT scriptures do NOT themselves make these distinctions)
This is a fair objection (although I do think the categories help give perspective).
What we DO find explicitly in the old testament, is the promise of a new covenant Jerimiah 31:31 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and of course the new covenant having everything to do with Jesus.
New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT.
There is an observable area of overlap, and observable area of difference.
Back to the issue of homosexual marriage. People who would readily oppose incest marriage but support gay marriage, do you realize that you would be looking to bar the possibility of gay-incest marriages?
Should we make an "exception" to the incest laws, so that they take into account and allows for gay-incest?
Re: two consenting adults and adult incest
"maybe it has something to do with the risk of inbreeding? ....and here you are, asking brain-dead questions I've already answer. "
I will re-ask the question. What if a mother who has had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed wants to have sex with her adult son?
There is NO risk of reproduction.
Is it wrong? and why or why not?
Two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
What about an adult daughter who has had her tubes tied and her father has also had a vasectomy??
No risk of inbreeding. Is it wrong for these two consenting adults to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?
This question has always existed whether the media ever asks it or addresses it. (just as ten thousand other questions that never get asked which expose agendas)
"Necrophilia may cause the family of the deceased, who may object to the body of their loved one being desecrated, to suffer. To this extent it is immoral."
What if the only living family member wants to engage in this activity with their deceased loved one? What if a spouse (widower) wants to engage in this activity with his wife's dead corpse? Why is it wrong? Please be specific.
This question already exists whether or not I ask it.
The first time:
"New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, idolatery, sorcery and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT."
The second time:
"New covenant replaces old covenant.
This is important for understanding why in new testament passages, we DO see Jesus and Paul condeming certain things that were also condemned in the OT (i.e. areas of overlap) Such as adultery, murder, fornication, and yet, don’t see Jesus or Paul mandating the legal punishment methods of the OT."
Did anyone else notice that idolatry and sorcery were removed the second time around?
Question, Ana:
Did you pull those two because they are not "crimes" as such (idolatry just believing something different than YHWH & Co., sorcery because, well it doesn't even really exist)?
Another Question:
If Paul and Jesus specifically condemned sorcery (which doesn't exist), can we postulate that Jesus wasn't God/omniscient? And if you start re-defining "sorcery" or making excuses for Jesus being "human", I'm going to pull what's left of my hair out and scream.
In other words, I'd have MUCH more confidence in the 'trooth' of Jesus if he'd said,
"Don't worry about sorcery. There's no such thing as "magic", and sorcery is bullshit."
But he condemns sorcery, which betrays his lack of true knowledge.
@GearHed: Points for the patience to read the same crap twice.
@clamat: Likewise, you’ve got the patience of Job. I’m to the point where I do not, so on this topic, from here on in it’s no longer about discourse, but sport.
@Ana:
--After reading your latest posts, I'm beginning to feel sympathy for the folks in CA you allege verbally attacked you.
--Regarding your contorted efforts to explain your “thoughts” re OT/NT covenants, I can only muster the will to say:
1) I’m as likely to take advice from Paul on sexuality as I am to seek a restaurant recommendation from an anorexic.
2) That you rush to assure us that the Hebrews were less-cruel slave owners would be funny if it weren’t so terrifying for what it tell us about you.
3) Since your Jesus does not say anything about homosexuality but does say something about adultery and divorce, why aren’t you out there lobbying to criminalize those heterosexual scandals?
4) You and your pals in the thread still haven’t provided a non-biblical valid objection to legalizing gay marriage. And you haven’t provided anything near a coherent rationale for drawing an analogy from homosexuality to NAMBLA (how many times do you have to be told that pedophilia isn’t homosexuality?) so the rest of what you say is irrelevant to the point.
Breckmin said:
"This question has always existed whether the media ever asks it or addresses it. (just as ten thousand other questions that never get asked which expose agendas)" and "This question already exists whether I ask it or not."
--Yes, yes, if the tree fell it made a sound while the Pope shat in the woods.
--You and Ana and Andiron seem to believe that there is a secret gay conspiracy/"agenda" that will shove us down some slippery slope from gay marriage to incest to pedophilia to...but of course you wingnuts are the only people out there who see such a link.
And guess what? Even if there were a bunch of NAMBLA dudes out there saying, "Let's support the gays, cuz we're next in line!" they'd lose at the point they ever proffered legislation to decriminalize "man/boy love." Sigh. I suppose ya'll think that once we allow gay marriage the whole of society will become so catatonic from listening to ABBA tunes that we won't notice the hordes of bro/sis lovers and NAMBLA chapters creeping up behind us. So to speak.
Breckmin: What the hell is wrong with you? Sterile Daddy/ligated adult daughter sex? What if a widower wants to fuck his dead wife? "Why is it wrong? Please be specific." DUDE. SLOWLY. PUT DOWN THE PORN. STEP AWAY FROM THE FORUM LETTERS.
Breckmin, I'm gonna beg you to please stay Christian because apparently Jesus is the only thing standing between you and your mother. And you and some serious cemetery vandalism. Fortunately the rest of us don't need that crutch.
*sigh*
Same old tune and dance, I see. Oh well. It's not like I haven't come to expect this from Christians.
Ana, you completely missed the moral point I was bringing up(and as an ex-Christian, I don't really require a lecture on the way theologians categorize the Mosaic law(s)).
The point is that if the Christian god was divine, perfect, loving benevolent, and incapable of evil, then the O.T. would not be a fucked-up guide to building a theocracy.
Fallible men fabricate laws allowing them to brutalize their daughters and slaves; a perfect God does not.
Fallible men started the despicable practice of slavery; A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing.
Fallible men contrive religious reasons to exterminate rival tribes and feel "righteous" or "holy" about it; a perfect God would not command such a thing.
And spare the whole "it was a different time and culture" crap. It doesn't matter that the Hebrews didn't initiate slavery; if they were half as holy as you Christians claim, they would have refused to take ownership of another human being. Nazi Germany was a completely different time and culture, you know, but I don't exactly see loads of Christian apologists defending the Third Reich's use of slave labor and mass murder.
And FYI, Christians ARE obligated to obey every law in the O.T., on pain of damnation.
Matthew 5;17-21...
"[17]Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.[18]For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means perish from the Law until everything is accomplished.[19]Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches men so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever upholds these and teaches men so(Fundamentalists, perhaps)shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[20]For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
And yes, Christians, by spreading their religion are spreading delusion. I'll expand upon that this weekend at my blog.
Yes, Breckmin, if they are consenting adults and there remains no chance of inbreeding, then they can get as freaky as they want, as long as it stays in their bedroom.
Now why did your statement make me think of Harold and Maud?
I think I'm done posting on this thread. It's obvious that the Christians can't come up with a rational reason to oppose gay marriage without making vague inquiries after bestially and Necrophilia, so I'm going to go play some Medievil II(after work that is).
And to Breckmin and Ana;
here's a quick tip to debating from the Almighty;
DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION.
And Breckmin, don't even get me started on agendas; I think the Christians have already taken enough of a clobbering on this thread.
Catch y'all in the funny papers.
B.R.
>>Yet you continue to insist on drawing this faulty analogy between a group of pedophiles, on one hand, and homosexuals generally, on the other. Which strongly suggests this is exactly what you believe.<<
My whole point was always about LABELS. Phobic, hating, bigots.
I would have posed to you the SAME question whether we were talking about NAMBLA or a NAMGLA (North American Man/Girl Love Association).
Am I INTOLERANT for opposing such an organization?
Perhaps you’ll get my point if I present it to you in a slightly different way. Suppose I engage myself in a conversation with 3 supporters
of NAMBLA who are doing some kind of demonstration on the corner of a street. I express to them my disapproval of
the organization and my hope that their philosophy is never legislated. Now suppose they call
me an a “narrow-minded Bigot, how would you like it if YOU weren’t allowed to be with the person of your choice?”
