# 10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...



## Cryozombie (Sep 29, 2005)

*This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.*

10 reasons to ban gay marriage

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 29, 2005)

I think, in its clever fashion, it does a good job breaking down the arguments we have against Gay marriage... Why are we, as a society, so hung up on not allowing these types of marriages?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

Nice list! I think the answer is hidden in this one:

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall."

This is true, but many people refuse to accept that there is a large biological component to homosexuality. They think it's a "lifestyle" one chooses. Until people accept the science, it'll be an uphill battle...and looking at the Intelligent Design movement's successes, I ain't optimistic about science's chances.

Why people who demand antibiotics rather than faith healing still refuse to accept modern biology in other contexts, I don't know.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.


I've actually heard this argument made--it was broadcast on CSPAN, many years ago, in the context of anti-abortion activism. The speaker stated that the U.S. needs more children to pay for the Social Security of those over 65, so older folks should be anti-abortion. This quote is not so extreme, then, that someone wouldn't say it. The writer will have to work harder to make it parody!



> Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


If gay marriage is legalized...well, it's just a short hop from there to women gaining the right to vote. And think of the trouble _that_ could cause!


----------



## Kenpodoc (Sep 29, 2005)

Good list. Personally I'm always amazed at the number of people so unsure of their own sexuality that they feel legal gay marriage might change their orientation.

jeff


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 29, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Good list. Personally I'm always amazed at the number of people so unsure of their own sexuality that they feel legal gay marriage might change their orientation.
> 
> jeff


Do you honestly believe thats the only reason people don't want to legalize gay marriage?

MrH


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 29, 2005)

> The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words.
> If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. George Orwell made this clear in his novel 1984. But another way to control the minds of people is to control their perceptions. If you can get them to see the world as you do, they will think as you do. Comprehension follows perception.


99.9999% of the time through history, Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman, whether arranged by the government or a religion.

The push for gay marriage has been one made for several reasons, in the U.S., so that a "couple" may have the same tax, visitation, health benefits, as those couples who are designated as "Married" by the State.

I also think it is to change perception. This is what our kids will grow up to see. Online dictionaries now have modified definitions for marriage to include same sex couples. Depends whether you follow a religious definition of Marriage, or a State code just how much it bothers you. In a country where there is seperation of church and state, how could the state possibly interpret marriage the same way as the various religions. I think "gay marriage" is simply a misuse of the term, an oxymoron, or the beginnings of trying to change the definition.

If your religion does not support this view, while it is being pushed as acceptable, there-in lies the conflict.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

Many people have sincere and deep religious beliefes about this. I respect that...but not the point of view that they should be imposed on the country as a whole.

Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work.

Many people just aren't ready for the idea. That's human nature. But to me, it's a civil rights issue. Look at what happened when they tried to integrate schools, the military, baseball...I see a similar struggle here, but without a clear national leader and spokesperson for gay rights.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2005)

The only legitimate test going on in this country, right now, is in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Approximately 18 months ago, 'Gay Marriage' became state law.

1 year ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was pretty even.

1 month ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was no longer even. Banning Gay Marriage has lost a good percentage of the supporters.

It seems that having Gay Neighbors get married has not affected any of the straight couples in the Commonwealth. It's just not that big of a deal.

Anti - Gay - Marriage : Full of Sound and Fury signifying Nothing.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Many people have sincere and deep religious beliefes about this. I respect that...but not the point of view that they should be imposed on the country as a whole.


Are we still a democratic republic? There is a process for changing laws. If it ever does happen, then thats the law of the land. Having rogue mayors endorsing marriages is not the way to get things done. There is a process. What would you say if a large portion of the population dislikes the idea of gay marriages? Every vote during the past elecetions have defeated the legalization of gay marriages. If you really want it legal, get out there and try to change things. Others opposing gay marriages are doing the same thing.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work.


how about polygamy outbreaks in Utah? Some other popular locations in the past have had problems with polygamy too. Care to endorse them? Perhaps its a global problem? Through out various sections of the world, there are child marriages. Should we endorse them? They are in isolated territories (sub-saharan africa, some latin american countries). Should we allow that here because its done somewhere else? Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Many people just aren't ready for the idea. That's human nature. But to me, it's a civil rights issue. Look at what happened when they tried to integrate schools, the military, baseball...I see a similar struggle here, but without a clear national leader and spokesperson for gay rights.


If its a civil rights issue to you, thats fine. Many people see it as a morality issue. Just because someone is "struggling" does not mandate it as a just cause.

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The only legitimate test going on in this country, right now, is in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Approximately 18 months ago, 'Gay Marriage' became state law.
> 
> 1 year ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was pretty even.
> 
> ...


Having one state endorse gay marriage is going to be tricky.. Lets say you are from California, and you take a trip to MA so you can get married. Should your companies and state taxes reflect that you are married even though its not accepted in your state? Should companies be forced to have health insurance for the "spouse"? I forsee alot of court cases heading for hte Supreme Court over this kind of thing. I personally know some businesses that would drop health insurance for everyone over this issue. That going to become illegal?

A similar issue.. many large corperations are international or at least inter-state. going to cover marriages from people who are transfered out of MA? Going to just go ahead and cover everyone, regardless of where they are?


----------



## Kenpodoc (Sep 29, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe thats the only reason people don't want to legalize gay marriage?
> 
> MrH


Here in Ohio that was the general gist of the campaign against gay marriage. I don't really believe that it was the only reason.  They suggested that legalizing gay marriage would cause a rush of childless marriages secondary to same sex couples who otherwise would have married people of the opposite sex.  I doubt that this would have happened and it is my experience that when closeted gays marry straight partners both people are generally unhappy. I still believe we should stay out of other peoples bed room and that both sides need to respect the others right to disagree.

Jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 29, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Here in Ohio that was the general gist of the campaign against gay marriage. I don't really believe that it was the only reason. They suggested that legalizing gay marriage would cause a rush of childless marriages secondary to same sex couples who otherwise would have married people of the opposite sex. I doubt that this would have happened and it is my experience that when closeted gays marry straight partners both people are generally unhappy. I still believe we should stay out of other peoples bed room and that both sides need to respect the others right to disagree.
> 
> Jeff


 I dont really have a strong opinion on this issue, but there is more to it than what goes on in the bedroom. The state has no business in our bedrooms, but marriage does not take place in the bedroom. I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.

 7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Having one state endorse gay marriage is going to be tricky.. Lets say you are from California, and you take a trip to MA so you can get married. Should your companies and state taxes reflect that you are married even though its not accepted in your state? Should companies be forced to have health insurance for the "spouse"?


That's the law--states are required to honor other states' actions in this respect. It's in the Constitution! That's why even though I got married in NY, I am also married in Indiana where I now live...and why I can drive in NM on my Indiana driver's license. So, this is well settled...though I know some states are hoping to get around it on the gay marriage issue somehow.

Marriage is already state-regulated, remember...one gets a license from the state in which one gets married, not from Uncle Sam.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Are we still a democratic republic? There is a process for changing laws. If it ever does happen, then thats the law of the land. Having rogue mayors endorsing marriages is not the way to get things done.


 
You know, I agree...yet, I view it as a form of civil protest, and I respect the sentiment behind it. I know some who issued those licenses were censured (e.g., in NY) and I support the rule of law here...but it still makes a statement to me that this is a movement whose time has come.

Surely civil disobedience has a reputable history?



> There is a process. What would you say if a large portion of the population dislikes the idea of gay marriages?


I'd say "Majority rule, minority rights" and to my mind this is a clear case of minority rights. There are too many government-sanctioned benefits of marriage to disallow it to certain individuals based on sexual orientation. 



> Through out various sections of the world, there are child marriages. Should we endorse them?


This seems wholly unrelated to the topic at hand, and intentionally inflammatory. (The "marry my dog" issue from the parody.) We're talking about adults of the same sex having rights to marriage and the state-sanctioned benefits it confers.



> Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..


Way, way off the point, and inflammatory. Legalizing gay marriage will not cause anyone to be raped.

As to morality...in a multicultural society like the U.S., whose morality do we use? Each state's? That thinking led us to the Civil War. The majority's only? Not everything that most people believe is right.

How do you justify denying tax benefits to same-sex partners when they are extended to opposite-sex partners? It seems unconstiutional to me.



> If its a civil rights issue to you, thats fine. Many people see it as a morality issue. Just because someone is "struggling" does not mandate it as a just cause.


I agree. I'm not offended if someone disagrees with me on this. But to me, it's not much different from women's suffrage (many of your arguments above were used, or ones isomorphic to them) or the civil rights struggles of the 60s. If you disagree, that's fine. We agree that it ultimately has to be settled in the legislature and/or courts, I think.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's the law--states are required to honor other states' actions in this respect. It's in the Constitution! That's why even though I got married in NY, I am also married in Indiana where I now live...and why I can drive in NM on my Indiana driver's license. So, this is well settled...though I know some states are hoping to get around it on the gay marriage issue somehow.
> 
> Marriage is already state-regulated, remember...one gets a license from the state in which one gets married, not from Uncle Sam.


Quite right! However, the definition of what marriage is is in question. Having some definition thats acknowledged from state to state would clarify things. Its not a question among states that a man can marry a woman, so thats a non-issue. The differences between states among heterosexual marriages are minor in comparison (blood tests, things of that nature), so acknowledging a marriage done in NY in NM should not be a serious issue. I'd be interested to see it play out in court. you might be quite right... then the question becomes, why doesn't every gay couple spend their vacation in MA and get married. No other state needs to change its laws then. only slightly joking on that one...


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> You know, I agree...yet, I view it as a form of civil protest, and I respect the sentiment behind it. I know some who issued those licenses were censured (e.g., in NY) and I support the rule of law here...but it still makes a statement to me that this is a movement whose time has come.
> 
> Surely civil disobedience has a reputable history?


Civil disobedience implies a movements time has come?

Civil disobedience has played an important role in the past. I'll agree with that. Then again, I'll state as I stated before, that "struggling" or engaging in civil disobedience does not make something a cause worthwhile. Simply means that a decent number of people are supporting the cause and are passionate about it.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> This seems wholly unrelated to the topic at hand, and intentionally inflammatory. (The "marry my dog" issue from the parody.) We're talking about adults of the same sex having rights to marriage and the state-sanctioned benefits it confers.


Not meant to be inflammatory. These issues are not ones we are currently dealing with in this country (at least no to a notable degree). Polygamy we have dealt with in the past however, and that has to do with consenting adults. Your original comment was:



> _Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work. _


My point is that we can't base the validity of a cause or an issue based on its occurance in certain locations. I'm trying to draw an analogy of things that have happened in the past. If polygamy were to make a come back and lots of marriages take place in Salt Lake City, or Montana makes it legal, would this make it a just cause? Do we adust out national sense of morality based on this?



> Way, way off the point, and inflammatory. Legalizing gay marriage will not cause anyone to be raped.


Absolutely not my point. My point is that people have different views of morality. Some people morally do not like gay marriage. Some people do. Some people have no moral problem with polygamy. Some people have no moral problem with rape. I in no way drew the conclusion that legalizing gay marriage would cause more rape. Reread this:


> Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..


I'm stating that if we want to have some element of morality in our law, we can not use the lowest common factor, which would be child molestors and rapist. I'm asking where do we draw that line. No flaming intended, its an honest question. I think we do that through the legal process.



> As to morality...in a multicultural society like the U.S., whose morality do we use? Each state's? That thinking led us to the Civil War. The majority's only? Not everything that most people believe is right.
> 
> How do you justify denying tax benefits to same-sex partners when they are extended to opposite-sex partners? It seems unconstiutional to me.


Which morality? We are a democratic republic, let the legal process work its magic. If people have problems, let their voices be heard. I have a feeling the time will come when it will become legalized. If so, then let it. People will remain who will protest against it after the fact. Let them engage in the same democratic process.

as for tax benefits, I've got more problems with the tax system than this, but thats another issue. Don't know what the constitution has to say about this though. Think the laws could be altered to accept a civil union instead of a marriage?



