toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[zippy2006]

I've answered you in substance and on the point and principle. Respond if it pleases you. Withhold if it doesn't.

It's your dime. :e4e:

I'm seeking to understand your position before delving deeper. Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't think you've made your position clear. I don't understand why I would be required to beg you continually for some clarification here. I believe that at least Zeus and Chrys have misunderstood your position, but I honestly can't be sure. I've asked twice, you've denied, it's your dime.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm seeking to understand your position before delving deeper.

I only just set it out, including my response on the notion of voting. What part seemed less than clear?

The right to contract is the issue here.

That is, again, what the secular point here involves and what the law governs in dissolution...the division of property, cessation of right between parties, etc.

In response to your vote question:

"I don't think it should be a matter we vote on. Should Catholics be allowed to marry? Should we vote on it?"

Now you understand many a person is offended by the religion of Catholicism. They might find a moral objection to the Vicar of Christ as a position, the designation of priests as father, and so on. Should they be allowed to restrict your right without a clear showing of cause to justify the inequitable treatment?

I don't understand why I would be required to beg you continually for some clarification here.

You aren't. But I wasn't veiled and I don't see why when I've given you an answer that explains my legal and philosophical approach and one that responded you on point if you really look at it that I should feel obliged to simplify my answer when I don't believe that's as clear or substantive. That is, I'm disinterested in a yes/no that doesn't get at the more important why.

I believe that at least Zeus and Chrys have misunderstood your position, but I honestly can't be sure. I've asked twice, you've denied, it's your dime.

I couldn't be any clearer than I have been. Why it seems murky to you I can't say. Chrysostom doesn't tend to listen. He mistakes people for intellectual action figures and won't take an answer that isn't a regurgitation of his form.

I never duck an answer, but I answer as I see fit and not as instructed, unless instructed by a figure with the authority to compel me to that course... And I happen to know you aren't my father or Christ, so you're out of luck there.

But what is it that seems unclear to you, particularly, having read my response. That is, what question isn't answered by it?

 

[zippy2006]

But what is it that seems unclear to you, particularly, having read my response. That is, what question isn't answered by it?

Thank you, I appreciate it. I understand that you don't want your position simplified, but I don't think that was my intent. I take your position to be that you oppose homosexuality on a personal level, but do not feel that you would be justified in "forcing" that view on others. You would vote for homosexual marriage for similar reasons.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thank you, I appreciate it. I understand that you don't want your position simplified, but I don't think that was my intent. I take your position to be that you oppose homosexuality on a personal level, but do not feel that you would be justified in "forcing" that view on others. You would vote for homosexual marriage for similar reasons.

I'd say I believe it to be a sin, but one that is within the proper parameter of conscience, like faith itself. I don't believe voting should be any part of it any more than I believe we should vote for or against Catholic marriages, or Rotarian unions and for the same reason.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Could I get an answer here?

What precisely do you believe "the right we protect in every other group of people" is?

:e4e:

At the risk of putting words into TH's mouth, which is not my intention, perhaps you misunderstand the notion that the state has been given the power to wield the sword. That we personally disagree with the state's failure to adhere to Scriptural principles is one thing. That the state has spoken is another.

Our mandate as Christians is to have our voices heard and act aggressively to change laws that we oppose on Scriptural principles. Personally, I believe that such laws are on the books that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture is a shame on the civil magistrate (<--a link here), whose duty is to uphold the two tables of the law.

And it is a greater shame on the Christian voters who abdicate their salt and light mandate (Matthew 5:13-14) by tacit assumption that the State is somehow invested with unconditional sovereignty sans the law of the Sovereign God who instituted said government. In effect, Christians have allowed the assumption that godlessness is normal. For starters, rather than trusting leaders whose breath is in their nostrils, we should be taking to our knees praying fervently that it be the will of the God of all creation open hearts and doors in the advance of His kingdom through the means God has appointed.