Clamat, should I nod my head and say “Yes, since I oppose your organization, you’re right. I’m a bigot”
I oppose NABMLA< or any pedophilic behavior promoting organization, be it homosexual, heterosexual or both, because I regard sex as a consecrated union, not something to be taken for granted, not something to be done outside of the context of marriage. That sex, should be within the bounds of marriage, consenting male and female, private, not publicized (allusion to pornography), not three-somes, etc. And yes, because the youth, emphasis especially on the pre-pubescent, are biologically and mentally pre-mature for the sex act.
I oppose gay sex, like I and multiple (3+) person sex, and bestiality, and necrophilic acts all of which are perverse and sick distortions of what is CLEARLY, the SELF-EVIDENT, ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL DESIGN OF HUMAN SEX.
But too politically correct people want to encourage “sexual diversity”. Well guess what? Sexual diversity is one heck of a BROAD term!
>>Of course, because you are a theist, you insist we first wallow in semantics: “Child” doesn’t refer to an age, it refers to a level of maturity, emotional and psychological development and knowledge. Do you really know any fifteen year olds who aren’t children? I certainly don’t.<<
It’s the fact that I can look beyond the boundaries of modern western society, which has supplied to you, your concept of a child.
and thus has influenced your thinking that a 15 year old isn’t prepared to marry. This view is relatively recent to history.
Chicken-and-egg question for you: Are 15 year olds not prepared to marry because their mental immaturity is self-contained or because we TREAT them like children (external factor), and behold, you get child like mentalities.
You’re presupposing. You say it doesn’t exist, because you regard the supernatural as fiction.
You can deny that there are no such things as RESULTS from sorcerey, or witchraft, or occult practice (i.e.successful communication with spirits, the fulfillment of a spell, etc) But you cannot deny that there are real human beings that ENGAGE in the activity (i.e. make ATTEMPTS to bring about the results.)
(engangement in activities like “incantations” or attempts to “communicate with the dead”, you name it, that partaking in these activities is what is being condemned as wrong.
Ex: It doesn’t matter whether you, an atheist, think the ouija is a hoax or not. REGARDLESS if it’s a hoax, there are people who have the intention of communicating to say for example, the dead or other spirits (even if they don’t actually succeed, which would be your position). It’s that intention, manifest in the action, that is being condemned. )
But by focusing on the issue of sorcerey you missed my point!The point was very simply that we have solid examples of actions and practices that are condemned in BOTH the Old and New Testament.
@Clamat,
(Cont.)
Furthermore, even if a particular 15 year old is too immature to get married, SO WHAT to you? How would the 15 year old girl getting married hurt your marriage? Or your relationship? Or your family? IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what this girl does.
(sound like a familiar argument?)
You insist on the maturity point. Look, it’s a fine point to make. The REASON why I don’t treat your point as good as I otherwise would, is because of how it is inconsistently applied by secularists. To understand what I mean, I have to digress a bit, because it’s important that I bring attention to this.
I find it incredibly absurd for secularists to hail the maturity argument all while they don’t as passionately hail that argument when it comes to a 15 year old girl having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. I don’t hear them passionately discouraging such activity on that basis that this CHILD is “too young” or too immature” to have sex. It’s “Yes, go ahead and have sex, just where protection!”
And what if the 15 year old becomes pregnant. Abortion? “It’s a woman’s right to choose”. Wait a minute, I thought this 15 year old is a CHILD, not a woman. “It’s a female’s right to choose”. And what about parental consent? In my state a minor does not need parental consent or notification. So, if I were 15 and wanted to get an abortion, a SURGICAL PROCEDURE, I can without parental consent. I’m not too “immature” for that decision! But if I want to get MARRIED at 15, I’m too immature and need parental consent!!
The irony and absurdity is stunning. Absolutely stunning. And most people don’t even realize it.
So if you want to use the maturity argument, I applaud you, but be TRUE to it. Be one to stand out among your fellow secularists and use it consistently.
B.R.,
Of course Jesus didn’t abolish the law - he was still alive- it served as the standard to measure his sinlessness. Hence him saying came to “fulfill” it. But upon his death, the fulfillment was accomplished.
Ephesians 2:14–15
"For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace."
The OT covenant laws was for the Jews. A specific people. The New covenant has done away with the exclusive law, hence welcoming the Gentiles.
"To understand what I mean, I might have to digress a bit." Priceless.
The ravings of Batty McNuttenheimer continue. Seriously, add a stinky coat, some newspaper-stuffed shoes and mumble the posts aloud and it becomes eerily like the homeless guy who once followed me around NYC.
Ana! Snap out of it. You're going after arguments no one here made. When you're done addressing your remarks to the voices in your head, feel free to provide a valid non-biblical reason to oppose gay marriage.
>>A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing.<<
According to what, is this a true statement?
Solipsister,
The problem is the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage. (They put upon themselves the requirement to provide the basis, since it is they who wish to introduce the new institution.)
The most commonly chanted basis is "EQUALITY". It is the "RIGHT TO BE WITH THE PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE".
Hence, the slippery-slope is inherent in the basis. I repeat, it is inherent.
Because you can apply that exact same basis to a number of other hypothetical marriage scenerios.
If you want to avoid the slippery slope, the basis for gay marriage will need to be articulated differently.
ABBA tunes would creep me out if they made a gay-powered comeback...
Ana, Jesus said, very clearly, "til heaven and earth pass away". Pretty freaking obvious. I don't know where you wake up every morning, but I wake on planet Earth(I know, dreadful name, isn't it? You might as well call it "Planet Dirt"). And Earth hasn't passed away yet.
"According to what, is this statement true?"
Typical. The questions raised by the barbarism of the O.T., if pursued long enough, provide enough evidence for us to completely dismiss the Jewish Sky Zombie Cult, but directly ask a Christian how their god is loving and perfect, yet acts like a petty tyrant in the O.T., and all they can respond with is silly semantics and pathetic word games. According to what? Modern subjective morality, that was NOT fabricated by misogynistic, primitive screwheads to pardon and condone horrific acts of violence and depravity on rival tribes in the Bronze Age, that's what.
And as for your slippery slope, let's explain this concept to Christians one more time. The "slippery slope" doesn't exist. Incest won't be legalized because there are multiple, sound, ethical reasons to outlaw it, not the least of which is the psychological trauma that will likely be experienced by the child, and the same with Necrophilia and bestiality. See the reasons for these above. And FYI, Ana, homosexual behavior is exhibited by multiple species in nature, so homosexuality is hardly "unnatural". I love how you guys keep dancing around the point here. You simply can't give a valid reason to oppose gay marriage because the only thing you've got is a self-contradictory tome of fairy tales, myths, and bastardized legends. Pretty sad thing to base your life on. Oh well.
And yes, Paul disagreed with Jesus on the Law. This is probably the largest contradiction(s) in the New Testament. Try visiting some skeptical sites to see why Paul was forced into this.
Ana.
"Perhaps you’ll get my point if I present it to you in a slightly different way. Suppose I engage myself in a conversation with 3 supporters
of NAMBLA who are doing some kind of demonstration on the corner of a street. I express to them my disapproval of
the organization and my hope that their philosophy is never legislated. Now suppose they call
me an a “narrow-minded Bigot, how would you like it if YOU weren’t allowed to be with the person of your choice?”"
This doesn't fix the argument any better than the last attempt.
Buggery, sodomy, lesbianism, between two (or more) consenting adults is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, except in some socially retarded areas of the deep south.
Sex with MINORS is.
If I was you, and had that conversation on the street corner with the Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, I wouldn't CARE if they called me a bigot. I'd come back with,
"You're pissed because what you want to do to little boys is against the law. Go use your hand, dumbass."