> If you disagree, that's fine. We agree that it ultimately has to be settled in the legislature and/or courts, I think.


I hope so... I forsee it will become legalized in the future. As my dad is fond of saying, "The world can change, but does not mean I have to change with it."

MrH


----------



## Xequat (Sep 29, 2005)

In mrhnau's defense, I don't find those arguments inflammatory in the least. Probably the best, and possibly the only good, logical argument against gay marriage that I've heard is that it would discriminate against bisexuals, pedophiles, people who like animals, etc. The reason is discriminates against bisexuals, for example, is that if we are supposed to marry one person from the opposite gender, but we make the change based solely upon a sexual preference, then we have to make a change based on all sexual preferences; therefore, a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman. That could be the next step. The next step could be that I might like redheads and brunettes, therefore I should be able to marry one of each.  The step after that could be that someone lives on a horse ranch and claims to be in love with his horse, then I guess he could get health insurance for his horse. At least that's how I understnad the argument, and although I don't completely agree with it, I can see some merit in it. My solution to that would simply be to rewrite the law defining marraige as a union between two consenting human adults who are not blood-related, blah blah blah. But I think that it's become too simple an issue...it's not only whether gays should have the privilege or not.


I really like this thread because I think I've gone from absolutely not caring in the least to supporting gay marriage. One of the major problems that the gay community has been criticized for is the lack of monogamy. I think this would help because without the ability to make a commitment like marriage, the commitment is not as easily made in people's minds.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Sep 29, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont really have a strong opinion on this issue, but there is more to it than what goes on in the bedroom. The state has no business in our bedrooms, but marriage does not take place in the bedroom. I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.
> 
> 7sm


True but marriage benefits are more general. In healthcare a married partner has more rights to intervene on behalf of their partner.  Marriage also provides the rightof divorce and the protections inherant in that right. Society as a whole benefits from long term partnerships and the economic stability they provide. I doubt that the chromosomal makeup of the partnership is a significant factor in the economic benefits as a whole. 

Religious opinions are a different story, but although the same word is used and they are related entities the religious use of the word married differs from the state sponsored legal version of the word. Until the day she died my Mother-in-law did not believe my wife and I were married. We stood upin Meeting, gave our marriage vows and signed a 24 by 36 inch document witnessed by everyone present. But no Minister was present so in her mind we were not married.  So it goes.

As to marriage not taking place in the bedroom, that's true but unfortunately that is likely where most of the objections to gay marriage derive.

Jeff


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 29, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> for example, is that if we are supposed to marry one person from the opposite gender, but we make the change based solely upon a sexual preference, then we have to make a change based on all sexual preferences; therefore, a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman. That could be the next step.


Actually... I dont think it should give you the right to marry one of each... but rather a choice between the two.

I mean... using a similar analogy to yours, I like Asian women and redheads, but since I cant find a red-headed asian woman, I need to choose between the two I dont get one of each. 

Now.  If only I could find one of either that actually liked ME... :waah:


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 29, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> True but marriage benefits are more general. In healthcare a married partner has more rights to intervene on behalf of their partner. Marriage also provides the rightof divorce and the protections inherant in that right. Society as a whole benefits from long term partnerships and the economic stability they provide. I doubt that the chromosomal makeup of the partnership is a significant factor in the economic benefits as a whole.


 I dont know of any (or I'm just overlooking them, feel free to correct me) rights and protections of divorce that are awarded to married people that are not to single people. If you mean things like restraining orders and such, they are available to a "dating couple" or "live-in" couple, or a "common law married couple" as well. I think you have a point, but the issue at hand with most who do not support this is not in line with chromosomal makeup as an argument. There is really no evidence to support chromosomal changes between gay and straight people. Most who disagree with gay marriage believe the gay lifestyle is a choice, not a chromosomal makeup. 



			
				Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> As to marriage not taking place in the bedroom, that's true but unfortunately that is likely where most of the objections to gay marriage derive.


 How so?

   7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

Bisexuality doesn't mean wanting to marry two people.

*Xequat*, glad to hear that your mind is open to debate! So few people truly listen to the other side in anargument, it so often seems.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> *This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.*




Damn.  This was excellent.  The sarcasm was perfect and made a great defense for Gay marriage.


The Massachussetts legislature has essentially made Gay marriage legal.  Look for other states to follow.  Do NOT look for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning Gay marriage.  Congress won't be able to push that through, and they really haven't tried.  

I suspect in fifteen years or so we'll have another three or four states with Gay marriage.  Maybe more.  Maybe less...but I think its on the way.

The debate has brought the issue of homosexuality to center stage.  In spite of the backlash people observed during the last election, many people are swinging towards support of Gay rights.  George Bush himself said he was in favor of civil unions...which is a nice compromise in many states, provided it gives the couple in question full rights.  

Gays are becoming an open part of American culture.  They're stereotyped less and less and are becoming a familiar--and less threatening--part of the American scene.  

When we do get reactionary backlash towards them, it is often dispensed with such hatefulness and blatant ignorance that we find it difficult to give such criticism any credence, and it tends to make us lean the other way.  The recent suggestion that Katrina was called down by God  because of his anger towards homosexual celebrations in the New Orleans French Quarter stands out as an example.  The French Quarter wasn't even flooded, and the Gays who would have attended the celebration were grounded at their airports across the country.  Poor timing and aim on God's part, eh?  

I have a hunch...and its a hunch...that the new Supreme Court that George Bush is fashioning will end up supporting Gay rights even more than last year's court did.  If the Rhenquist court ended sodomy laws in this country, the Roberts court will most certainly validate Gay rights at some other level.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 29, 2005)

I have two minds of this debate.  First, I tend to view things from a libertarian standpoint.  As such, what two people do in regards to who they decide to marry or have sex with is up to them.


One argument that has been brought up though is that of the inequality of gays not being able to marry.  Technically speaking, that is not true.  A gay man can marry any woman (and vice versa) that they choose.  They just can't marry someone of the same sex.  That is true for heterosexual men and women as well.  

By allowing gay marriage on whatever basis, you do have to then consider polygamous marriages.  Why not. The same arguments for gay marriage apply for polygamous marriages.  And it's still between consenting adualts.

I would venture to guess though, that most people who subscribe to the gay marriage debate as a matter of equal rights and a libertarian view point, would not agree with such issues as the legalization of drugs.  

Also, I want to know how a matter of who you have sex with becomes a matter of a minority status.  It's an activity.  Am I a minority because I'm a SCUBA diver, or because I do Kenpo.  Do I deserve special treatment due to that fact?


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 29, 2005)

would this not be an example of elected officials using their power of office for personal gain?  not that i'm for or against gay marriage, that doesn't matter.  but a law allowing gays to marry would definately possess certain tax advantages, hence, allowing a financial benefit.  so for a lawmaker to push a bill that would aid him or her in benefiting financially, wouldn't this be politically immoral...?  watcha think?

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Calif. Gay Nups Bill  



> Leno, who is one of six openly gay state lawmakers, said Schwarzenegger had missed a historic opportunity to stand up for civil rights.



don't take this as an attack against the left, opposing gay marriage, or whatever.  i'm wondering about the creating of laws that benefit the legislator financially.  be it whatever.  is it unethical?

i'm not even saying it is.  seeing that the lawmaker is a red-blooded American human being just like us, it would be only natural for them to push laws that benefit themselves and the entire American public.  dunno, when it comes to laws concerning taxation, benefits, etc., makes it kinda iffy.


----------



## Kane (Sep 29, 2005)

This thread is a bit weird, no offense. Some of those reasons were funny though.

 I guess I'm in the minority on why same-sex marriage should illegal. To be honest I'm all for homosexuality, I could care less if I see two guys making out on the street. Homosexuality like bondage is completely fine; sex is the best thing about living if you know what I mean .

 But marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been, even the Greeks who openly accepted homosexuals would never have thought of marriage, because its not marriage. Its a oxymoron! Without man and woman its a different thing! If you like to call homosexuality a union, go right ahead. All power to you! You want the same rights as homosexual unions? Go right ahead, more power to you! But we need to get one thing straight; marriage is between a man and a woman. 

 So if you want a union, equal but different, I'm all for that! In fact I think it would be great, diversity is a good thing. A heterosexual union is called marriage, what should a homosexual union be called? 

 This will definitely in my opinion keep both sides happy.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 29, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm stating that if we want to have some element of morality in our law, we can not use the lowest common factor, which would be child molestors and rapist. I'm asking where do we draw that line
> <snip>
> Which morality? We are a democratic republic, let the legal process work its magic. If people have problems, let their voices be heard. I have a feeling the time will come when it will become legalized. If so, then let it. People will remain who will protest against it after the fact. Let them engage in the same democratic process.


 I disagree. It is the role of the courts to protect the individual from the will of the majority. Individual freedoms, balanced by your Constitutional rights, ought supercede the moral majority's flavour of the day.

 So where do you draw the line? When someone's rights are being infringed upon. I do not see that anywhere when two consenting adults commit to eachother. Your allusions to morality and law are flawed. Law is meant to protects people's rights, not support their moral biases.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 29, 2005)

> But we need to get one thing straight; marriage is between a man and a woman.


Why, "because it always has been?"  Should we have used that as an argument as to why Jackie Robinson shouldn't play pro ball?  Oh, I bet they did that.  Hmmm...

 Let's try something different.  Imagine if Copernicus had thought, "No!  I must be crazy to think that the sun is at the center of the solar system.  The Earth is at the center - because it always has been that way."

 My point, obviously, is that history doesn't validate a position's legitimacy.  It only reflects what we have thought, not what we should think.  Progress is rooted in change.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2005)

What we must find ourselves compelled to do is define what marriage really is.  So we must consider many things.  It is ultimately the union of two people who have come together to live, share, love, grow, commit, care for, protect, guard, comfort each other and any other beings they choose to bring into the relationship should they choose to do so.

 Gay people have been "married" for many years - committed to each other in private ceremonies not recognized by law. They have been raising children, they have been working, voting, fighting.  They have cleaned your teeth, analyzed your urine sample, prepared your food, counted your money, x-rayed your naked butt, cared for your children, invested your portfolio, purchased goods and services from the company you work for, made executive decisions for the company you work for, own the company you work for, built the car you drive, changed your tire, assembled your keyboard, prayed with your minister and for you, given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, volunteered their time to help less fortunate, taught you math in university, taught your children geometry in middle school, invented important medicinal remedies and a hundred thousand different things ALREADY!!!

 When you alienate a portion of the population because you don't agree with their bedroom antics (though they might not be illegal nor hurt anyone else), you design your own economy for failure.

 I know of a couple who have been together for almost 30 years. Had they been married, they would not have lost all their investments, their home and their life savings when they each fell ill and were unable to work.  They are financially ruined and cannot consume as they were previously able to.  Their American Dream is over - gone - bye bye - woo hoo - c ya.

 Why do we need to do this to our own population just because they swing a different way?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 29, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Why do we need to do this to our own population just because they swing a different way?


Fear.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have a hunch...and its a hunch...that the new Supreme Court that George Bush is fashioning will end up supporting Gay rights even more than last year's court did. If the Rhenquist court ended sodomy laws in this country, the Roberts court will most certainly validate Gay rights at some other level.


 Full agreement with your post, and the above is my hunch too.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> By allowing gay marriage on whatever basis, you do have to then consider polygamous marriages. Why not. The same arguments for gay marriage apply for polygamous marriages.


 The arguments for and against alcohol apply to marijuana, but one is legal and the other isn't. I don't see your point. Polygamy is different--that's why we have a different word for it.

[/QUOTE]Also, I want to know how a matter of who you have sex with becomes a matter of a minority status.[/QUOTE] 
 It doesn't. As you say, it's an activity; many otherwise heterosexual men do it in prison, for example.