And before you ask me, I will state that I am opposed to same sex marriage on Scriptural principles that clearly dictate the covenant of marriage is between a man and a women, especially, but not limited thereto, given God's command to be fruitful and multiply, something same-sex marriages cannot do. I also make sure my views are known each and every time the opportunity to cast my vote arises. My opposition does not extend, however, to derision, uncharitable behavior, etc., towards the objects of those protected by these laws.

EDIT: Saw that my post came after TH's further elucidation. 'Nuf said.

AMR

 

[zippy2006]

What precisely do you believe "the right we protect in every other group of people" is?

The right to contract.

You seem to be arguing for more than that though. In fact you are arguing for the right to be recognized officially by the state as marriage. I'd say your error lies in the idea that marriage is merely a contract. Contracts are drawn up every day without the approval of the government, and there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple from drawing up such a contract.

So why is the government concerned with the special contract (in a civil sense) of marriage while being uninterested in other contracts? Why is the government involved in marriage at all? I'd say it has to do with the familial structure of society. The government recognition and support of marriage exists for the support of the basic societal unit: the family. Not only is a traditional family proven to be the most healthy and psychologically sound (children-wise), it is also the only biologically viable configuration less polygamy. There is a reason the government sanctions marriage, and that reason itself precludes homosexual marriage.

I couldn't be any clearer than I have been. Why it seems murky to you I can't say. Chrysostom doesn't tend to listen. He mistakes people for intellectual action figures and won't take an answer that isn't a regurgitation of his form.

Then we agree :chuckle:

But what is it that seems unclear to you, particularly, having read my response. That is, what question isn't answered by it?

Running with your contract notion, how about marriage involving polygamy, pederasty, animals, etc.?

I'd say I believe it to be a sin, but one that is within the proper parameter of conscience, like faith itself.

Who decides which sins are conscionable? I think you could take a similar line with heroin or a similar drug.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

At the risk of putting words into TH's mouth, which is not my intention, perhaps you misunderstand the notion that the state has been given the power to wield the sword. That we personally disagree with the state's failure to adhere to Scriptural principles is one thing. That the state has spoken is another.

Our mandate as Christians is to have our voices heard and act aggressively to change laws that we oppose on Scriptural principles. Personally, I believe that such laws are on the books that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture is a shame on the civil magistrate (<--a link here), whose duty is to uphold the two tables of the law.

And it is a greater shame on the Christian voters who abdicate their salt and light mandate (Matthew 5:13-14) by tacit assumption that the State is somehow invested with unconditional sovereignty sans the law of the Sovereign God who instituted said government. In effect, Christians have allowed the assumption that godlessness is normal. For starters, rather than trusting leaders whose breath is in their nostrils, we should be taking to our knees praying fervently that it be the will of the God of all creation open hearts and doors in the advance of His kingdom through the means he has appointed.

And before you ask me, I will state that I am opposed to same sex marriage on Scriptural principles that clearly dictate the covenant of marriage is between a man and a women, especially, but not limited thereto, given God's command to be fruitful and multiply, something same-sex marriages cannot do. I also make sure my views are known each and every time the opportunity to cast my vote arises. My opposition does not extend, however, to derision, uncharitable behavior, etc., towards the objects of those protected by these laws.

EDIT: Saw that my post came after TH's further elucidation.

AMR

I think I agree with every word of that AMR and my posts in this thread should show as much :e4e:

I don't think you and TH are on quite the same page, but I'm sure you two can figure that out on your own. :chuckle:

:cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

You seem to be arguing for more than that though.

No, I was fairly succinct and focused.

In fact you are arguing for the right to be recognized officially by the state as marriage.

See, you're doing it again. This is a half step removed from the voting bit. Either we have the same rights before the law, including the right to contract or we don't. When any group has a right interfered with the standard, secularly speaking, is rather high.

I'd say your error lies in the idea that marriage is merely a contract.

I'd say yours is in confusing the state with a religious institution and your conscience with the Constitution.

Contracts are drawn up every day without the approval of the government, and there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple from drawing up such a contract.