Ana said (apparently in reply to my assertion that sorcery doesn't exist),
"...You can deny that there are no such things as RESULTS from sorcerey, or witchraft, or occult practice (i.e.successful communication with spirits, the fulfillment of a spell, etc) But you cannot deny that there are real human beings that ENGAGE in the activity (i.e. make ATTEMPTS to bring about the results.)"
IF:
Someone practices hollow and impotent rituals that look like "sorcery" but have no RESULTS, then that person is a dumbass and is deceiving only him- or herself.
What I deny is that there are or even CAN BE results.
And Jesus would have too, if he's really God, which is the point I was making.
"Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
O well done! I commend your pains;
And every one shall share i' the gains;
And now about the cauldron sing,
Live elves and fairies in a ring,
Enchanting all that you put in.
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."
If sorcery is REAL, then why aren't you out there not suffering witches to live?
>>Modern subjective morality<<
BINGO!
Assuming for the moment that objective morals do not exist,, then, if your subjective morality says "A perfect God would not have tolerated such a thing" and someone else's subjective morality says " A perfect God would have tolerated such a thing ", then, both statements hold equal weight!
There is nothing that makes the former FACTUALLY true, and the latter, FACTUALLY wrong.
You've offered nothing more than opinion.
>>The "slippery slope" doesn't exist. Incest won't be legalized because there are multiple, sound, ethical reasons to outlaw it, not the least of which is the psychological trauma that will likely be experienced by the child<<
I noticed you automatically assumed incest involves a child. Why do you assume this?
Also, did you not read my comment about how barring incestuous marriages means barring homosexual-incest marriages? unless that latter is explicitly exempted.
I will repeat this point one last time: the problem is the basis on which people wish to legislate gay marriage.
Whenever we wish to introduce law into this country or a particular state, we should do it responsibly. Proposed legislation should have a concrete basis to it. The basis for introducing gay marriage is a HEAVILY emotional one. We need a logical basis.
So long as the driving philosophy behind gay marriage advocates is "the right to marry the person you love", they've just shot themselves in the foot.
GearHedEd!!!!
>>And Jesus would have too, if he's really God, which is the point I was making.<<<
I have to disagree, and say its quite the opposite! If Jesus was God, (i.e. if the supernatural exists), then sorcerey (which involves supernatural forces) can exist!
Ana said,
"...I find it incredibly absurd for secularists to hail the maturity argument all while they don’t as passionately hail that argument when it comes to a 15 year old girl having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. I don’t hear them passionately discouraging such activity on that basis that this CHILD is “too young” or too immature” to have sex. It’s “Yes, go ahead and have sex, just where protection!”"
FYI:
I have a daughter who just turned 18 in May. I have NOT been condoning a sexually active lifestyle for her, for many reasons:
1) Sex leads to babies.
2) If you (my daughter) are not economically ready to have a family, then DON'T.
3). You'll BE economically ready to have children when you have a stable family unit, including a committed husband who has a JOB / CAREER, and have an education / job / career YOURSELF, which includes heaklth insurance and enough income to support your children (you know, the unintended results of SEX).
See?
No GOD necessary.
Take a responsible position, because it's responsible, not because some invisible God commanded it a couple thousand years ago.
Ed,
I admire that approach. But, I was nonetheless bringing attention to how an inconsistent approach exists in this society. Namely, deeming (using the my original example) a 15 year old to "immature" to makecertain relationship-related decisions (i.e. marriage), but not others (i.e. sex with her high school boyfriend properly using a condom).
Ana said,
"...Whenever we wish to introduce law into this country or a particular state, we should do it responsibly. Proposed legislation should have a concrete basis to it. The basis for introducing gay marriage is a HEAVILY emotional one. We need a logical basis."
There are thousands, if not millions of monogamously committed gay couples living in the U.S. What the gay marriage lobby is after is equal protection and equal rights under the law, and your continual referencing of Prop * tells us all that you understand the argument.
So:
On what basis do you DENY rights to committed couples who have the unfortunate problem of being both of the same gender, the rights (next of kin, community property, insurance benefits, survivor benefits, etc.) that are granted without question to couples who happen to be of opposite gender?
I can tell you that the ONLY justification for this atrocity I've ever heard is because the OT prohibits it (in some cases, since lesbianism is not mentioned in Leviticus, where man-man homosexuality is).
"Ed,
I admire that approach. But, I was nonetheless bringing attention to how an inconsistent approach exists in this society."
How is it that an atheist can do admirable things (not to mention my daughter, who also claims to be an atheist: but I cautioned both my children to not just adopt my beliefs, that they should read the Bible as I have done and come to their own conclusions... How many Christian parents are willing to put that much trust in their children?)?
An inconsistent approach exists in this society for one main reason:
People tell their children "Do as I say, not as I do", instead of treating their children like PEOPLE (albeit immature and dependent people).
Parents need to first take responsibility for their own actions and failings as well as successes, and teach their children the same.
I personally would not have responded (actually, I DIDN'T) to appeals to an invisible authority. I learned how to be a responsible adult from two things:
1) the positive role model of my mother, and
2). the negative role model of my father.
No GOD necessary.
@Ana
You don't understand what slippery slope argumentation means. Typically, as in your case, it is a fallacy. (If you've staked the camel properly the risk of him getting in your tent isn't all that much and you can smack him on the nose if he gets loose.)
Regardless, I'll grant that in a democracy we often are perched on a slope. Not all slopes are slippery, Ana. You still have to prove the link from the top to the next point on the slope and you still haven't done that. Finally, sometimes the bottom of the hill means cognac by a warm fire (e.g., the slippery slope from emancipation of blacks to letting those uppity women have the vote), so the mere existence of a slope and dicey weather doesn't mean we aren't gonna head outdoors.
"I have to disagree, and say its quite the opposite! If Jesus was God, (i.e. if the supernatural exists), then sorcerey (which involves supernatural forces) can exist!"
But I'm an atheist.
I don't believe in supernatural, divine, holy, etc.
Those terms only have meaning in a mythological context.
Spare me. Subjective morality does not deny objective *morals* exist, just objective *morality*. For example, Christian Objective morality is actually subjective. You guys claim that you don't have to follow the Law for salvation, yet, this is precisely what Jesus said.
Now let me take a leaf out of your book. According to your logic, Ana, it is perfectly alright for me to sell my daughter as a sex-slave, murder the Muslim family down the street(except for their young children, whom I'll sell into slavery), and kill the drunken teenager who lives across the street. Why? 'Cuz the Bible says so, Jesus says so, and you can't offer any more than an opinion as to why I shouldn't.
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that most cases of incest involve children(look at the statistics) and there is always a risk of inbreeding.
Gay-incest, eh? I doubt it. Most homosexuals are opposed to incest in any form, so it's very unlikely that this will be legalized. And there's very few people trying to legalize it.
Yes, some of the arguments used in defense of gay marriage are overly-emotional, but the logic of the matter remains.
There is not one medical, ethical, scientific or even moral reason to oppose gay marriage because it is not causing any harm whatsoever. Period. Unless uber-macho homophobia and discredited religious texts from the Iron Age count, and they don't. While I'm sure that perverts like NAMBLA will continue to attempt to legalize their revolting practices, there are multiple, sound reasons not to do so. Try reading all comments about sexual ethics posted by GearHedEd, clamat, Solipsister, and I.
Somewhere in there, Ana said:
"I oppose gay sex" and clarified that her opposition to gay marriage stems from her belief that homosexuality is a "perverse distortion" of what she calls the "self-evident actual biological design of human sex." I believe this is also known as the "Outties can only go in the particular Innie which can get you a baby" argument.
Later, she says in two different posts that the "problem" is about "the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage." Bull.