 But sexual orientation is largely inborn, or at least set at a very young age, and that's the minority status point.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2005)

I think *shesulsa* makes an excellent point that we're just talking about codifying what has long been the practice--in effect, common-law gay marriages.

As to the matter of marriage being between opposite sexes by definition--I have no problem with those who feel this way, though I disagree. Definitions are somewhat arbitrary, after all. I also note that the Constitution clearly provides for only _men_ to be elected to public office...


----------



## Kane (Sep 30, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Why, "because it always has been?" Should we have used that as an argument as to why Jackie Robinson shouldn't play pro ball? Oh, I bet they did that. Hmmm...
> 
> Let's try something different.  Imagine if Copernicus had thought, "No! I must be crazy to think that the sun is at the center of the solar system. The Earth is at the center - because it always has been that way."
> 
> My point, obviously, is that history doesn't validate a position's legitimacy. It only reflects what we have thought, not what we should think. Progress is rooted in change.


 Typical thing a lib likes to do, bring up something that totally doesn't relate to anything we are talking about to make his argument look good. Why don't you bring more Blacks being segregated to justify your point? Although it has nothing to do with anything it will make your argument look more pure and fancy.

 What I'm trying to say is there are obvious flaws in Copernicus comparison, and the flaws are so obvious you are on anyone else can see them. In fact it is even more obvious you picked it even though it doesn't relate to anything we are talking about. Same with your logic with Jackie Robinson argument. Basicly what you are trying to do is use the race argument to say that gays do not have equal rights and any other person in order to justify gay "marriage".

 Copernicus lived in a time where there was no science and anything other than catholic theology was considered evil (even though Copernicus was a die-hard Christian himself, who believed Yahweh glorifies himself on all the planets). We live in the information age now, there is obvious logic in marriage being between a man and a woman. The Earth isn't the center of the universe, and marriage is between a man and a woman.

 By the way what to you is progress Flatlander? I really hate it when libs bring up that they are that there way is the only progressive way. Progress to a lib is defined as progress that belongs in liberal philosophy. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to most of the population or not, it must be liberal.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Sep 30, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.
> 
> 7sm


I have been known to, it depends on the auditor.


----------



## Loki (Sep 30, 2005)

> Why people who demand antibiotics rather than faith healing still refuse to accept modern biology in other contexts, I don't know.


 True, but sometimes even that's harmful, such as cases where bacteria strains evolve anti-antibiotic defenses. This usually happens when people pressure their doctors to give them or their children antibiotics against virus-based diseases for no good reason.

 Interesting list. I found it less humorous than I found it enlightening.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

There is a lot of irony in this situation. The same people who attack gay marriage as immoral are offended when someone says that legislating their morality is immoral. The bottom line is that sometimes peoples morals are outdated and wrong. We don't torture people to death, we don't keep slaves, and we don't subjugate our women anymore...and all of these were things that used to happen in the past. American was founded upon the enlightenment principles of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness for all humanity...Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, the entire COC and those other organizations would deny this because of their morality. And history has shown us that whenever, some seeks to deny those fundamental principles from a segment of humanity, that they were wrong. _Thus, the morality that dictates the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is wrong_.

Kane - progress = expanding what it means to be american to every american.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is a lot of irony in this situation. The same people who attack gay marriage as immoral are offended when someone says that legislating their morality is immoral. The bottom line is that sometimes peoples morals are outdated and wrong. We don't torture people to death, we don't keep slaves, and we don't subjugate our women anymore...and all of these were things that used to happen in the past. American was founded upon the enlightenment principles of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness for all humanity...Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, the entire COC and those other organizations would deny this because of their morality. And history has shown us that whenever, some seeks to deny those fundamental principles from a segment of humanity, that they were wrong. _Thus, the morality that dictates the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is wrong_.
> 
> Kane - progress = expanding what it means to be american to every american.



To quote the first President of the United States of America:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society." 

- George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To quote the first President of the United States of America:
> 
> "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society."
> 
> - George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792


Was wondering when you would chime in here 

What was considered liberal thought of the time would hardly be considered congruent with liberal thought of the current time. There are alot of religious controversies still. However, I doubt internal christian divisions (and you tend to pine against the christian church) are endangering the peace of society. Of course there are the rare extremist, but you find them in every faith and group. Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?

MrH


----------



## Kenpodoc (Sep 30, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know of any (or I'm just overlooking them, feel free to correct me) rights and protections of divorce that are awarded to married people that are not to single people. If you mean things like restraining orders and such, they are available to a "dating couple" or "live-in" couple, or a "common law married couple" as well. I think you have a point, but the issue at hand with most who do not support this is not in line with chromosomal makeup as an argument. There is really no evidence to support chromosomal changes between gay and straight people. Most who disagree with gay marriage believe the gay lifestyle is a choice, not a chromosomal makeup.
> 
> How so?
> 
> 7sm


An example of a protection provided by divorce is the right to a share of a pension plan and division of assets on separation. In most states, live in partners have fewer rights on separation than married partners.

I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant by chromosomal make up (sorry.) I meant one member of a couple being XX and the other XY.  The genetics of homosexuality are far more complex, probably multifactorial and the subject of a different discussion.



> How so?



Many people quote religious ideology but their actually discomfort is with real or imagined events happening behind closed doors. 

Jeff


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

Many in this country have no problem criticizing a culture that forces women to wear bhurkas, but quail when the "intent" of that criticism is applied to every one else.  One cannot argue for and against equal rights for everyone at the same time and this contradiction demands resolution.  And the solution is obvious.  The people who are against this are on the losing side.  People will demand to be treated equally under the law and we, as a society founded in illumination, will be compelled to give it to them.  Anything else is antithetical to our constitution and our nations principles.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Was wondering when you would chime in here
> 
> What was considered liberal thought of the time would hardly be considered congruent with liberal thought of the current time. There are alot of religious controversies still. However, I doubt internal christian divisions (and you tend to pine against the christian church) are endangering the peace of society. Of course there are the rare extremist, but you find them in every faith and group. Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?
> 
> MrH



Actually, I was specifically addressing the issues upnorthkyosa brought up and arguing against Kane's rather weak rebuttal of what he perceives to be "liberalism".

I was trying to point out something analogous to criticism of "liberal" thought today in comparison to "liberal" thought hundreds of years ago. Many of the arguments used against gay marriage today have obvious parallels to objections to self-governance and democratic institutions over 200 years ago.

As for my "pining" against the so-called "Christian Church", I've made my position on a number of issues pretty clear. I've also made it pretty clear that I personally draw inspiration from a number of "Christian" saints and mystics (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, Dionysius the Areopagite, Paul Tillich, Thomas Keating, Matthew Fox, etc). We can start another thread about the particulars of Christian theology and its validity, if you want.

And, yes, I consider refusing equal rights to a minority group in a democratic nation to "endanger the peace of Society". General Washington hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> This will definitely in my opinion keep both sides happy.


 Oh yeah... completley neutral, completly unBIASED.

 :disgust:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 30, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Was wondering when you would chime in here  Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?




I would concur with Heretic and say it will.

The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility.  Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed.  A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights.  This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.

Maybe we can grow up and just get over it and recognize this isn't going to turn our children Gay (there's been no explosion of homosexuality in Denmark since Gay marriage was legalized there); it isn't going to wreck the allready wrecked institution of marriage in this country (where "born again" Christians have a high divorce rates than non-Christians); and it isn't going to weaken the moral fabric of the country...something that history has shown us is impossible to preserve with legislation.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 30, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Typical thing a lib likes to do, bring up something that totally doesn't relate to anything we are talking about to make his argument look good.


Actually, I was trying to point out that when you say "marriage is obviously only between a man and a woman" as a proposition, and use "because that's the way it's always been" you aren't justifying your position very well.  I tried using other examples of where that logic has failed so that you might understand the relevancy.  

So, rather than tossing out this garbage relating to "liberals" and your view of their argumentative tactics, why don't you at least attempt to support your view?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to say is there are obvious flaws in Copernicus comparison


I agree. However, the Jackie Robinson issue is much more on-target.




> Copernicus lived in a time where there was no science


No science??? I don't think so. He's credited with starting the Scientific Revolution that led the way to modern science, but there was certainly scientific knowledge and practice before him.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?


Did disallowing women the vote endanger the peace of society? Did denying civil rights based on skin color endanger the peace of society? Did the lack of accessibility of buildings for the handicapped endanger the peace of society?

I think disenfranchising a group based on characteristics that are not a matter of choice is the issue. Do these things endanger the peace of society? I'm not sure I know what that means. I could be perfectly peaceful with women not being able to vote. Baseball without Willie Mays and Hank Aaron would've bothered me, though.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I would concur with Heretic and say it will.
> 
> The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility.  Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed.  A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights.  This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think disenfranchising a group based on characteristics that are not a matter of choice is the issue. Do these things endanger the peace of society? I'm not sure I know what that means.



In the context I am using it, basically this refers to the fact the discriminated groups (and, make no mistake, this is institutionalized discrimination) will be prone to civil unrest, turmoil, and general anger against the establishment. And rightfully so, I might add.

Everyone just imagine for a second --- _just try to imagine!_ --- imagine if the situation were turned around. _What if_, by some weird twist of fate, heterosexuals were the minority group?? What if heterosexuals were barred across the nation from marrying?? What if heterosexuals were restricted form enjoying the same legal rights and benefits that homosexual couples in this scenario took for granted??

Wouldn't you be outraged?? Wouldn't you be indignant?? Wouldn't you demand equality and a fair distribution of legal rights?? What right does _anyone_ have to deny you equal legal benefits solely on the basis of your sexual preference??

Imagine yourself in the other's situation. That is the beginning of a postconventional, universal morality.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

Civil unrest is exactly how I'd describe the mass outbreaks of marriages we saw across the country recently. Peaceful, but still, a mild case of civil unrest.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I would concur with Heretic and say it will.


Really? What form do you anticipate it to take?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility. Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed. A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights. This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.
> 
> Maybe we can grow up and just get over it and recognize this isn't going to turn our children Gay (there's been no explosion of homosexuality in Denmark since Gay marriage was legalized there); it isn't going to wreck the allready wrecked institution of marriage in this country (where "born again" Christians have a high divorce rates than non-Christians); and it isn't going to weaken the moral fabric of the country...something that history has shown us is impossible to preserve with legislation.


OK, this is a rehash of arguements I've seen on this thread already. I won't comment on them. I think alot of the problems would be resolved with the afore mentioned civili union. What I would like to see is how the moral "slippery slope" will stop. Convince me that in the next few years we will not be endorsing polymagy or child marriage. Every arguement you make can be made for any deviant form of marriage/relationship (in particular polygamy). Its not unique to your particular area of interest. Should your threat of civil unrest be sufficient to allow any particular activity you like? Do we try to please every single group to ensure domestic tranquility? How can we ever justify any law restricting anyones right to do anything? Repeal drinking age limits? Drug laws? Repeal smoking age limits? Lower/remove drivers licence age? Let anyone (felon included) buy a gun? Allow hunting of endangered species? The last two should get the liberals in a tizzy   There are groups out there that would endorse all of these suggestions. Are their groups just not large enough yet to deserve your attention? Do you endorse violence by radical liberals who torch SUV's in California? Wrap trees with barbed wire so that people who cut them down are potentially killed? Should we appease them? They are passionate about their cause, actually engaging in violence and disrupting domestic tranquility. They are expressing "hate and discontent". Should we legalize what they are doing? Give them tax breaks and special privledges?

I'm not trying to divert the thread, but I'm trying to point out that simply trying to please a specific group to ensure domestic tranquility and make every group happy simply won't work. I realize that my examples are a bit extreme, but I'm trying to demonstrate the ridiculous notion of letting the "domestic tranquility" argument get out of control. Let the legal process work. Its there for a reason. Legislators have common sense. They will listen to the people if they care to keep their jobs. Over time, laws will reflect the overall feelings of the people/society. Many great things have already been accomplished. Let people who are for gay marriage have their voice. Let people who are against gay marriage have their voice. Thats what this country is all about.