Contracts are presented to courts and laughed out of them every day too. Wills, by way of example. So the seal and stamp is a bit important. Now in religious matters it isn't. You can marry whom you like by that ceremony, only it won't be a contract recognized by the state, mostly, or depending.

So why is the government concerned with the special contract (in a civil sense) of marriage while being uninterested in other contracts?

Mistaken premise. The law is integrally involved in contract in legitimizing and setting the parameters for what constitutes legitimate agreement. For instance, a minor cannot contract for non necessities. You can draw up and sign the paper if it pleases you, but my ten year old son isn't going to be bound by it. The law forbids it as a matter of capacity. Similarly, crazy Uncle Joe can't will his toenails to Aunt Betty's terrier.

Re: Chrys and the price of tea.

Then we agree :chuckle:

Almost certainly.

Running with your contract notion, how about marriage involving polygamy, pederasty, animals, etc.?

You need a course in contract law or you'd realize why most of that simply isn't part of the discussion. As to polygamy, I think it's another interference without justification, from a secular standpoint.

Who decides which sins are conscionable?

Not my point. I said those matters rest within the confines of conscience. They are between a man and God or what stands in His place. They impact the soul and character of the actor and do so without infringing on my own right or person, however they might offend my sensibility. My part is to argue against their wisdom in the public square and that's the long and short of it.

Else, I believe that without equity before the law we invite tyranny. And the tyranny we cheer today can as easily become the yoke we regret tomorrow without recourse.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

No, I was fairly succinct and focused.


See, you're doing it again. This is a half step removed from the voting bit. Either we have the same rights before the law, including the right to contract or we don't. When any group has a right interfered with the standard, secularly speaking, is rather high.


I'd say yours is in confusing the state with a religious institution and your conscience with the Constitution.


Contracts are presented to courts and laughed out of them every day too. Wills, by way of example. So the seal and stamp is a bit important. Now in religious matters it isn't. You can marry whom you like by that ceremony, only it won't be a contract recognized by the state, mostly, or depending.


Mistaken premise. The law is integrally involved in contract in legitimizing and setting the parameters for what constitutes legitimate agreement. For instance, a minor cannot contract for non necessities. You can draw up and sign the paper if it pleases you, but my ten year old son isn't going to be bound by it. The law forbids it as a matter of capacity. Similarly, crazy Uncle Joe can't will his toenails to Aunt Betty's terrier.

I may be mistaken, but I believe you've overlooked the heart of my argument:

Why is the government involved in marriage at all? I'd say it has to do with the familial structure of society. The government recognition and support of marriage exists for the support of the basic societal unit: the family. Not only is a traditional family proven to be the most healthy and psychologically sound (children-wise), it is also the only biologically viable configuration less polygamy. There is a reason the government sanctions marriage, and that reason itself precludes homosexual marriage.

Two people want to bind themselves to each other for life shocked. What does the government have to do with that? I'd like a contract with my friend saying that every time I buy him a beer he will pay me back eventually, what does the government care? Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place? The government isn't about sanctioning arbitrary contracts, so why this one?

As to polygamy, I think it's another interference without justification, from a secular standpoint.

I'd say you're wrong; see Canada. And your logic leads right to that doorstep.

They are between a man and God or what stands in His place. They impact the soul and character of the actor and do so without infringing on my own right or person, however they might offend my sensibility. My part is to argue against their wisdom in the public square and that's the long and short of it.

Addressed here. You replied in part to that post, but not to disagree with the heart of it.

Not my point. I said those matters rest within the confines of conscience...

Else, I believe that without equity before the law we invite tyranny. And the tyranny we cheer today can as easily become the yoke we regret tomorrow without recourse.

The law itself is where the rubber meets the road. That tyranny can come to exist through every single law that is enacted, it isn't particular to our topic. The law draws that line regarding what is conscionable often and justifiably imo. What is your view of the law?

:e4e:

:cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

I may be mistaken, but I believe you've overlooked the heart of my argument:

You're mistaken. I answered you point for point.

Two people want to bind themselves to each other for life shocked. What does the government have to do with that?