Her first statement makes clear that there is NO basis under which we could persuade her to approve of gay marriage. So why should she want us to make arguments that she has already admitted she has no possibility of accepting?
Seems to me that her position is fixed, unless or until Jesus shows up to declare "How blessed are those that batteth for the other team, for theirs is the Kingdom of Pottery Barn."
Bad faith. In every sense of it.
Cheers!
>>Yes, some of the arguments used in defense of gay marriage are overly-emotional, but the logic of the matter remains.<<
Well let's hear the logical foundation of gay marriage! And encourage the pro-gay marriage advocates to present their logic-based case more often than the emotional one (leave the emotional one for namely rallies and protests).
>>Later, she says in two different posts that the "problem" is about "the basis on which people seek to legalize gay marriage." Bull.<<
No it is not "bull" as you say. It is a response to your "give me a non-biblical reason to oppose it".
If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question!
I addressed it: RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATION has CONCRETE and LOGICAL BASIS. I find that severely missing by the pro-gay marriage side of the debate. Foolishness it would be for me to automatically side with proposed leglislation whose real momentum is derived from emotional rhetoric and accusing labels. Strip away the emotional argument and accusing labels, and what are you left with?
>>Gay-incest, eh? I doubt it<<
Ok look, here is my point with the gay incest marriage. It is immune the argument of inbreeding. And, it
friendly to the pro-gay marriage advocates.
Hence, leaving me to wonder whether secularists (in general) would support such, oppose such, or find themselves baffled as to how address that one.
Some final thoughts:
I, would ideally, like a "separation of marriage and state". To me, that would solve this issue. The institution of marriage would be emancipated from the hands of the state.
Unfortunately, this is highly impractical and an unrealistic wish.
*sigh*
We've already GIVEN you the logical reasons, Ana. While I can't speak for everyone else, I am not going to repeat my points on gay marriage. I've proven that Christians do not have a single valid reason to oppose it, and just because you ignore this does not make your points valid.
Again, the vast majority of gays are adamantly opposed to incest of any kind, so it's more than a little stupid to say that this is favor of gay marriage advocates. No matter which way you cut it, I just don't see gay incest being legalized anytime this century.
Perhaps you should have read the comments about sexual ethics. We have already explained multiple times why we support some things and why we don't support others, so stop ignoring them and pretending that atheists don't have morals or ethics. A cursory glance at world history and the bible shows that ours is superior to yours, so stop being deliberately obtuse.
@Breckmin
What if a mother who has had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed wants to have sex with her adult son?
What about an adult daughter who has had her tubes tied and her father has also had a vasectomy??
What if the only living family member wants to engage in this activity with their deceased loved one? What if a spouse (widower) wants to engage in this activity with his wife's dead corpse? Why is it wrong? Please be specific.
[These] question[s] already exist[] whether or not I ask [them].
True. But perhaps, rather than simply asking stale questions over and over, it would be more helpful if you actually attempted to answer a single one of them yourself.
It would also be helpful, before you pick apart my posts to try to come up with a “gotcha!” question, for you to read them in their entirety. I think you’ll find I’ve already answered your questions, several times.
Okay. Once more.
Because I actually attempt to utilize a simple, uncontroversial moral principle -- unlike you and Ana, who address every conceivable hypothetical on an ad hoc basis – I can answer your hypethetical simply, and likewise hypothetically: >If truly no suffering is caused, there is nothing morally wrong with any of these actions. They may be gross, even pathologically so, but that doesn’t make them morally wrong.
Ana said,
"...Well let's hear the logical foundation of gay marriage! And encourage the pro-gay marriage advocates to present their logic-based case more often than the emotional one (leave the emotional one for namely rallies and protests)."
P(1). Gay people exist, in large numbers.
P(2). Gay people are people first, and as such are guaranteed protection under the constitution and other anti-discrimination laws.
P(3). Gay people are being discriminated against and denied civil rights (that are routinely granted without question to heterosexual married couples) on the basis of their sexual orientation.
P(4). Nowhere has it been shown that gay marriage is a threat to any other group(s), or their rights.
C(1). Discrimination is illegal in this country, and denying gay couples the same civil rights married couples enjoy as a matter of routine is a real issue affecting millions of citizens.
C(2). No one will suffer if Gay marriage is "legalized", and many people will benefit.
No emotion.
Ana said,
"...I, would ideally, like a "separation of marriage and state". To me, that would solve this issue. The institution of marriage would be emancipated from the hands of the state."
What if they enacted legislation that called gay "marriages" 'civil unions' instead, and conferred all the same legal benefits rights and considerations that are given to "married" couples?
Would this still threaten your "institution"?
>>We've already GIVEN you the logical reasons, Ana. <<
Logical positive (i.e. affirmative) case for gay marriage?
No. What you guys have done is tried to undermine OTHER forms of "sexual diversity" that myself an other theists brought up, by rendering them as immoral. And somehow, you think this equates to positive arguments in favor of gay-marriage.
Bullshit. We've provided reasons not to support some practices and have proven that there is no reason to discriminate against gays. And you're pretty desperate at this point, I think. Otherwise, you would actually try to answer our comments instead of waving your hands and accusing us of "undermining other sexual diversities brought up by other theists" because they were dodging the question, and, like over-Christianized idiots, trying to make associations between gays and perverts. Read Gear's post at 10:51 and stop ignoring our arguments.
>>Gay people are being discriminated against and denied civil rights (that are routinely granted without question to heterosexual married couples) on the basis of their sexual orientation.<<
I don't enjoy the same legal rights as a person in a marriage. And if I am in a relationship with a male, we're a couple, and we're not married, I am not enjoying the legal benefits either. I am not enjoying these "civil rights". But no one would seem to call that discrimination.
I'm fine with it, if people press for a seperate category, such that couples can be recognized so that they receive legal benefits.
Because the issue is about the word marriage, and its definition. The issue as to whether the definition should become genderless.
@solipsister (dig that handle, btw)
DUDE. SLOWLY. PUT DOWN THE PORN.
Hah! Milk came out my nose.
Thanks for the kudos, but like many others on this thread, I don’t have the energy to maintain my Job impersonation any longer.
@Ana
I’ve debated many theists on many blogs. I am snarky, sarcastic, and snide in addressing theistic arguments. In fact, I delight in it. But I try very hard not to let disagreement and frustration cause me to stoop to certain levels in my interaction with folks of your ilk.
But you. With your contorted reasoning and loose grasp of the basic principles of formal logic. Your persistent, insistent, despicable equivocations between pedophilia and homosexuality. Your constant sidestepping and evading, always answering a question with a question. Your “I hear nothink” refusal to address the arguments that have been made, even when they are repeated, repeated, repeated. Incapable of staying on point or acknowledging points that have been made, you drive me to lower my standards:
You are painfully dense. Or unforgivably disingenuous. Or both. Or worse.
Children do not have the same rights as adults. This explains the prohibition on “consenting” pedophilia and 15-year-old marriages. If you really need a further explanation, or can’t see how children are not analogous to adult homosexuals, you are painfully dense.
Under the simple moral principle I’ve articulated, to the extent necrophilia and bestiality truly do not cause any suffering, they are not immoral. If you really need a further explanation of why I take this position, you are painfully dense.
To the extent you claim to disagree that morality must in some way be informed by the concept of suffering, you are disingenuous. Or worse.
The Constitution promises equal protection under the law to every adult citizen, absent a compelling secular reason for disparate treatment. It’s not up to us to come up with reasons “for” gay marriage; under fundamental American principles the default position must be to allow gays to marry. You want to treat gays differently than everybody else. It’s up to you to come up with a compelling secular reason to do so.
And here, finally, you deign to actually answer a question! Jeebus be praised!