The root problems in the current "moral fiber" is deeper than marriage and sexuality. Thats another topic though... Problems with the church are deeper than that too, but again, another topic.

With regard to Denmark and gay marriages, I don't care to be like most European countries. We are not Europe. Care to be like Nicaragua or parts of Africa with child marriage laws? Many muslim countries allow polygamy, should I list some? Is Europe/Denmark such a wonderful example to follow, and African countries or Islamic countries such a bad example to follow? I don't want our laws and views dictated by other countries. Citing other countries is irrelevant. We have our own unique problems here. The stats are interesting, and I'd like to see them. However, at the end of the day, we are not Europe. Let us resolve our own issues. A more relevant discussion would be the social results of the MA laws. I'd be curious to see how things work out over the next decade or so.

On a side issue... It seems liberals tend to love Europe. I wonder why. :idunno:

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

I am unfamiliar with any evidence that polygamy has a strong genetic component. In that way it is unlike homosexuality.

Same for drugs, smoking, and other examples you cite--the difference is that we protect against discrimination based on factors over whihc people have no control, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, etc.

The exception is that we protect against discrimination based on religious persuasion, even though that _is_ a choice!

Nothing under discussion seeks to repeal the overarching law that minors cannot generally enter into contracts. This is just a red herring. You say that citing other countries is irrelevant, and then bring up this practice which, even where it is practiced, is often illegal even if tolerated (e.g. in India).

Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of themarriage business?

Fearmongering that gay marriage will lead to child marriage, legalized drugs, and environmental terrorists getting tax breaks is just ridiculous. At this point I am working under the assumption that you are actually _for_ gay marriage and are waging a campaign to tar the opposition with outlandish claims.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

A few points:

1) My position is simple: something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults --- whether biologically-based or "learned" --- and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else is ethically _outside_ the jurisdiction of legal prosecution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

2) I'm sure there is some reason to ban polygamy that doesn't rest upon imposing moral or cultural "values" on a group of people that don't necessarily subscribe to them, but I certainly haven't heard it yet.

3) The evidence for _genetic_ contributions to homosexuality is weak, at best. Most of what I have read on the subject indicates the biological cause might be developmental in nature.

4) Regarding the example of Denmark, upnorthkyosa was drawing upon that to demonstrate that legalizing gay marriage will not necessarily result in some communal "breakdown" of "moral values" or some kind of weird pesudo-viral "outbreak" of homosexual behavior. At no point was the argument made that "gee, America should be more like Europe!".

5) Most of these calls for "moral fiber" and "cultural values" as pertaining to gay marriage often base their claims on a type of conventional-conformist morality (which has, in previous generations, opposed heliocentrism, the theory of evolution, the development of antibiotics, meteorology, womens' suffrage, civil rights, abolishment of slavery, and democracy as an institution) that is reluctant to change. If I were less forgiving I might call it xenophobia, but there is no logical reason to take it that far. Regardless, they all pertain to taking the "moral majority" and legally imposing and enforcing it upon all citizens of our nation. This hardly espouses the ideals and principles our country was founded upon.

6) I'm still wondering if those opposing equal legal rights to homosexual citizens have ever bothered to do the hypothetical scenario I outlined in my last post. What if roles were switched, and it was heterosexuality being discriminated against?? Would it still be about retaining the "moral fiber" of the nation, then??

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

There is clearly a genetic component, but also a large developmental component. I am being somewhat lazy with terms for lack of a good way of saying "partly genetic and partly developmental within the first 5 years or so of life" (and hence not a matter of conscious choice, much like something that is purely genetic).

I don't think there's weak evidence for a genetic component--I think there's strong evidence for what may be a weak genetic component.

As to polygamy, my understanding is that the big reason for banning it is that it so often is associated with other things like incest, age of consent issues, and so on. Poverty may also be an issue.

Many prosecutable cases of domestic violence fit inside your first point; often the victim refuses to press charges and does not wish to leave the abuser, which must be reckoned as consent by any behavioural definition of the term. Yet, society benefits from prosecuting these cases, I feel. It also seems to cover assisted suicide, and while I'm OK with that, checks and balances from _outside_ those two consenting adults are needed.

On another point, implicit in your post is the recognition that while one side says that adding gay marriage is a moral issue, the other side says that failing to do so is a moral issue. There's a great deal of symmetry here.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I am unfamiliar with any evidence that polygamy has a strong genetic component. In that way it is unlike homosexuality.


That would be difficult to decouple from a monogomous heterosexual. Bioinformatics at this point could probably not find it. The "gay gene" is still being studied.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Same for drugs, smoking, and other examples you cite--the difference is that we protect against discrimination based on factors over whihc people have no control, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, etc.
> 
> The exception is that we protect against discrimination based on religious persuasion, even though that _is_ a choice!


We can argue that once we have proven that being homosexual is definitively proven to be purely genetic. The homosexuals I know, they have had environmental problems that may have influenced their orientation. I don't know hundreds or anything, so my anticdotes are not conclusive. I admit that.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Nothing under discussion seeks to repeal the overarching law that minors cannot generally enter into contracts. This is just a red herring. You say that citing other countries is irrelevant, and then bring up this practice which, even where it is practiced, is often illegal even if tolerated (e.g. in India).


Polygamy has been here and is here (though not highly publicized or widely practiced). I am not discussing the specific political laws that are unique to a country (laws in denmark/europe). I'm discussing human behavior that does exist. You move a polygamist from one country to another, he is still a polygamist. What -does- change is the law in the countries he occupies. Looking at countries does have its merit:


			
				me said:
			
		

> stats are interesting, and I'd like to see them. However, at the end of the day, we are not Europe. Let us resolve our own issues.


Marijuana users exist in Denmark and the US. Amsterdam has legalized marijuana, should we do the same? Thats a bit more marginal these days, so what if Amsterdam legalizes harder drugs? We have users here and there, thats a human behavior. What I -don't- want is our laws dependant on laws of other countries. Looking at the stats could prove interesting though.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of themarriage business?


Good point. What we do have is 6k+ years of tradition to build on. Society has been built on the structure of marriage. Should government keep its nose out of marriage? Thats debatable... personally, I'm really big on small government hehe



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Fearmongering that gay marriage will lead to child marriage, legalized drugs, and environmental terrorists getting tax breaks is just ridiculous. At this point I am working under the assumption that you are actually _for_ gay marriage and are waging a campaign to tar the opposition with outlandish claims.


Not fear mongering. Allow me to highlight:


			
				me said:
			
		

> I'm trying to point out that simply trying to please a specific group to ensure domestic tranquility and make every group happy simply won't work. I realize that my examples are a bit extreme, but I'm trying to demonstrate the ridiculous notion of letting the "domestic tranquility" argument get out of control


The arguement that was made can be easily modified for several groups. I was not stating that gay marriage would lead to these things. I went out of this way to state this, because I realized someone was going to bring this fear mongering thing up  What I -am- endorsing is letting the political process work, as I stated in my post. Civil disobedience does not mandate the just nature of a cause.

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

I don't think anyone thinks there's a single "gay gene" but rather a set of genes that set the stage for homosexuality. I am convinced that there's a strong genetic component but will concede that a case for more than a mild genetic component can't yet be made. However, since the sexual of an orientation of a person is set at such a young age, the difference is irrelevant for the purposes of all but academic discussions, I think.

As to environmental problems, the psychiatric ommunity is all but unanimous that homosexuality is not a disorder. That may not be good enough for Tom Cruise, but I do think it makes a statement. There has been _much_ study of this issue.

As to civil obedience and justness of cause--how could one have judged Martin Luther King's actions in the beginning of his civil disobedience? Gandhi's? Isn't this indeed the political process at work--citizens forcing issues to the courts, showing their legislators they really care about these things, etc.?

No one is saying that civil unrest implies rightness of cause--look at the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber, etc. Civil disobedience and civil unrest in each case but no just cause, or at least none that justifies such extremism. The fact that people are agitating isn't evidence that they're right--though the numbers do say something in the case of gay marraige, I feel. But that doesn't make it right. I feel it's right because it's fair.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of the marriage business?


In the end, I think that this point is probably the best thing the government can do.  Civil unions for people who want to enter into them.  Leave marriage to the churches.  When the government puts its stamp on a "type" of marriage outlined by a particular religion, that is a tacit support of that religion over others faiths.  It is a crossing of the line between church and state and is, ultimately, unconstitutional.  If all couples applied to the government for civil union licenses, a powerful message is being sent and it supports everything our country stands for.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) I'm sure there is some reason to ban polygamy that doesn't rest upon imposing moral or cultural "values" on a group of people that don't necessarily subscribe to them, but I certainly haven't heard it yet.


There are many people who already live "alternative" lifestyles and they harm none. I would wager that a civil union for two could just as easily be drawn up for three or more. I, too, can't see any legal issues that would cause me to oppose this.  Many of the other issues that get attached to polygamy like incest, abuse, and poverty are very much like the ones that get attached to homosexuals - pedastery, devience, etc.  People's opinions on both are shaped by their fears of what might occur, but this has no basis in what actually occurs.  This is why its important to look at other countries as an example to inform our opinions.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2005)

So...

 If it is left for the churches, and they all said no.

 What would stop a large group from forming a new church which defined marriage as the union of two members of the same sex?

 Marriage may have origins as a religious thing, but it's moved out of that into the secular world.  And it's not gonna be a viable solution to suddenly tell everyone that got married by a JP that they aren't married anymore...

 Or would athiests no longer allowed to be "married" either?

 Gay marriages will happen, it's just a matter of how long the battle gets drawn out.  Same as interracial marriages and inter faith marriages and athiest marriages and divorces all happen now.  

 At the end of the day I don't see what the big deal is, Marriage is just a word.  Or should we stop refering to Zeus as a God, considering that clearly defies the Christian concept of God?

 Such a big fight over the use of a word... it's really kind of scary to think that the most important thing some very influential people have to do with there time is argue about whether gay couples have "marriage" or "civil union".


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

A few more things:

1) As I said before, the evidence for a genetic contribution to homosexuality is, from what I have read on the subject, rather weak and inconclusive. Essentially, the data is correlative --- studies indicating a greater percentage of maternal twins share their homosexual inclinations as compared to paternal twins --- but, to my knowledge, no specific genes or groups of genes have been identified. I don't consider correlative data to be very strong evidence. If I did, I'd be a philosophical materialist.

2) I'm with upnorthkyosa on polygamy. The "guilt by association" arguments just don't do it for me.

3) Sorry, domestic abuse doesn't fit my stance. I repeat, "something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults [...] and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else". Physically abusing or assaulting someone certainly falls into the category of violating the legal rights of another person.

4) I have yet to hear a single "moral" argument against gay rights that doesn't ultimately rely on an Appeal To Authority, Appeal To Common Practice, or Appeal To Tradition. These are all logical fallacies.

5) Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized --- considering alcohol and tobacco, which are much more addictive and dangerous drugs, are not illegal. Plus, there's the medicinal application.

6) I have yet to see a single person on this thread argue that we should adopt any given policy because, well, that's what the cool kids in Europe are doing. To claim otherwise is to rely on a Strawman Argument. What _has_ been argued is that the "negative consequences" that some of those that oppose gay rights have warned about have, in fact, not happened in the countries that have adopted such policies.

7) For what its worth, I'm with upnorthkyosa on the civil union policy. My personal take is similar to that of Howard Dean in which equal legal rights should be extended to all American citizens, but we shouldn't dictate to the churches who they can and cannot marry.

8) Contrary to Andrew's hypothetical speculation, not all churches in this country are opposed to gay marriage. In addition, there _are_ gay religions and gay churches in America --- the largest, to my knowledge, being the Gay and Lesbian Catholics group.