A great deal, if they want to contract and enjoy the protections and rights that go along with it. Nothing if all they want is a moral point. I answered on this already.

I'd like a contract with my friend saying that every time I buy him a beer he will pay me back eventually, what does the government care?

Not really interested in teaching a course on contract law, but suffice to say the government cares about what constitutes a binding and enforceable contract and it's found in statute and precedent. So capacity is important. And legality of purpose is important, etc.

Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place? The government isn't about sanctioning arbitrary contracts, so why this one?

Actually, as I've already pointed out, you're wrong about that. The law sets parameters for all contracts and conditions for dissolution, etc. Marriage is just one form of that. It carries an additional special relationship with religious creed for many, but not all of those who enter into the secular contract and assume the duties and rights that go with it.

I'd say you're wrong; see Canada. And your logic leads right to that doorstep.

If you have an argument make it. What's the interest against argument beyond the purely moral objection, which is less than uniform?

The law itself is where the rubber meets the road.

I've addressed the law and the equity, the equal standing in right and privilege before it that is at the heart of our Constitution. So...

The law draws that line regarding what is conscionable often and justifiably imo.

No. The law defines and protects right and exacts penalty for violation. How you feel about that may vary, but what you may do about it does not or should not.

What is your view of the law?

Asked and answered. :e4e:

 

[Selaphiel]

Odd that I would have to do this for a Christian:

1. Human anatomy. Do you think masturbation is disordered? Bestiality? Prostitution? The homosexual act? How do you actually think these things interact with Christian Charity and selfless love? Give me a break man.

2. Scripture. In addition to the Old Testament we have Paul himself Romans 1:24-25

3. What are our procreative organs for and what is love? Both are defaced on your view.

4. The strong correlations to any number of reprehensible lifestyles (understanding your rebuttal, I consider this a smaller point)

If your argument rests upon me having a belief system, then that is a weakness of your own argument. Your view should make sense regardless of who I am right?

1) Once again you drag in acts that are not similar. Bestiality is a form of abuse, there is no consent involved. Prostitution is consent through coercion of money, taking advantage of women who are in dire need.
Homosexuality is a consensual act between two adults who love each other.
Human anatomy does nothing to demonstrate any disordered feature of homosexuality.

2) Proof texting does not fly with me. Why were they opposed to it?

3) Assumes that the only purpose of sexuality is procreation. That may be the Catholic view, but it is in no way an universal idea. The neurotic attitude towards sexuality that emerged in the church is a rather unfortunate feature of early Christianity, yet it can be understood if you understand the ideas about sex in the ancient era, but adhering to those ideas about sex in light of our far better understanding today is simply willful ignorance.

4) First of all, those can be better explained by other variables. Secondly those other lifestyles would be separate issues. Tolerating homosexuality does not mean that you automatically tolerate promiscuous homosexuality.

Who cares? They seem to have understood the sexual act better than we do. I assume my point stands as it was uncontested.

You assert that they understood it better because they might have agreed with you. Your point falls because the arguments which the Greco-Roman position rested on are all nonsense. Read what medical writers such as Soranus had to say about sexuality and you will see why.

A juicy assertion, unfortunately it is also out of line with the data we have If you don't think euthanasia will follow then I'd say you're blinded, because your own arguments support it, and it is already beginning in Britain and elsewhere.

There are few countries that have legal euthanasia. Last time I checked the British Medical Association fiercely opposes it, so does most other medical associations in Europe and they are all completely secular.

Because I do What is this, an argument about epistemology? The modern view believes law is there to protect those who are a part of the society, not to instill moral qualities, it's a simple fact.

No, you don't know that zippy. How do I know that you don't know? Because you do not have any comprehensive statistical data to support it (the required size of that study would be rather gigantic). You cannot simply sweep modern society into one great big lump and say that every secular citizen thinks like that.

 

[Psalmist]

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?​

Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Against it.

Same-sex marriage is immoral, it is not natural.​

​

Hi Psalmist :wave:

Do you mean marriage in the Christian sense?