[I object to] multiple (3+) person sex, and bestiality, and necrophilic acts all of which are perverse and sick distortions of what is CLEARLY, the SELF-EVIDENT, ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL DESIGN OF HUMAN SEX.
Wow, no threesomes, either? Under your morality, toys, anal and blow jobs must be out, too. What a fun gal you are.
Even assuming for the sake of argument these practices are “against design”…
Why are they immoral? Why is a "perversion" inherently immoral? Even more to the point, why is "sickness" inherently immoral?
Even more to the point, why sex, specifically? A moral principle of “it is immoral to go against biological design, period” is patently ludicrous. (Else eyeglasses, pacemakers, antibiotics and enemas are immoral, too. ) So why is “”biological design” the arbiter of morality only when it comes to sex? Is there a larger moral principle you can articulate that would explain your application of the “biological design” moral principle just to sex?
Never mind. Please, for Xenu's sake, don’t answer. You can’t. You are simply hung up on sex, just like many, many others in this society. Theist and atheists alike are heirs to both the Puritans and Freud.
But mostly theists.
You think certain sex practices are gross. So gross they should be banned as "immoral."
I think eating bleu cheese is gross. Look out, all you gross, moldy cheese-loving couples, I’m calling my Congressman in the morning! No marriages for you!
>>Discrimination is illegal in this country<<
That is a common misconception. Discrimination is NOT illegal in this country. It is probitited in certain contexts. Like voting (if we don't include isenfranchisement of felons) or use of public property, or say in the process of employing someone at TARGET.
If a 16 year old wishes to go see an R-Rated movie at the theatre, (often the the 17+ age restriction is not enforced), in terms of the rules, the can't. That's age discrimation right there.
Unfortunately, if I give an example (like the one immediately above) you guys will automatically go on to justifying the prohibition, missing the point entirely: That justification or not, discrimination is discrimination. Discrimination is simply unequal treatment of /granting of oppurtunities to individuals.
But because the word "discrimination" has such a negative connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are immoral.
Ana said,
"I don't enjoy the same legal rights as a person in a marriage. And if I am in a relationship with a male, we're a couple, and we're not married, I am not enjoying the legal benefits either. I am not enjoying these "civil rights". But no one would seem to call that discrimination."
1. the moment you DO get married, those benefits are yours.
2. In some states, if you live with a man for a specified minimum time period, you're married according to the state. Florida has this law, and the time period is (was, the last time I lived in Florida, back in the 1980s) 1 year.
You avoided the issue.
"Because the issue is about the word marriage, and its definition. The issue as to whether the definition should become genderless."
So you admit that its really all semantics.
You object to gay people calling what they do the same thing as all the "good Christians" do.
How easy is this?
"But because the word "discrimination" has such a negative connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are immoral."
a little substitution:
But because the word "MARRIAGE" has such a CHRISTIAN connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are MORAL.
Your posityion is indefensible, Ana.
1. the moment you DO get married, those benefits are yours.
Ed, If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against. Because we are not able to enjoy the benefits married people enjoy.
Hence, we're being "discriminated" against on the basis of our marital status.
The point about discrimination with regards to this issue is one of massive confusion among people.
This is what REAL discrimination on THIS particular issue would look like:
You're married, you're marriage is recognized by the state, and DESPITE BEING MARRIED, you are being refused the legal and economic benefits ("civil rights") other married people enjoy. THAT is discrimination. THAT is unequal protection of the law.
>>But because the word "MARRIAGE" has such a CHRISTIAN connotation to it, people THINK it applies ONLY to contexts that THEY feel are MORAL.<<
The latter part is fine. The beginning part, extends beyond Christian. A better word is Traditional. Historical. Long-established. Cross-cultural.
>>So you admit that its really all semantics.<<
Yes, yes it is. I think this is an important case of semantics. One in which people don't want the word marriage to be redefined according to whatever the new flavor of the month is.
"Ed, If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against. Because we are not able to enjoy the benefits married people enjoy.
Hence, we're being "discriminated" against on the basis of our marital status."
But this is an entirely different issue from where it started.
The point is that even should a gay couple wish to become a lrgitimate, legal family unit, in most states they can't even legally do that. You, as you stated have a CHOICE to either "jump de broom" or not.
And that gay couple doesn't have an alternative such as 'civil union' (equal benefits to "marriage" without the WORD marrriage being somehow 'sullied'); they're STILL out in the cold as far as the state recognizing their status as a family unit.
No tax breaks
No survivor's rights in cases where one member dies intestate
No legal recourse in cases of breakup of the pair (no 'gay marriage', no 'gay divorce') regarding community property.
" If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against."
No, you chose to forego those benefits that are available to you should you choose otherwise.
@Ana: I cain’t quit yew. Part I.
1) Please clarify:
--If your “partner” is not merely a hypothetical you created for purposes of argument, are you sexually active?
--Do you think there should be laws making adultery and fornication illegal?
--If the "goal" of sex is procreation, then do you believe that sex acts which are not directed toward that goal should be considered sinful?
2) Yes, your confusion regarding the appropriate use of the term discrimination in a legal context is “massive.” In an informal sense, people “discriminate” (make fine distinctions or prefer one thing to another) on a daily basis. I discriminate between wine coolers and cabernet and have banned the former from my home, but that is not what our legal system means by the term discrimination. And if as an adult citizen of this country you do not know that, then you have some work to do before you start arguing about the legal basis for gay marriage.
@ clamat:
enemas are immoral???
sonofabitch! I'm a sinner! (Jeebus be praised!)
Sorry, dumb me had to delete and add a missing phrase (contrary to).
@Ana: I cain't quit yew. Part II.
3) Please do not make the assumption that any particular poster on here is necessarily interested in keeping “marriage” as a construct involving State sanction and definition. At the end of the day, maybe I want to do away with any governmental notion of marriage and instead allow individual religions to privately define “matrimony” in whatever way they wish. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not the point.
I want to live in a society where religion is not used as the basis for law, even if some of the laws we end up with might coincidentally comport with particular religious doctrines. Since there will inevitably be laws that discriminate, like you, I want the government to meet particular standards before we say it's OK for the State to do so. But again, that’s not the point. The point is you object to homosexuality per se.
4) You said “same sex intercourse is a sin,” and homosexuality is “perverse” and "sick distortion," and you oppose gay marriage because it involves gay sex, which you assert to be contrary to the “self-evident, actual biological design of human sex.”
THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR OPPOSITION. You gin up pseudo-arguments (which none of the folks here have made) about incest and pedophilia and Marmoset/Badger Love to create a cover story for what is at its basis for you a religiously derived objection to not just gay marriage, but homosexuality itself.
There is no possible argument any of us could make that would persuade you to approve of gay marriage. Do you honestly think that any of what you've said might persuade a rational, non-religious person to disapprove of gay marriage?
Cheers!
Ed,
>>" If my partner and I do not wish to be married, we're being "discriminated" against."
No, you chose to forego those benefits that are available to you should you choose otherwise.<<
If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male.
Ed and Solipsister,
I am not in a relationship. I used the hypothetical to demonstrate that legal-economic benefits is on the basis of your marital status, not your “orientation”, and that the same benefits that aren’t being granted to homosexual unmarried couples are likewise not being granted to heterosexual unmarried couples. That is how weak the discrimination argument is. It works just as well for ANY couple that is not married and thus is not receiving these “civil rights” married people receive. So again, gay persons are not being “uniquely discriminated” against on this issue, as is so often portrayed by gay activists who know that such portrayal has emotional kick to it, which many people fall for. I don’t. And without the claim to unique discrimination, their case crumbles.
I’ll give my example from my previous post in slightly modified way.
I’ll use Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, gay marriage is legal. If, despite gay marriage being legal, there is a gay couple being DENIED marriage, then that couple can cite unequal protection of the law.