Laterz.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So...
> 
> If it is left for the churches, and they all said no.
> 
> What would stop a large group from forming a new church which defined marriage as the union of two members of the same sex?


Nothing. There are other ideas almost as retarded, like churches that believe in spaceships and worshiping Satan. But the State still does not define marriage as such.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Marriage may have origins as a religious thing, but it's moved out of that into the secular world.


No. IT hasn't. IT is still very well alive in the "religous world." IT may have been changed, or watered down, like a lot of martial arts, but IT aint the same in the "secular world." 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And it's not gonna be a viable solution to suddenly tell everyone that got married by a JP that they aren't married anymore...


Nope. JP's operate on behalf of the state, so the "State Marriage" holds.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Or would athiests no longer allowed to be "married" either?


Depends on whose eyes you're looking through I guess. By the end of the thread, we'll have to call Merriam Webster and give them 20 new definitions.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Nothing. There are other ideas almost as retarded, like churches that believe in spaceships and worshiping Satan.



Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him, dividing the human species into "clean" and "unclean", believing that the world was created in six days just over 5,000 years ago, believing the mythical accounts of a Divine Redeemer is the only valid approach to life when said Redeemer is clearly a hybridized derivation of pre-existing myths and religious schools (re: the intertestamental _Books of Enoch_), and so on.

I guess extending God's graces and supposedly unconditional love to all of humanity without judgement or condemnation must be one of these silly things that "retards" do.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> No. IT hasn't. IT is still very well alive in the "religous world." IT may have been changed, or watered down, like a lot of martial arts, but IT aint the same in the "secular world."



Mike is correct, in a sense.

The "marriage" institution we have presently inherited is by and large an archaic holdover from before the separation of Church and State within a democratic paradigm. Where this separation leaves "marriage" has never really been debated or discussed in our country's history to any significant degree --- only side issues like what sexual orientations can marry or what married couples can "do" to one another in the privacy of their bedrooms (or kitchens, or living rooms, or garages, or, you get the idea  ).

As such, I feel a debate concerning the role of "marriage" in a world where Church and State are no longer the same thing is something that should most definitely be explored. 



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Depends on whose eyes you're looking through I guess.



In this context, only the law's eyes matter.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I guess extending God's graces and supposedly unconditional love to all of humanity without judgement or condemnation must be one of these silly things that "retards" do.


I, as a parent, unconditionally love my children although I do not endorse inappropriate actions.  What "blessings" (or good things) my children receive from me are contingent upon their ability to receive and use them ("worthiness"); And my children are sometimes reminded of these things through discipline.  

Do you believe that God, as a Father, would do less for his children?
[/QUOTE]


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "*believe*" in him,


I think the term is "reject".


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Do you believe that God, as a Father, would do less for his children?



No. I believe God, as Father mythos, is a deified projection of the contents of an individual's superego. Namely, a manifestation of said individual's own values, ideals, and high beliefs given cosmologized importance.

This is why any person's "God" always looks and sounds a helluva lot like the person that believes in "him".

In any event, the context I was using that line in was specifically addressing the apparently "retarded" notion that human beings and human institutions like churches are _not_ supposed to be doing the judging and condemning here --- about sexual orientation or anything else ---that that sorta thing is left up to God or Karma or Shiva or whatever.

Apparently, though, some people apparently feel they know better than God and have just cause to "intervene" on his behalf. Funny. When I was raised Baptist, that kinda thinking was never tossed about.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think the term is "reject".



Actually, given the grammatical context of that sentence, "believe" is the correct wording. Please note the "not" placed in front of said word to qualify its semantical meaning in said sentence.

Ta.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, given the grammatical context of that sentence, "believe" is the correct wording. Please note the "not" placed in front of said word to qualify its semantical meaning in said sentence.
> 
> Ta.


I believe that Mike is implying that folks who are denied the kingdom of God and are relegated to burn for all eternity are "rejects".  Or have somehow been found unworthy and "deserve" eternal torment.

btw - has anyone ever visited a burn center?  Does anyone have any idea what kind of pain people who have been burned live with every day?  Can you imagine that for all eternity?  This seems like a pretty steep price to pay *for* *loving* *someone!*


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I believe that Mike is implying that folks who are denied the kingdom of God and are relegated to burn for all eternity are "rejects".  Or have somehow been found unworthy and "deserve" eternal torment.



Oh, I clearly understood Mike's intent in his last post. He is reiterating the typical evangelical line that those who "God" sends to "Hell" are there because of their own doing, because they "rejected" the "Word" (which, supposedly, was clearly laid out to them by people that believe what Mike does). In essence, it is a philosophical sleight-of-hand used to absolve "God" of being anything less than "Love".

Don't forget, I was raised on this garbage myself. 

I was simply reiterating _my_ point that what I said was explicitly what I meant, and that there was no confusion of terminology or semantics whatsoever. And, also, because I don't buy into such hypocritical bovine feces for one second.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 30, 2005)

Kane in bold:

*By the way what to you is progress Flatlander? I really hate it when libs bring up that they are that there way is the only progressive way. Progress to a lib is defined as progress that belongs in liberal philosophy. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to most of the population or not, it must be liberal*


Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.

Liberlism isn't monolithic.  We liberals don't always agree on certain topics.  I am about as liberal as anyone can get here on MT, yet I'm pro-gun.  Let's look at some definitions gleaned from the web on what a liberal is in order to illuminate you:


# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

# having political or social views favoring reform and progress

# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

# big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

# a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

# free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" 


Note that the second from last is often rejected by many liberals, and is often allied with conservative viewpoints.  That might be considered classic liberalism.

Some identifying as liberals are often quite intolerant of other's opinions, which goes against the spirit of liberalism as defined above.  Liberals are often as intolerant of, say for example, pornography--yet the motivations for being so intolerant are usually for far different reasons than the conservative's.  


Now for a definition of conservative, again from the net:

# resistant to change

# opposed to liberal reforms

# cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

# button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek

# a person who has conservative ideas or opinions

# bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality" 


Many liberals, however, are very resistant to change, embracing a reactionary (if not ludditic)  stance to technology and yearning for an idyllic pastoral society that never existed.  Conservatives also fit this mold, but their vision of that "long lost society" and its values is far different.


Once past all the stereotypes, I tend to prefer the general definitions of a liberal.  Being a liberal seems much more exciting.  Conservativism, though also stereotyped at times, seems when all is said and done to be rather boring.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to burn incense on my shrine to Noam Chomsky, and then go subvert the values of traditional American society. 

Flatlander?  Have you shipped those fourteen crates of "The Communist Manifesto" I asked you to send from Canada?  The Che Guevara posters were a big hit, and all the children down here are now wearing little berets and pumping their fists in the air shouting "Viva la Revolucion!"

Ah...brings joy to my heart...if not tears to my eyes.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

Was the Bible written in English? Now I am just confused.....


Oh, Upnorth, I wuddn't implyin'g that.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.


You see Kane, you have to define every word you use for others to follow along. Could you please make every word you type into a hyperlink to HHJH's favorite online dictionary? It's somewhere near MSN's Slate page.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) I'm with upnorthkyosa on polygamy. The "guilt by association" arguments just don't do it for me.


I wasn't taking a stance on the matter. That is my understanding of why it's illegal, plus any religious reasons.



> 3) Sorry, domestic abuse doesn't fit my stance. I repeat, "something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults [...] and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else". Physically abusing or assaulting someone certainly falls into the category of violating the legal rights of another person.


I gathered by the "else" in "anyone else" that you meant anyone outside the pair (or more) of adults involved. Perhaps it would be clearer without the "else" part.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Oh, Upnorth, I wuddn't implyin'g that.


Pardon me, then, for my assumption.  However, I think that others might have implied that...


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Pardon me, then, for my assumption. However, I think that others might have implied that...


It's alright. I did get a chuckle out of it - I used to work in the manufacturing industry.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Twice in one post you've stereotyped liberals without fully defining what one is.



Personally, I prefer the definition of "liberalism" outlined independently by Ken Wilber and Cornell West (as well as being later adopted by others). Namely, a "liberal" is one who tends to see both the causes and solutions to human suffering to be primarily _external_.

In other words, if any given person is "poor", the liberal argues, it is most likely due to unfair and inequal distributions of material-economic channels for opportunity and success. Therefore, the liberal argues, we must address the problem of "poverty" by adopting programs and policies that address this inequality of material advantage: social security, welfare programs, affirmative action, socialist economic systems, or others all being perfectly valid examples (although not all "liberals" necessarily believe any or all of these is a practical or necessary solution).

This definition applies to the whole spectrum of the Left --- from Rousseau to Marx to Paine to Jefferson to Chomsky to Gore to Biden.

In any event, its a certainly more valid definition than "America-haters" or atheists" or "moral relativists".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Was the Bible written in English? Now I am just confused.....



The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the _Septugaint_. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.

The language the Bible was written in is irrelevant to this context, however, as I was specifically addressing the semantical content of wording you attempted to correct me on. Both my statements and yours were in English.

In any event, what the Bible does or does not say or what language it was or was not written in is rather secondary to "Christianity" as a whole --- at least as it exists today. The religion has a history, tradition, and set of rituals quite independent of any one literary source. 

This, of course, is upsetting to most Biblical literalists --- but nonetheless its the truth.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> You see Kane, you have to define every word you use for others to follow along. Could you please make every word you type into a hyperlink to HHJH's favorite online dictionary? It's somewhere near MSN's Slate page.



Logical Fallacy: Straw Man


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the _Septugaint_. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.
> 
> The language the Bible was written in is irrelevant to this context, however, as I was specifically addressing the semantical content of wording you attempted to correct me on. Both my statements and yours were in English.
> 
> ...


OK. I was under the assumption you actually made a statement, something like:



> Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him,


and that the quoted words were from some original text.

Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I wasn't taking a stance on the matter. That is my understanding of why it's illegal, plus any religious reasons.



My take is that polygamy's current legal status is based _almost completely_ on religious objections --- even if those doing the objecting aren't religious themselves. Anything else attached to it is really just a smokescreen for this underlying central objection.

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up the objections against same-sex marriage, too.




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I gathered by the "else" in "anyone else" that you meant anyone outside the pair (or more) of adults involved. Perhaps it would be clearer without the "else" part.



My apologies if I wasn't clear enough on my original post. 

Laterz.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Logical Fallacy: Straw Man


I must have forgot my [SARCASM] tags. Woopsies.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> and that the quoted words were from some original text.



The "original text", in this instance, would be apologist arguments defending what typically passes for "Christianity" that I have personally encountered in my own experiences. A perfect example being Pascal's Wager.

I was not necessarily drawing from the Bible in that context (which itself is open to a myriad of interpretations).



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Thank you for clarifying.



No problem.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I must have forgot my [SARCASM] tags. Woopsies.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

Anonymous Coward said:
			
		

> your tolerance for other's opinions is staggering



Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally _intolerant_ philosophies?? 

Sorry. Ain't buyin' it. For exactly the same reasons I don't buy into the hypocrisy that is "moral relativism" --- I don't think the philosophies espoused by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan should be invited to the International Tolerance Meeting.

But, hey, that's just me.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 30, 2005)

*** Edited ***


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 30, 2005)

*Marijuana users exist in Denmark and the US. Amsterdam has legalized marijuana, should we do the same? Thats a bit more marginal these days, so what if Amsterdam legalizes harder drugs? We have users here and there, thats a human behavior. What I -don't- want is our laws dependant on laws of other countries. Looking at the stats could prove interesting though.*


Exactly...looking at the stats CAN be interesting.  These countries become test cases for social engineering policies.  So far, marijuana hasn't had a deleterious effect on Dutch society.  Gay marriage hasn't had a negative effect on Danish society. 