Do mean that it is immoral because it is not, (in your view), natural - or do you mean that you think it is both immoral and not natural?

BTW - this is not an attack.

Yes from my being a Christian and Christian belief, what is written in the Scriptures.

Same sex marriage is immoral and it is not natural.

If was non-Christian, I would view same sex marriage as something wrong, immoral and not natural.​

 

[John Mortimer]

If was non-Christian, I would view same sex marriage as something wrong, immoral and not natural.​

Ok, so is the concept of the natural decisive for you with regard to morality?

Do you think of nature as something fundamentally good? Obviously all nature pre-fall was good. Is nature still good underneath all the effects of the fall or has it been fatally flawed, in your view?


My own world view resonates strongly with the Christian idea that the fall has corrupted nature. So, for example, we live in a world where there are dangerous bacteria, poisonous creatures and so forth.

Do you believe that sin has directly corrupted nature?
I do.
So I don't believe that God introduces corruption into nature as a response to sin, rather I believe nature out-pictures the sin consciousness.

Do you agree with that?

 

[chrysostom]

Ok, so is the concept of the natural decisive for you with regard to morality?

Do you think of nature as something fundamentally good? Obviously all nature pre-fall was good. Is nature still good underneath all the effects of the fall or has it been fatally flawed, in your view?


My own world view resonates strongly with the Christian idea that the fall has corrupted nature. So, for example, we live in a world where there are dangerous bacteria, poisonous creatures and so forth.

Do you believe that sin has directly corrupted nature?
I do.
So I don't believe that God introduces corruption into nature as a response to sin, rather I believe nature out-pictures the sin consciousness.

Do you agree with that?

you have a strange view of nature and possibly natural law
just because nature can be hazardous to our health does not make it bad or corrupt
natural law is based on what is good for nature

 

[Granite]

It all boils down to priorities. Some people would rather be right with God, and others would rather be right with man.

Translation: "Some people live like me, others don't.":loser:

 

[zippy2006]

Not really interested in teaching a course on contract law, but suffice to say the government cares about what constitutes a binding and enforceable contract and it's found in statute and precedent. So capacity is important. And legality of purpose is important, etc.


Actually, as I've already pointed out, you're wrong about that. The law sets parameters for all contracts and conditions for dissolution, etc. Marriage is just one form of that. It carries an additional special relationship with religious creed for many, but not all of those who enter into the secular contract and assume the duties and rights that go with it.

The the homosexuals can draw up a contract and the government should honor the contract, fine. That says nothing about marriage. Marriage is not just one form of contract. It has positive rights and services which accompany it that are rationally catered toward traditional families. My argument stands with respect to marriage, it being not merely a contract. I concede the point of contract in itself.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

If your argument rests upon me having a belief system, then that is a weakness of your own argument. Your view should make sense regardless of who I am right?

It isn't, and it's a mistake you make often. You have this tendency to separate out religious truth from other truth, it's a bad habit.

Argument is nothing other than trying to convince someone of something. You are a Christian, so I will use what you believe to be true to convince you. It isn't odd in the least. It is some Christians in this thread who are disappointing me, not the atheists or secularists.

1) Once again you drag in acts that are not similar. Bestiality is a form of abuse, there is no consent involved.

A form of abuse? Why? Are you a vegetarian? A vegan? Are you against riding horses? Do you protest at the zoo? Is consent an important factor in the animal kingdom? :chuckle:

Prostitution is consent through coercion of money, taking advantage of women who are in dire need.

Not in itself, it is simply the view that the sexual act is serviceable. Your arguments support that view as well.

Homosexuality is a consensual act between two adults who love each other.

I have 4 homosexual friends, and that simply isn't true according to my experience. :idunno: How do you feel about fornication?

Human anatomy does nothing to demonstrate any disordered feature of homosexuality.

You're off your rocker. Have you seen a penis, do you know what a vagina looks like? Do you understand the procreative function of these organs? :squint: If you actually want to hold this view consistently then you must concede that all of the above are moral, as well as masturbation (which I assume you've already implicitly conceded).