Or, if in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, a gay couple becomes married, and despite being married is being neglected “civil rights”, then they can cite unequal protection of the law.
Also widely spread, is the misnomer phrase that a gay person cannot marry. That is incorrect. A gay person can marry. It’s not an issue of WHETHER such a person can marry; it is an issue of WHO that person can marry.
Again, it always falls back to the claim that “You should be able to marry the person of your choice”. I cannot emphasize that enough. It always falls back to that claim.
Solipsister,
No I am not sexually active. I think adultery and fornication are sinful. I would encourage people to not engage in such things.
Yes I view marriage as primarily for procreation, and that it is a stable, committed, official hence structured (so to speak) relationship to supportively birth and raise children. And secondarily for pleasure (the sex) - physical and spiritual intimacy. So no, I do not maintain procreation is the ONLY valid reason to have sex (however, it is the MAIN one, biologically and theologically.)
I was recently in a conversation with a friend of mine, through email, over the issue of fornication, and I explained to him that :
" I go by the ABC approach.
Abstinence, Be faithful (that - the fewer sexual partners/relationships one has in a lifetime, the safer. But if you do become sexually involved, be faithful while in that relationship. If the relationship ends, don't get loose with your sexuality. Practice abstinence, until another serious relationship comes your way.), Correct condom use.
Secular society puts so much emphasis on the last one, many times at the expense of the first two."
Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract. )
As to fornication, that boils down to morality and whose morality (e.g. conservative; liberal) we will legislate. Nevertheless, enforcement of these laws is extremely weak
So, in short, I don’t have a problem for the laws to exist, but I will not actively press for them to remain or be established in all states. Because, of the issue of impracticality. How impractical it is to enforce those laws, because they are done in private. In cultures and societies in which adultery and fornication were (for past cultures) / are (in any present cultures) near unanimously looked down upon, it still might have been/be difficult to enforce, however, consistent social pressure against committing such acts would be the means to keep their occurrence at a low. In our society, this pressure is absent.
Hence, rampant sexual activity.
And adultery and fornication are not “institutions”. Marriage however, is an institution. It is easier to regulate an institution than individual private acts. And marriage laws are regulated. Our federal constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, therefore marriage regulation laws are left up to individual states.
@Ana.
1) I’m sure comforted to know that you are not denying gay people the right to marry. They just have to stop being gay.
You bizarrely think these two situations are equivalent: a) unmarried gay people who DO want to be married are denied the privileges and obligations of marriage; and b) heterosexual people who DO NOT want to be married are denied the privileges and obligations of marriage. It escapes me how you think these are equivalent. Oh, right. You would say they’re equivalent “Because straight people can always decide to get married. And so can gay people, as long as they decide not to be gay.” (Which brings us completely around the bend back to Breckmin’s ridiculous assertion that he was “cured” of homosexuality.)
Ana, the point is the gay people should be able to decide to say “no thanks” to the option of secular marriage without having to magically become not-gay and pick a new partner. And the basis for telling them they can’t have the right to say no thanks has to be something other than “God said so,” “What you do is icky,” or “I’m afraid that next we’ll have to give the right to squirrels.” So far those three categories of objections are all we’ve heard from you.
2) You think it’s good that adultery and fornication are illegal in some states and believe they should be illegal in all states, but because such laws are so dang hard to enforce, it’s not worth the time to press to change the laws or increase their enforcement. If they were easier to enforce you’d be all for ‘em, right? What would be the penalty, if enforcement became easier? Stoning? A fine? An A sewn on their clothing? That the ease of enforcement is the only impediment to your support for these laws is terrifying.
3) Your philosophy of heterosexual morality amounts to: Don’t do it, but have as few partners as possible over a lifetime regardless of whether you marry any of them; fornicate but only if you are faithful with your co-fornicator for as long as the fornicatin’ lasts; and practice abstinence “until another serious relationship” comes along if you can. And always use condoms correctly. I’m ok with that, I guess. I’m damn sure a number of your co-religionists wouldn’t be. And for darn tootin' Paul wouldn’t be, but I’ve already said I think he’s a moron when it comes to sex, so who cares?
True story: poniup is my verification word.
I did not say that both situations are equivalent Solipsister (of course they have their differences), simply that the word "discrimination" can be appealed to in either one.
>>If they were easier to enforce you’d be all for ‘em, right? What would be the penalty, if enforcement became easier?<<
I believe (I don't know if this is the case for all of the states that have these acts as illegal) but the ones I looked at had them as misdemeanors, so yes something like fine or loss of some privileges. Fines are fine with me.
I remember coming across a comment once on this issue in regards to imprisonment for such acts, and the person said something to the effect of " you couldn't build enough prisons! "
yes indeed, talk about having the bulk of the population behind bars. Impracticality and costly.
When it’s a minority of people doing acts that the majority disapproves of and abstains from, imprisonment wouldn’t seem radical.
Reverse the situation, to where it’s the majority of people doing acts that a minority disapproves of and abstains from (the current situation), then imprisonment seems radical.
>>That the ease of enforcement is the only impediment to your support for these laws is terrifying.<<
Why is it terrifying?
Perhaps you find it terrifying because of the mentality our society has in regard to sexuality, which is truly a very liberal one. That is probably why, the idea of adultery and fornication as illegal seem bizarre, or radical, or terrifying to you. Again, this is a mentality popular really only in recent history, which has abandoned a view of respect towards sex, and replaced it with the view that takes sex for granted. To the point that 'One-night stands are ok, just remember, wear protection!'
Whereas, I would say, no look, protection or not, one night stands are NOT ok. It is irresponsible, you hardly know the person. Honor YOUR body, and honor the body of others. Do not treat them solely as the vehicles to your personal pleasure. That is self-centered.
@Ana:
--“I did not say…..” Yeah, you did. And you still don’t understand what discrimination means.
--“Fines are fine with me.” And no doubt in your theocracy, you’ll define “fornication” broadly, with some kind of a sliding scale of penalties, with a larger fine for a blow job than for a feel-up. Whole new meaning to stiff penalties.
--From the “you couldn’t build enough prisons” through “reverse the situation” paragraphs helps explain what is so scary about your beliefs. It’s not just that you to hold a view; you want a position that is only derived from your religion to be imposed on the rest of us, if only it were enforceable.
--You’d fit right into Uganda. And there are a bunch of other American evangelicals diddling around with that country’s laws on sexuality, too, so you’d have plenty of company. Onward, Christian Soldier!
--“Perhaps you find it terrifying because…” Please, don’t make ill-informed assumptions about my opinions regarding the legal status of adultery and fornication or what I would consider an appropriate view of sex. You guessed wrong.
--“To the point that ‘one-night stands are ok, just remember, wear protection!’” Since no one actually made that point, you’re talking to your invisible friends, again.
--“Do not treat them solely as the vehicle to your personal pleasure. That is self-centered.” Um, again, not sure who around here said we should treat people as means, rather than as ends. But go right ahead and keep on arguing about things no one said. It’s getting to the point where I’m finding it amusing.
--At the end of the day, you just don’t approve of gay marriage because of your religious-based disapproval of homosexuality. And that's not good enough. In some places.
>>And you still don’t understand what discrimination means.<<
I do. I had even defined it:
"Discrimination is simply unequal treatment of /granting of oppurtunities to individuals."
And people have to desperately present it as if gays have a unique claim to discrimination on the issue of not receiving the same legal benefits married people enjoy.
>>Since no one actually made that point, you’re talking to your invisible friends, again.<<
Did you miss the various times, in my posts, in which I spoke of "society" ? Did you just, completely gloss over that?
My points were a reference to liberalized societal mentality.
We're all a product of society (influenced by it), so in a conversation that deals with social topics, it's just kinda important that I mention society.