Insofar as our laws being "dependent" on laws from other countries...that's been an American tradition for some time.  English common law was the structure by which we formed our own judicial system.  The whole notion of democracy as conceived by the Founding fathers was largely taken from the ideals of the European Enlightenment.  

Cultural cross pollination is standard fare insofar as Europe and the U.S. are concerned.  The Victorian age was born in England and much of its impact was transferred to the United States.  The tide goes both ways, and our industries and culture have influenced British and continental European culture to no small extent.

I note how in other threads people were quick to give northern European society the credit for the advancement of civilization...and yet some seem to want to back away from the thought of there being any merit to Europe's potential positive  influence on American culture.  What would that be?  Amero-centrism?  

Sort of the reverse of French arrogance, but without the really good wine.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I can always judge an act or a course of action and decide that it's not for me.



Certainly. But, not for one second can you posture that your personal judgement is "God's Will". This is _precisely_ what many of the religious authorities objecting to same-sex marriage are doing, as if they have a direct pipeline to "God" and know "he" is thinking about the whole situation.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> According to my understanding of the OT/NT and Koran, condemning and punishing are jobs given to societies {and guidelines were given in those writings}.



According to my understanding of the Bible:

"The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Societies still have the task of defining acceptable behavior and the reward/punishment of compliant/deviant behavior.



Sure. But, like individuals, societies can't go ahead and proclaim that their judgements is what "God" wants.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Like Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, etc?  No, wait, they were prophets called by God to act.



In all historical likelihood, none of those men ever existed in the first place.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Now that you're grown and can think for yourself you can toss it out.



Actually, I gotta go with the _Kalama Sutra_ on this one:

"Do not believe in anything because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agree with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> [I note how in other threads people were quick to give northern European society the credit for the advancement of civilization...and yet some seem to want to back away from the thought of there being any merit to Europe's potential positive influence on American culture.  What would that be?  Amero-centrism?



Jingoism. 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Certainly. But, not for one second can you posture that your personal judgement is "God's Will".


I could say that I am aligning my personal judgements with "God's Will." I can also say that I have not been given the responsibility of enforcing God's Will upon the general public...in fact I believe: "that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:39-41)

I still vote as I belive to be right; and my religious beliefs _influence_ what I believe to be right.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure. But, like individuals, societies can't go ahead and proclaim that their judgements is what "God" wants.


Right or wrong, Societies have done so and will continue to do so. Ethics is a pretty tough and deep thing with or without a god to fall back on.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In all historical likelihood, none of those men ever existed in the first place.


If the semite people are inter-related (Hebrew and Arab) then they probably had a common ancestor...let's identifiy him as "z" or Abraham. Those of Hebrew descent are probably more closely related to each other and have a later, common anscestor; let's call him "Jacob" for convenience.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, I gotta go with the _Kalama Sutra_ on this one:...


 That reminds me of the question "What's the first thing you know?"


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I could say that I am aligning my personal judgements with "God's Will."



You could, but then a passive observer could simply note that to be "wishful thinking".

You can align your personal judgement with what you _think_ your religious tradition espouses. But, you have no friggin' clue what is or is not "God's Will".



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I still vote as I belive to be right; and my religious beliefs _influence_ what I believe to be right.



Sure, but that's a whole 'nother animal than "I know God's Will --- and he hates fags!"



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Right or wrong, Societies have done so and will continue to do so. Ethics is a pretty tough and deep thing with or without a god to fall back on.



Tough or not, ethics is important.

Once you start proclaiming that "God" has personal opinions about life and, furtheremore, only a select group of people knows what they are --- you're just asking for trouble. History is testament to that.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> If the semite people are inter-related (Hebrew and Arab) then they probably had a common ancestor...let's identifiy him as "z" or Abraham. Those of Hebrew descent are probably more closely related to each other and have a later, common anscestor; let's call him "Jacob" for convenience.



The historical likelihood of the Semitic peoples, or even the Hebrews alone, descending from a single common ancestor is extremely unlikely. The historical likelihood of this ancestor being a prophet or visionary even less so.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 30, 2005)

I've probably gotten us off topic.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, you have no friggin' clue what is or is not "God's Will".


Only what He's told me.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Once you start proclaiming that "God" has personal opinions about life...


Yikes, that exactly what I believe.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The historical likelihood of the Semitic peoples, or even the Hebrews alone, descending from a single common ancestor is extremely unlikely.


Don't you believe that all humans evolved from a common ancestor. Why not groups of people coming from a common ancestor, sure there may be intermixing along the way, but it's gotta be a tenable concept.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The historical likelihood of this ancestor being a prophet


Because you don't believe in prophets..


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> or visionary even less so.


Would you call the founding fathers "visionaries" and do they have offspring that look to their common ancestor?


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the end, I think that this point is probably the best thing the government can do.  Civil unions for people who want to enter into them.  Leave marriage to the churches.  When the government puts its stamp on a "type" of marriage outlined by a particular religion, that is a tacit support of that religion over others faiths.  It is a crossing of the line between church and state and is, ultimately, unconstitutional.  If all couples applied to the government for civil union licenses, a powerful message is being sent and it supports everything our country stands for.




But you have it wrong. The State does not regognize ANY religious marriages. The State simply empowers clergy to act as an agent of the State to perform the civil marriage contract. That's why if you go to city hall to get a civil marriage, on the list of people available to perform the ceremony are JPs and clergy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> But you have it wrong. The State does not regognize ANY religious marriages. The State simply empowers clergy to act as an agent of the State to perform the civil marriage contract. That's why if you go to city hall to get a civil marriage, on the list of people available to perform the ceremony are JPs and clergy.


Which clergy does the state employ?  My church, which is allows the marriage of homosexuals, is not on their list.  This is tantamount to the state favoring a certain religion...which is unconstitutional.  The point regarding civil unions for all is the most constitutional option.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally _intolerant_ philosophies??


 S'okay.  I'm biased for starting this thread.  Prolly the same "Anonymous" Rep Dinger. 

 LOL.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Which clergy does the state employ? My church, which is allows the marriage of homosexuals, is not on their list. This is tantamount to the state favoring a certain religion...which is unconstitutional. The point regarding civil unions for all is the most constitutional option.


 No no... not employ... he said Empower... and I think what he actually means is "Recognizes and allows"... but that old phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of blah blah"

 Cuz in most states you cant just go "Whee I am a priest" and then you can perform marriages... the state has to recognize you as such first.  As an ordained minister, I have to know these things. (Thanks Universal Life Church!)


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> No no... not employ... he said Empower... and I think what he actually means is "Recognizes and allows"... but that old phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of blah blah"
> 
> Cuz in most states you cant just go "Whee I am a priest" and then you can perform marriages... the state has to recognize you as such first. As an ordained minister, I have to know these things. (Thanks Universal Life Church!)


Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed?  Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed? Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?


 Good question. Would the state disallowing a clergy to do a wedding for a religious person be restrictive of their right to a religious ceremony? 

 7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

I'm reminded of the history of trying to restrict the religious use of peyote!

As an aside, I note that partner benefits in industry are becoming more and more common...another sign that this is an idea whose time has come. Often industry must do it to attract the people it needs, but sometimes it's a moral stance a company takes.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 30, 2005)

I dont have a major opinion one way or the other on this issue, but it does get to me when people argue against a point they they incorrectly quote. If your desire for your agenda overshadows your truth, the argument becomes trite. All I'm asking is that intellegent debate be grounded on actual truth. If would be so refreshing if someone actually understood the other sides beliefs and could coherently argue them as so. A few examples of my point:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him


 Nowhere in the bible does it say hell was created for his children or any human for that matter. For someone who grew up with this "garbage" you seem to quote it quite incorrectly. 





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the _Septugaint_. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.


 Actually the Christian bible was written first in Hebrew (old testament) and then in greek (new testament). To say it deviates in many ways from its original material, one must be willing to know and understand the original material.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The religion has a history, tradition, and set of rituals quite independent of any one literary source.


 As someone in this thread defined liberals, you can define Christians. No two Christians believe the same thing. Christianity isnt monolithic. The definition for Christian in the dictionary is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Thats pretty broad. What history, traditions, or rituals would Christianity have that are independent of any one literary source?





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally _intolerant_ philosophies??
> 
> Sorry. Ain't buyin' it. For exactly the same reasons I don't buy into the hypocrisy that is "moral relativism" --- I don't think the philosophies espoused by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan should be invited to the International Tolerance Meeting.


 If your not are you actually being tolerant? Tolerance is not something that can be chosen by the topic. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan have absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Pulling out the wakos on either side doesnt make ones point more valid.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> According to my understanding of the Bible:
> 
> "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".


 
 I assume this is a direct quote from somewhere? Whats its relevance and what are you trying to say with it? Oh, and where is it from?





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure, but that's a whole 'nother animal than "I know God's Will --- and he hates fags!"


 I haven't seen that posted yet on this thread. If you can't make your point without putting words in others mouths, its not a strong argument.

 7sm


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed?  Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?



Clergy of religions they regognizes. And I'm not sure what the criteria are. But here goes anyway:

The Civil rights Act of 1964 states "To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held, and within the believer's own scheme of things religious." (USCA Const. Amend 1: Civil Rights Act 1964 701 et seq., 717 as amended 42 USCA 2000-16)


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally _intolerant_ philosophies??


 Yeah, it's a great way to really annoy them.

 Think about it, they are so bent on enforcing there singular point of view, you just look them in the eye and say "Yeah, well, you're free to believe whatever you like, I'm not gonna argue."

 And basically your telling them that there beliefs are no better then anyone elses, no matter how silly.

 Intolerent people are usually also very intollerant of tollerance


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 1, 2005)

Goodness.  Vermont will have legalized civil unions as of today:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/30/national/a012248D93.DTL&feed=rss.news


I have to comment on this one by 7starmantis:

_Nowhere in the bible does it say hell was created for his children or any human for that matter. For someone who grew up with this "garbage" you seem to quote it quite incorrectly._ 


Well, then...let's READ THE BIBLE:

_Deu 32:19  And when the LORD saw [it], he abhorred [them], because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Deu 32:20	And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith.

Deu 32:21	They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

Deu 32:22	For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Deu 32:23	I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

Deu 32:24	[They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

Deu 32:25	The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling [also] with the man of gray hairs.

Deu 32:26	I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men..._


That's just for starters.  There is far more to support Heretic's statement both in the Old Testament and the New.  Distance yourself from that Old Testament God of wrath and you'll come close to embracing Marcionism...and that is heresy.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2005)

I am a Unitarian Universalist and my "religion" will marry people including homosexuals.  The state empowers UU's clergy to grant rights to heterosexuals.  The state does not empower UU's clergy to grant rights associated with marriage to these couples.  However, I grew up Catholic and all marriages of the Catholic faith were recognized.  Thus, it can be said that the government favors Catholics over UU because only the parts of UU faith that dovetail with Catholicism are recognized by the state.  This favoritism is clearly unconstitutional.  The state must recognize all marriages done performed by my church or it shows a clear bias toward one type of religion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 1, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have to comment on this one by 7starmantis:
> 
> _Nowhere in the bible does it say hell was created for his children or any human for that matter. For someone who grew up with this "garbage" you seem to quote it quite incorrectly._
> 
> ...


 Lol, I have read the Bible. I spent most of my younger years forced to memorize most books (not chapters) of the bible in Hebrew and Greek. I know the Bible better than most I know, thats why I find it sad when people misquote it to make their point. I dont mind if someone calls the Bible bovine feces, just at least know what the Bible says if your going to have that opinion about it.

   See, you just quoted alot of scripture that makes my point. Nowhere in the Bible does it say hell was *created *for humans at all. You missed my point. I didn't say the Bible doesn't say humans are going to hell, but that hell was not created for humans. Please read my post more carefully. 

   Oh and by the way, your passage is not talking about hell, just FYI.