2) Proof texting does not fly with me. Why were they opposed to it?

No, inspired scripture doesn't fly with you. Your faith is becoming a ghost, an abstract humanitarian ideal. Paul is quite clear.

3) Assumes that the only purpose of sexuality is procreation. That may be the Catholic view, but it is in no way an universal idea. The neurotic attitude towards sexuality that emerged in the church is a rather unfortunate feature of early Christianity, yet it can be understood if you understand the ideas about sex in the ancient era, but adhering to those ideas about sex in light of our far better understanding today is simply willful ignorance.

:chuckle:

4) First of all, those can be better explained by other variables. Secondly those other lifestyles would be separate issues. Tolerating homosexuality does not mean that you automatically tolerate promiscuous homosexuality.

What actual experience with homosexuality do you have, other than thought experiments and liberal secularizing influences?

You assert that they understood it better because they might have agreed with you. Your point falls because the arguments which the Greco-Roman position rested on are all nonsense. Read what medical writers such as Soranus had to say about sexuality and you will see why.

Why do you believe this point of your holds relevance? It doesn't affect my point at all, so long as they understood that it required a man and a woman copulating.

A juicy assertion, unfortunately it is also out of line with the data we have If you don't think euthanasia will follow then I'd say you're blinded, because your own arguments support it, and it is already beginning in Britain and elsewhere.

There are few countries that have legal euthanasia. Last time I checked the British Medical Association fiercely opposes it, so does most other medical associations in Europe and they are all completely secular.

The lawsuits are starting in Europe, but man up, it's your own arguments that force euthanasia. And more than that, assisted suicide.

No, you don't know that zippy. How do I know that you don't know? Because you do not have any comprehensive statistical data to support it (the required size of that study would be rather gigantic). You cannot simply sweep modern society into one great big lump and say that every secular citizen thinks like that.

You reject statistical data when it suits you and require it when it suits you. That is simply the sway of things in political philosophy: contract theory. It's not contested, it may not be complete but it is widespread and growing.

:e4e:

 

[Alate_One]

Bottom line for me is I see a difference between what is expected of a Christian (Biblical morality) and what a secular government enforces.

I believe adultery and fornication are just as immoral as homosexuality. Should we make (or revive) laws that make these illegal? Should we have government force a man and woman that want to live together to get married? Should we ban divorce?

If someone in my church were known to be doing these things, obviously there would need to be reprimands. But why on earth would you want *government* to enforce this kind of thing?

Why are so many conservatives all about "getting government out of their lives" except when it comes to the bedroom?

 

[kmoney]

The whole "you can do it but I choose not to" argument falls apart when what is at stake is whether it is condoned by society/government itself. So:

I don't necessarily agree.

1. According to that idea, you should be in favor of legalizing cocaine, meth, heroine, polygamy, suicide, mutual pederasty, etc. Of course you wouldn't yourself engage in any of those activities, but they wouldn't affect your life at all :dizzy:

Well, how would they?

2. The Christian life is an outward life. We are called to convert, to sanctify, to be the salt of the earth. Supporting things which fly in the face of Christ's work, even if there is no intention of practicing them yourself, certainly does not align with Christianity.

I agree with what TH said in response to this. In addition, I believe we can do all of those things without the government defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Can a Christian not be the salt of the earth unless the government legislates according to the bible? I suppose you are saying that part of being the salt of the earth is to vote according to Christian principles. Is that correct?

It's just a veiled selfishness imo.

In what way?

Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated.

I think legislation should be used to protect people. Some of that can be said to be legislating morality.

You have been throwing out various behaviors to go along with homosexuality and gay marriage. Let me throw one back at you. Do you think sex outside of marriage should be prohibited by law?

But what about the children who grow up in the depraved society you've helped create? What about the formation of individuals?

We may have a depraved society but I fail to see how the depravation follows from the laws. Is a society bound to do what the laws its government creates allows?

:e4e:

:guitar:

 

[chrysostom]

I think legislation should be used to protect people. :

does that include children and the mother who takes care of them?