(That's an understatement)
Ana said,
"...If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male."
Problem is, people don't "choose" to be gay.
You're attracted to what you're attracted to, and that's the way it is (and THAT is the essence of being gay; attraction to same-gendered individuals). No choice involved. See my posts above regarding this, and there's plenty of solid research that backs this notion up. I'm not posting a plethora of links; do your own research, but if you limit it to Leviticus, you're not being "fair and balanced".
Ana said,
"...I used the hypothetical to demonstrate that legal-economic benefits is on the basis of your marital status, not your “orientation”, and that the same benefits that aren’t being granted to homosexual unmarried couples are likewise not being granted to heterosexual unmarried couples. That is how weak the discrimination argument is. It works just as well for ANY couple that is not married and thus is not receiving these “civil rights” married people receive."
This is uterly beside the point; the discrimination occurs (and we ALL agree that it DOES) at the point where hetero-couples marry and homo-couples are denied not just the civil rights granted without question to the hetero-couples, but the right to enter into a legal arrangement (call it a marriage, call it a civil union; doesn't matter) that has those benefits attached to it IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(P.S., not yelling; just don't know how to do bold or italics yet).
Ana said,
"...Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
In Michigan where I live, adultery is still on the books as being against the law, but it is never enforced, since most, if not all states have adopted "no-fault" divorce laws that require neutral statements like this, pulled verbatim from my latest divorce, and required by statute):
"...it satisfactorily appears to this Court that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved..."
i.e., you can't say "He was beating me", or "She was fooling around with her boss"; those statements are forbidden. And I'll bet that California is at least as liberal as Michigan if not more so, the chances that CA's divorce law is MORE stringent than Michigan's is practically nil.
What this all means is that you DON"T NEED VALID JUSTIFICATION to end a marriage; all it requires is for one person to say, "I quit". (For the record, I don't agree with the no-fault law: it allows people to behave badly with minimal consequence).
The only case I've heard of in recent memory where adultery was invoked was brought on the same grounds that you mentioned: as a breach of contract (the stakes were pretty high, lots of assets as I recall).
Here's another gem:
"Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?
This question ALONE destroys any argument that you may hold under which you propose to deny gays the right to enter into such a contract.
@ ana:
">>That the ease of enforcement is the only impediment to your support for these laws is terrifying.<<
Why is it terrifying?"
If you want our country to become Iran, keep pushing for these kinds of laws.
THAT'S what's terrifying.
Ana said: Adultery and fornication are illegal in some states. (Theology set aside, I do think one can argue that adultery as illegal is justifiable since marriage is a contract, and adultery breaches that contract.)"
GearHedEd said: If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?
Boom!
Nicely done.
I’d just like to add that unlike the ridiculous laws which criminalize adultery and fornication, breach of contract is a civil, not criminal, action. There’s already a civil action for breach of the marriage contract by adultery, it’s called divorce.
>>"...If I were gay, I choose to forego those benefits that are available to me should I choose to marry a male."
Problem is, people don't "choose" to be gay.<<
Notice I didn't say people choose to be gay. I said they choose to forego the benefits. I agree people do not choose an orientation. Whereas people do choose who to partner with. The statement above in quotes was just your statement with my substitutions to it.
>>If marriage is a contract, on what basis is a certain group of people being legally denied the ability to enter into such a contract?<<
Again, a gay person CAN enter a marriage contract. It's not about whether you can enter it or not, it's about WHO you intend to enter it with.
The basis..a person's intention as is while seeking the contract. If a person's intention is to marry someone of the same-sex, the contract is not available to act out on that intention.
If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention.
And I could say " a one year age difference doesn't justify denying us (the *couple*) the contract!"
clamat,
Well, divorce is itself a contract.
It seems to me that whether divorce is a breach of a marriage contract, depends on what the terms of the contract are. If the terms are such that the couple should remain married until death, then, divorce breaches the contract. If the terms explicitly or implicitly communicate a sort of “till divorce do us part” message, then, divorce doesn’t breach the contract.
So, if I use a purely human and secular standpoint… yes, whether divorce is a breach of contract depends on what the language of the marriage contract is.
So to revise what I had said earlier, for adultery, whether it is a breach of contract, depends on whether the contract includes fidelity as one of its terms.
And not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
@Ana
I didn’t realize you were so young. I know it will come off as condescending to say this, but this is not my intent. Just the opposite, actually. I don’t know if I would have engaged the issues so tenaciously and sincerely at eighteen. Good on you.
That said, your reasoning remains profoundly flawed, and (possibly as a function of your youth) incredibly blinkered, to the point of willful ignorance.
If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention.
I and others have explained innumerable times why, as a society, we legally separate the age of minority, when children enjoy limited rights, from the age of majority, when adults are granted the full rights of citizens.
Society has an interest in protecting its children from their own inexperience and the adults who will take advantage of it. On the other hand, all other things being equal, society must assume there is an age of “adulthood” when one is capable of making his or her own independent decisions.
There is a tension between these two principles, and yes, some 17 year olds may be mature enough to decide to get married, vote, drink, etc. But society does not have the resources to adequately evaluate every teenager under every circumstance, so we set a bright line: You can’t get married under 18. It may not be fair to a particular, individual 17-year old, but it fair to 17-year olds generally.
Surely you understand this?
Your reasoning equating child marriage to gay marriage boils down to this: "We treat children differently, why can’t we treat gays differently?” Please stop equating gays and children without explaining why they are equivalent.
As to divorce:
First, divorce is not a contract, nor is it a breach of the marriage contract. Divorce is a legal proceeding resulting in the dissolution of a marriage contract. This proceeding may result in certain terms of divorce (child support, alimony, etc.), just as a civil action for breach of any other contract may result in terms of judgment. But divorce is not a contract itself.
More importantly, you once again miss my point: You reasoned that adultery should be illegal because it constitutes breach of the marriage contract, and breach of contract is illegal. My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal. Adultery may constitute breach of the marriage contract (of course, in some marriages, it may not), and therefore grounds for divorce, i.e., the dissolution of the contract. There is a significant difference between this and the legal prohibition on adultery you have endorsed.
a gay person CAN enter [into] a marriage contract…it's about WHO you intend to enter it with….If a person's intention is to marry someone of the same-sex, the contract is not available to act out on that intention.
You did not respond when I plugged “Germans / Nazis” into your disgusting equivocation of Homosexuals and NAMBLA. Maybe you’ll do us the courtesy of responding to this:
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?
To clarify a previous statement:
I said: Adultery may constitute breach of the marriage contract (of course, in some marriages, it may not), and therefore grounds for divorce, i.e., the dissolution of the contract. There is a significant difference between this and the legal prohibition on adultery you have endorsed.
This is to say that adultery may have civil legal consequences (though it may not). This is not justify making adultery "illegal," i.e., prohibited, with criminal consequences.
That may not be any clearer at all, actually. What the hey, it's typed.
@Ana
[W]hether [adultery] is a breach of contract, depends on whether the contract includes fidelity as one of its terms. And not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
PRECISELY.
It is up to the contracting parties to determine whether adultery is a breach of the marriage contract, or, if it is a breach, whether any damages have resulted, and if any damages have resulted, what the consequences should be.
Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.
>>My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal.<<
Yes, you're right. Civil law and criminal law are different, and breaching falls under the former. I had merged the two types of law in the case of adultery, which I shouldn't have done.
>>Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.<<
(emphasis mine)
Ok - I agree with your conclusion (bolded).
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal).
It is a common analogy, to compare prohibiting interracial marriage to prohibiting gay marriage. What is the difference? people say.
"Race" is a very subjective social contruct, that allows us to categorize people for socio-political, cultural, and economic motives.