 See, I dont neccessarily disagree with some of the points made here, its just sad that they are so thin. If I can break them apart by simply correcting their false statements, the point holds no merrit.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Distance yourself from that Old Testament God of wrath and you'll come close to embracing Marcionism...and that is heresy.


 Most true christians do "distance" themselves from the Old Testament....I mean how many do you know that eat pork or work on sunday?

   7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2005)

Interesting, you said this...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Most true christians do "distance" themselves from the Old Testament.


And earlier you said this...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> If your not are you actually being tolerant? Tolerance is not something that can be chosen by the topic.


Could making a point about tolerance in one post and talking about "true" christians in another be construed as a contradiction?

Why bring this up?  

I think that it outlines why church and state need to be strictly separated.  People talk about tolerance, but they cannot hide their inherit bias for long.  Protecting the rights of the minority religions is important and our constitution demands it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> See, you just quoted alot of scripture that makes my point. Nowhere in the Bible does it say hell was *created *for humans at all. You missed my point. I didn't say the Bible doesn't say humans are going to hell, but that hell was not created for humans. Please read my post more carefully.
> 
> Oh and by the way, your passage is not talking about hell, just FYI.




Oh, please.  It says "Hell".  It specifically refers to it.  The Church fathers referred to this and other passages in trying to determine whether infants who died before baptism actually fried or not.

You can accept any pop apologetics you like in justifying your stance, I suppose...but stop with the "you don't know how to interpret the Bible" crap.  I don't need a priest or an evangelical to interpret it for me.  

I've read the damned thing cover to cover, every chapter, every word...with the exception of the Catholic apocrypha.  Any dance around the issue of God's damnation of those that disagree with him is a real stretch...and is nothing more than "salad bar Christianity."  You're taking the parts you like and leaving the rest.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 1, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Any dance around the issue of God's damnation of those that disagree with him is a real stretch...and is nothing more than "salad bar Christianity." You're taking the parts you like and leaving the rest.


 The day has come where I disagree with HHJH - meh ... how sticky.

 Steve, 

 First I have to agree that many, many christians do tend to ignore the Old Testament much to their disadvantage of understanding not only that which they have faith in, but the very nature of religion itself.

 In my humble opinion, passages such as the ones you quoted were created to induce a very controlling element in people - fear.  We must FEAR God, we must FEAR his wrath, we must FEAR retribution and eternal damnation ... He is a jealous God and His wrath is great, etcetera, etcetera.  Why would any being superior to us in every way NEED for us to fear Him?  I tend to think such nasty passages were created by man inspired by God rather than the words of the Spirit.  The Bible was written in an environment where church and state were one and religion was the tool the state used to control the people as though they were sheep (not much has changed, eh?) so it makes sense for MEN to feel the need for other MEN to fear a supreme being and His retribution - it's cheap law enforcment, really.

 And then came the Son to clarify His message and that message was quite clear - treat everyone else the way you yourself would want to be treated, that there is room in heaven for all of God's children once they accept Him into their hearts and feel truly remorseful for being the wretched beings they are.

 So ... before I continue, could you please cite New Testament references of Hell?  And I think Revations speak mostly of death, but ... please, offer up.

 Thanks.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 1, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Oh, please.  It says "Hell".  It specifically refers to it.
> 
> Steve


 However it referres to hell as a place that the fires of his wrath will burn to... 

 That scripture MENTIONS Hell, but is not about hell, anymore than if I write about my trip to las vegas and state that I stoped off at the airport in Dallas to change planes my writing would be about Dallas.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> So ... before I continue, could you please cite New Testament references of Hell? And I think Revations speak mostly of death, but ... please, offer up.





> But I say unto you, that whosoeer is angry with his brother wihout cause shall be in judgement: and whosoever say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. _Matthew 5:22_


There is another good one in Paul's letters...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 1, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The day has come where I disagree with HHJH - meh ... how sticky.



Quite allright, SS.  The variance of opinion is such in life that among 6 billion of us, total accord isn't possible.  



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> And then came the Son to clarify His message and that message was quite clear - treat everyone else the way you yourself would want to be treated, that there is room in heaven for all of God's children once they accept Him into their hearts and feel truly remorseful for being the wretched beings they are.



Understood...and while the "Golden Rule" is a wonderful code to live by,  standard Christian doctrine that was hammered out for about 1,400 years following the crucifixion also calls very specifically for damnation for anyone who either doesn't accept or believe in Jesus, or who pays lip service to the faith but don't live true to its teachings.

Marcion, one of the church fathers, couldn't reconcile the OT and NT, and thus postulated that there were TWO Gods.  One of the OT, one of the NT.  This was deemed heresy.  Scholar Bart Ehrman mentions how many contemporary Christians approach Marcionism unwittingly in refusing to recognize that THEIR God actually committed the atrocities of the Old Testament.  He had a good point, and one many dogmatic Christians would agree with.  Fundamentalists are often more than happy to own those atrocities.

This is an argument I've had with some of my closest friends who are liberal and Christian. While I agree that the OT laws were written to inspire fear, I can not divorce the OT and NT, just as a Fundamentalist can't.  The two are glued to the same binding, and Jesus stated very clearly that he came to affirm the laws of Moses (in Matthew 5:17).



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> So ... before I continue, could you please cite New Testament references of Hell?  And I think Revelations speak mostly of death, but ... please, offer up.



Youre correct on your reference to Revelations, but read on and you'll see some references from the Gospels and Epistles.  I don't think Revelation ought to be excluded, so I'll list it as well.  I'll list references to Hell, damnation, the lake of fire, and passages referring to "the outer darkness."

Reference the passages themselves for their author, and you'll note that Jesus himself is often the one mentioning damnation:

_Revelations 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 

Revelations 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. 

Revelations 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. _



Here are references from other New Testament sources:

_Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. 

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. 

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 

Matthew11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 

Matthew 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 

Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 

Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 

Luke 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. 

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 

James 3:6 And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. 

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; _



References in the NT about the Lake of Fire.   Now we see that Hell and the lake of fire are separate, but we can still see theyre both places of unendurable torment, alike in that respect for what we're talking about.



_Revelations 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 

Revelations 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

Revelations 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 

Revelations 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 

Revelations 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth._


From Paul we have a burning in Hell reference, or burning in the lake of fire...hard to tell which...but a sad thing to hear from the man who wrote the homily of love:


_1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. _


Now for damnation:

_Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 

Matthew 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 

Mark 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. 

Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. 

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 

Romans 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 

Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 

1 Timothy 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 

2 Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. _

John the Baptist says this of Jesus:

_Matthew 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.  _

Jesus confirms this several passages later (Matthew 13:30) in a parable.  

We find this also in Luke 3:17--  

_Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth._


Georgia, if I come on strong about this its because I rankle when respected writers such as C.S. Lewis, mainstream evangelicals, and people I know and break bread with all tell me that I am to burn for an eternity for my lack of faith.  They tell me that students of mine who are Gay face the same torment for their "sin."  They then tell me that their Lord is a God of love.  

I can not seem to accept that anyone should burn for an eternity for "original sin," much less the sins of a finite life.  Nor, for that matter, loving someone.

There is scripture to back it, though.  I for one can't dance around it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 2, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Interesting, you said this...
> 
> 
> And earlier you said this...
> ...


 Tolerance and the observation of a publically understood meaning of a group of people are compatible. The use of a word like "true" christianity isn't showing intolerance but just a understanding of the many different bodies of "christians" You shouldn't take semantics so seriously....By "true" I meant those who follow the teachings of the bible, all of it....thats it.

 Dont make the mistake of assuming my bias either, just because I have read the bible through many times in english, hebrew, and greek, doesn't mean you can judge my bias. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Oh, please. It says "Hell". It specifically refers to it. The Church fathers referred to this and other passages in trying to determine whether infants who died before baptism actually fried or not.


 So any use of the word hell is refering to "the lake of fire"? 
  Hell, I didn't know that....I guess when I got in that wreck several years back, my arm actually hurt like the lake of fire.

  What fathers of what church?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You can accept any pop apologetics you like in justifying your stance, I suppose...but stop with the "you don't know how to interpret the Bible" crap. I don't need a priest or an evangelical to interpret it for me.


 Tell you what, you stop with the "I know your bias and can now put words in your mouth.
 See, I didn't say anything about anyone not knowing how to interpret the bible, I dont get into the interpretation argument. I'm niether a priest or an evangelical. But nice try at diverting my true point. (oh, I guess using that term "true" point is a bit intolerant)



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I've read the damned thing cover to cover, every chapter, every word...with the exception of the Catholic apocrypha. Any dance around the issue of God's damnation of those that disagree with him is a real stretch...and is nothing more than "salad bar Christianity." You're taking the parts you like and leaving the rest.


 Congradulations....many have read the bible through, as I have myself. Again, your attempting to make my argument a dance around the damnation of people...not what I said. To go back to my original statement, my only point is that if your going to argue the bible as bovine feces, at least quote it correctly and in context. 

 My very point is against people taking a part they like and leaving the rest, your not understanding me. You can't take one scripture quote it as anything, you have to understand the context. 

 7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 2, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Georgia, if I come on strong about this its because I rankle when respected writers such as C.S. Lewis, mainstream evangelicals, and people I know and break bread with all tell me that I am to burn for an eternity for my lack of faith. They tell me that students of mine who are Gay face the same torment for their "sin." They then tell me that their Lord is a God of love.


 I had to respond to this as well. If those people are telling you that they may need to re-read the bible themselves. If the gay student of yours is goign to burn so is the person having sex outside of marriage, or even the person speeding in the car. Those are the ones who think a Christian must be perfect...they forget that no one is perfect and sinning does not make you "unsaved" at least according to their own bible.

 7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I had to respond to this as well. If those people are telling you that they may need to re-read the bible themselves. If the gay student of yours is goign to burn so is the person having sex outside of marriage, or even the person speeding in the car. Those are the ones who think a Christian must be perfect...they forget that no one is perfect and sinning does not make you "unsaved" at least according to their own bible.
> 
> 7sm




I agree that they ought to READ (much less re-read) the Bible in the first place, rather than merely quoting those passages they find appealing...such as the ever popular John 3:16.  An evangelical with 25 years experience in the ministry once tried to tell me that John the Baptist was the author of the Gospel of John...even a casual reading of the Gospels pretty much makes it clear that is an impossibility.  I was stunned.

These Christians I mentioned don't expect Christians to be perfect...not at all.  They're very quick to point out that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  That said, they're even quicker to point out another's sin, ignoring the admonitions of Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount.  

We could debate the issues of the Bible and the notion of sin to death if we like.  Its somewhat OT, and has been hashed out elsewhere.  

What church?  What fathers?  If you're a Christian, your church.  I'm talking about Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Polycarp, Athanasius...and all the others who essentially shaped Christianity in its first five hundred years.  Perhaps you subcribe to one of those rare heresies they attempted to stamp out?  

As for the context of scripture, I provided reference for each passage so that people can read it for themselves.  I've had many attempt to provide a "context" for me that was not a context at all, but an interpretation.  I can read it for myself as well, and can place the context myself.  As for the standard Christian interpretation of scripture, I'm familiar with it as well.

Back to the topic of Gays, 7Star...do they burn or not?  Just what happens to the sodomites once they die?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Marginal (Oct 2, 2005)

Yes, who are the true Christians?


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What church? What fathers? If you're a Christian, your church. I'm talking about Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Polycarp, Athanasius...and all the others who essentially shaped Christianity in its first five hundred years. Perhaps you subcribe to one of those rare heresies they attempted to stamp out?


 Maybe I do, but the term christian doesn't neccessarily include only people who recognize Clement of Rome, Eusebius, or Polycarp as "fathers" of their faith. I dont subscribe to the "shaping christianity" argument anymore than I agree with the "shaping martial arts" argument. Christianity is a group of people who disagree with each other more frequently and adamantly than probably any other group of people. Yet, everyone still tries to lump them together in one box.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for the context of scripture, I provided reference for each passage so that people can read it for themselves. I've had many attempt to provide a "context" for me that was not a context at all, but an interpretation. I can read it for myself as well, and can place the context myself. As for the standard Christian interpretation of scripture, I'm familiar with it as well.