In effect, our social perceptions have produced an inflated categorization of humans (which we refer to as "races") that while may be defensible for matters of practicality, are nonetheless biologically irrelevant.
Now, what do I mean by that? Well, there are certainly genetic variations between human individuals and populations, and for the latter, the variations are so negligible that we do not translate them into subspecies. That is to say, that taxonomically we do not sub-categorize Homo-Sapiens.
Gender, on the other hand, is biologically very relevant. The continuity of life- reproduction, hinges upon our recognition that procreation is accomplished by a male and a female. The continuity of life, reproduction, does not hinge upon recognizing the concept of "race".
Ok, @Anyone on this thread who had directed comments toward me
I’m not going to continue commenting on this thread because doing so is getting kind of exhausting at this point. I don't say that to be mean, I say it honestly. (Just look how long this thread is).
So I’ll leave you with this: A pointer- because no one seemed to hit upon what the central burden is.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
Here you go:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
(scroll down)
And don’t forget to ponder the 7 questions on the right!
@Ana
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage
Ana, Ana, Ana.
Why is one legal, and the other not? Why can't you prohibit interracial marriage?
Your response? You can't prohibit interracial marriage because its legal.
That's not even circular reasoning. Is there such a thing as "point" reasoning, I wonder?
The analogy to anti-miscegenation laws is entirely apt. Your discussion of the social construction of notions of “race” is basically correct, as is your point about gender being “biologically relevant.” But they are entirely irrelevant to the question of civil rights with which we are confronted. Marriage simply isn’t about procreation, even for straights. In the first place, it’s obviously not necessary to be married to have kids. More to the point: Should infertile couples be prohibited from marrying? How about couples who simply choose not to have children? Should married couples be forced to procreate? Under your reasoning, they should.
Again, we had been discussing contract theory. You'll have to trust me, but "right to contract" is a foundational concept in American jurisprudence. Another foundational principle is that, absent a compelling reason to deny them, every citizen has equal rights. The default position in America is equal rights. It's up to you, the person who would deny civil rights to some, to explain why this denial is justified.
Despite volumes of attempts, you have failed. Utterly.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
I get an error message for the website you provided, but seeing as it’s from a law school, and seeing as I’m a lawyer, I’ll let myself feel qualified to comment:
Did black people have to establish that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right, before being allowed to marry whites (and vice-versa)? How about Jews / Gentiles? Irish / English? Short / tall? If so, it has been established that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right, and gays don’t have to do it all over again.
>>I and others have explained innumerable times why, as a society, we legally separate the age of minority, when children enjoy limited rights, from the age of majority, when adults are granted the full rights of citizens.<<
And yet, despite the age of majority, in Mississippi, I have to be 21 to marry without consent.
Or 19 in Nebraska. Some states require BOTH parents, of the underage partner(s) to give consent, some require only ONE parent. Some states require a court order, and some do not.
Intuitively, the above can seem unfair. But, that's the result of federalism, which we operate under.
Different states, different marriage regulations.
>>My point was that breach of contract is not “illegal” in the sense you implied, i.e., criminal.<<
Yes, you're right. Civil law and criminal law are different, and breaching falls under the former. I had merged the two types of law in the case of adultery, which I shouldn't have done.
>>Not all marriage contracts are the same in this society.
Which is why adultery should not be flatly illegal under a breach of contract theory.<<
(emphasis mine)
Ok - I agree with your conclusion (bolded).
“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal).
It is a common analogy, to compare prohibiting interracial marriage to prohibiting gay marriage. What is the difference? people say.
"Race" is a very subjective social contruct, that allows us to categorize people for socio-political, cultural, and economic motives.
In effect, our social perceptions have produced an inflated categorization of humans (which we refer to as "races") that while may be defensible for matters of practicality, are nonetheless biologically irrelevant.
Now, what do I mean by that? Well, there are certainly genetic variations between human individuals and populations, and for the latter, the variations are so negligible that we do not translate them into subspecies. That is to say, that taxonomically we do not sub-categorize Homo-Sapiens.
Gender, on the other hand, is biologically very relevant. The continuity of life- reproduction, hinges upon our recognition that procreation is accomplished by a male and a female. The continuity of life, reproduction, does not hinge upon recognizing the concept of "race".
Ok, @Anyone on this thread who had directed comments toward me
I’m not going to continue commenting on this thread because doing so is getting kind of exhausting at this point. I don't say that to be mean, I say it honestly. (Just look how long this thread is).
So I’ll leave you with this: A pointer- because no one seemed to hit upon what the central burden is.
The burden that gay marriage supporters have to confront is, to demonstrate – not merely claim- that the right to marry the person of your choice is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
Here you go:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/
projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttom
arry.htm
(scroll down)
And don’t forget to ponder the 7 questions on the right!
@Ana
[Different ages of consent are] the result of federalism, which we operate under. Different states, different marriage regulations.
True. This doesn’t address my point in any way, though, much less undermine it. You apparently now do not disagree that age of consent laws make sense in principle, and understand the principles behind them. Whether it’s the state or the federal government implementing them is of no consequence to the basic question: Why are children (however they are defined) treated differently? We've answered that. If you want to analogize to age-of-consent laws, it’s up to you to demonstrate that coherent secular principles underpin anti-gay laws. You still haven’t done so.
All of your arguments are variations on “We treat kids differently than adults, ergo, we can treat gays differently than straights.” Makes absolutely no sense.
The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract…” blah, blah, blah.
Right, it’s legal because it’s legal.
It wasn’t always legal, though. There were anti-miscegenation laws. If someone had asked you then why blacks weren’t allowed to marry, would your response have been “because it’s illegal”?
Why are blacks afforded the full, free Right to Contract with the person of their choice, and gays are not? Why are gays different?
@Ana,
Good luck in your continued studies, as I'm sure you would wish for all of us, since it is a never-ending process, IMO.
I am happy to see you share a secular site that explores from a legal perspective the constitutional background of this issue, since my position from the start has been that: a) you don't fully understand what the concept of "discrimination" means in a legal sense (as opposed to an everyday feeling about "unfairness"); and b) Your reasons to oppose gay marriage in the secular setting should be based on something other than your religion.
Best of luck!
Ana, you're dodging the issue!
"If I, at 18 (my real age) intend to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, the contract is not available to us as a *couple*, to act out on that intention."
If you, at 18 wish to marry a 17-year old male who does not have the consent of one of his parents, and the contract is therefore unavaliablre to you as an option, all you have to do is WAIT A FEW MONTHS until he's 18, and then it's wedding bells.
If you're an 18 year old lesbian (not saying you are) who wishes to marry your 17 year old lover, you'll be waiting until marriage is legal for gay couples which may be NEVER.
The state is arbitrarily discriminating against you and denying you benefits that are given freely to other groups, the only criterion being that you happen to love someone of the wrong gender.
This is manifestly WRONG, no matter how you try to dance around it.
Ana:
clamat, subbing into your statement re: gays:
"“A [black] person CAN enter into a marriage contract…it’s about WHO [he] intends to enter it with… If a person’s intention is to marry someone [white] the contract is not available to act out on that intention.”
What’s the difference?<<"
Ana's reply:
"The difference is that it IS *legal* for such a couple to enter marriage, and because it is legal, denying them the contract can be cited as unequal protection of the law (i.e. the law that establishes interacial marriage as legal)."
Missed the point again.
You may not be old enough to be aware of this (although I doubt it, given your usual high level of discussion), but interracial marriages WERE illegal in most states until fairly recently; in some states having not been repealed until well into the 1960's.
That interracial (hetero) couples are now routinely granted civil rights attached to marriage contracts where it was once illegal based ONLY on the difference in skin color is a PERFECT example of the reason HOW gay couples ARE being discriminated against illegally and WHY this discrimination should stop.
Post a Comment