 Refrence is not context. Context is not taken from just one passage either. Most people refer to their interpretation as context, but they are wrong. What I'm talking about is true context and that requires also studying supporting and abosing scriptures. I dont believe there is any one standard interpretation of scripture. On a side note, this would be an interesting debate...been done I know, but still interesting.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Back to the topic of Gays, 7Star...do they burn or not? Just what happens to the sodomites once they die?


 Well, if were talking about the bibles view then they burn just as much as someone who has told a lie. Do liers burn? See, according to the bible its not about what you have done in your life, but what you have not done. Aside from wacko interpretation of the bible, it says that anyone; gay, mass murderer, suicide, rape, anything, can be saved. So the question of "Do they burn" is really a question of do they believe, not do they have a sexual prefrence of the same sex. 

   Thats what the bible says, so I guess if you believe the bible then the answer would be: It Depends.

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats what the bible says, so I guess if you believe the bible then the answer would be: It Depends.
> 
> 7sm




Man.  I haven't seen movement like that since Chris Byrd was at the top of his boxing game.

Thanks for the link, Marginal.  There is a simply WONDERFUL Jack Chick commentary that relates to this topic there:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Man.  I haven't seen movement like that since Chris Byrd was at the top of his boxing game.


  And you just completely missed my point. You took one sentence and ignored the _context_. My point was that there is no defined answer about "Do gays go to hell". According to the bible it isn't a person's lifestyle that sends them. To answer that question with a yes or no would be to lump into one box or label the entire gay community....I doubt thats a reasonable response. A gay person can go to "heaven" or "hell" according to the bible, so your asking the wrong questions. 

  Also, I posted quite openly that I dont have an opinion on this topic, twice (this makes three times) I believe.

  7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

What about the sin of thread-jacking? 

Maybe this "Hell" subject deserves another thread so this one can return to the gay marriage issue!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What about the sin of thread-jacking?
> 
> Maybe this "Hell" subject deserves another thread so this one can return to the gay marriage issue!




Okay.

Jeff, will you marry me?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Jeff, will you marry me?


If only it were legal, Steve...if only it were legal.

Wouldn't we both be bigamists then too? I hope our wives would get along.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The arguments for and against alcohol apply to marijuana, but one is legal and the other isn't. I don't see your point. Polygamy is different--that's why we have a different word for it.


Also, I want to know how a matter of who you have sex with becomes a matter of a minority status.[/QUOTE]It doesn't. As you say, it's an activity; many otherwise heterosexual men do it in prison, for example.

But sexual orientation is largely inborn, or at least set at a very young age, and that's the minority status point.[/QUOTE] 

You're right, the same arguments do apply.  However, don't think that these arguments won't be brought up to justify polygamy.  They will be, and in this era, will probably become legal.  Just as marijuana will probably shortly be legallized, as it somewhat is in some states (ie. medical marijuana).

If you want to consider that man is simply an animal, then there is no other species on earth that has homosexual orientation.  That is not to say that there aren't male that have sex with other male in interspecies relationships. However, there is no other animal group that has *EXCLUSIVELLY *homosexual sex.  So I question the fact that it is an inborn train among humans.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

Well, quite a few human homosexuals are biological parents.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A few points:
> 
> 6) I'm still wondering if those opposing equal legal rights to homosexual citizens have ever bothered to do the hypothetical scenario I outlined in my last post. What if roles were switched, and it was heterosexuality being discriminated against?? Would it still be about retaining the "moral fiber" of the nation, then??
> 
> Laterz.


If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical.  In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality. And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.

On the other hand, that is kinda the point.  Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc.  It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children.  Men and men can't have children together.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical. In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality. And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.
> 
> On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children. Men and men can't have children together.


I don't *hope* this, but I think the time will come when that will no longer be the case. Cloning will eventually happen. Anyone know if surrogate mothers are taking homosexual couples gametes and a selected donor?

Overall though, I agree. I wonder if its historical purpose will be eroded by technology. I'm all for technology, just hope it never comes to this point.

MrH


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, quite a few human homosexuals are biological parents.


And they were either never married to a *female*, or left/divorce/etc. their *female *wife.  So the breakdown of the marriage goes only to further prove the instability of the family structure that marriage was supposed to protect.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What about the sin of thread-jacking?
> 
> Maybe this "Hell" subject deserves another thread so this one can return to the gay marriage issue!



Yup.

Other discussion continued here.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> If that were the case, there would be no human race to speak of, so the argument is nonscensical.  In order to make an argument, one has to stay in the realm of reality.



Sure, but my argument is hardly 'nonsensical'.

In the aforementioned hypothetical world, any number of tools could be implemented to ensure the continuation of the human species --- human cloning, artificial insemination, mandatory programs requiring heterosexual men to have intercourse with a set number of female 'donors', etc. As such, your critique of my scenario being 'nonsensical' is nothing short of fallacious reasoning.

In fact, there is at least one real-life human culture in which heterosexual intercourse is socially permitted only a few days out of the year (homosexual intercourse, by contrast, being permitted throughout the year). In one Central American society I once read about, virtually all men in the culture are expected to turn 'gay' after reaching middle-age. Human cultures are hardly uniform in their treatment of sexual aberration.

As such, the moral question still remains: what would happen if the tables were turned and _you_ were the one being actively and legally discriminated against on the basis of your sexual orientation??



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> And sometimes we have to avoid worrying about how some people may FEEL in order to come to a realistic alternative.



This has little to do with sympathy, as opposed to actively engaging in post-conventional moral reasoning. 

It has to do with a moral willingness to put yourself in the Other's eyes, to see the world as he or she might see it. It has to do with using formal inductive reasoning to imagine hypothetical scenarios in order to approximate principles and values that attempt to provide justice and fairness to _everyone_ --- not just persons of a particular faith, race, gender, nationality, or sexual preference. It has to do with actually embracing and living up to the Golden Rule (a commonly held belief in virtually every world religion I can think of), without exception.

Its really very, very, very simple: if your roles were reversed, how would _you_ wish to be treated?? How would you request that others would "do unto you"??



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> On the other hand, that is kinda the point.  Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc.  It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children.  Men and men can't have children together.



Um, uh... ok.

Are you somehow suggesting only married couples procreate?? That's, um, news to me...

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> On the other hand, that is kinda the point. Only a man and woman can make a child. Marriage is not just there to say tax breaks, property rights, etc. It's main function has always been about reproduction and the rearing and protection of children.


Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.




> Men and men can't have children together.


Soon this will probably be no longer true. Will that change things?

Since we allow infertile people to marry, this argument seems weak to me. Would you deny a 75 year old woman the right to marry because she cannot have children? If not, then why two men?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2005)

As to the question of "homosexuality" in other animals...

The Bonobo, for one, has well documented same sex sexual behavior.


> Sex: Bonobos live a relatively peaceful life compared to chimpanzees. This is due largely to the fact that female bonobos are eight times more available to males for mating and there are equal numbers of females to mature males so there is less fighting for mating rights. Sex is an important way to ensure group stability and ease tensions. *Bonobos substitute sex for aggression, and sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Reduced male aggression, strong bonds between males and females, and frequent sex (including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize bonobo society. *However, the rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of chimpanzees (a single infant is born every five to six years) beginning at age 12.


Where humans use martial arts, bonobos use sex...including gay sex...to deal with aggression.  Maybe they are on to something...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 3, 2005)

> Sure, but my argument is hardly 'nonsensical'.
> 
> In the aforementioned hypothetical world, any number of tools could be implemented to ensure the continuation of the human species --- human cloning, artificial insemination, mandatory programs requiring heterosexual men to have intercourse with a set number of female 'donors', etc. As such, your critique of my scenario being 'nonsensical' is nothing short of fallacious reasoning.
> 
> In fact, there is at least one real-life human culture in which heterosexual intercourse is socially permitted only a few days out of the year (homosexual intercourse, by contrast, being permitted throughout the year). In one Central American society I once read about, virtually all men in the culture are expected to turn 'gay' after reaching middle-age. Human cultures are hardly uniform in their treatment of sexual aberration.


You are essentially agreeing with what I said.  

1. Homosexuallity being inborn.  Just because there is a cultural acceptance, or even proclivity towards, a thing does not mean that a person is inclined to be naturally attracted to a person of the same sex.  In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene.  There are cultural reasons for a lot of things, including infanticide.  Does that mean we should condone that.  I don't say this to compare infanticide to homosexuallity, but about social norms.

2. Modern technology has made many things possible.  But we're not talking about that.  I can kill a thousand people with one bomb...doesn't make it right.




> It has to do with a moral willingness to put yourself in the Other's eyes, to see the world as he or she might see it. It has to do with using formal inductive reasoning to imagine hypothetical scenarios in order to approximate principles and values that attempt to provide justice and fairness to _everyone_ --- not just persons of a particular faith, race, gender, nationality, or sexual preference. It has to do with actually embracing and living up to the Golden Rule (a commonly held belief in virtually every world religion I can think of), without exception.
> 
> Its really very, very, very simple: if your roles were reversed, how would _you_ wish to be treated?? How would you request that others would "do unto you"??


I can relate to this argument, but the hypothetical was still nonsensical.  Or perhaps a better word would be irrelevant.  It's like talking about frogs with glass butts.....

And remember, men are still legally allowed to have homosexual sex.  As long as I could still get some, pardon the crassness, I wouldn't really care.  I can still have a meaningful relationship with a person without government sanction.  The issue we're speaking of is legalizing gay marriage.  Which leads me to...



> Humnas had children for tens of thousands of years without marriage, and continue to do so to this day.


This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.



> Since we allow infertile people to marry, this argument seems weak to me. Would you deny a 75 year old woman the right to marry because she cannot have children? If not, then why two men?


Because we are talking about social norms and the purpose of marriage.  It is normal for a male and female to unite for procreation, this is simply a continuation of the trend, so to speak.  Although admittedly, this is my weakest argument.  But I have much better...   



> Sex: Bonobos live a relatively peaceful life compared to chimpanzees. This is due largely to the fact that female bonobos are eight times more available to males for mating and there are equal numbers of females to mature males so there is less fighting for mating rights. Sex is an important way to ensure group stability and ease tensions. *Bonobos substitute sex for aggression, and sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Reduced male aggression, strong bonds between males and females, and frequent sex (including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize bonobo society. *However, the rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of chimpanzees (a single infant is born every five to six years) beginning at age 12.


Again, are we talking about genetics, or social norms.  As one person stated, heterosexual men have homosexual sex in prison to release tension.  The bonobos are no different. 

All of this takes us away from the main point though, what is marriage all about, and by extension, what is the governments role.

Personally, I think other than issues relating to child care by the parents (ie, child neglect, abuse, etc.) the government should stay out of it.  There should be no tax breaks (I'm a flat tax kinda guy), no child tax credit.  If business choose to give homosexual partners benefits, then so be it (and the government should stay out of those issues, ie. health care).  That's why we have a free-market society.  

But in my argument, that's what marriage is all about, the proper rearing and protection of children.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 3, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> If you want to consider that man is simply an animal, then there is no other species on earth that has homosexual orientation.  That is not to say that there aren't male that have sex with other male in interspecies relationships. However, there is no other animal group that has *EXCLUSIVELLY *homosexual sex.  So I question the fact that it is an inborn train among humans.




Alas, not true.  There are Gay sheep that are exclusively homosexual, of which news brought delight to Gay Scots sheperds everywhere (you know why they wear kilts, don't you?  A sheep can hear a zipper a mile away):

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1061683.htm


Isn't a male sheep a ram?  I'll leave that one alone.  


Apparently there are some Gay penguins, Wendell and Cass:

http://www.rockhawk.com/Gay Animals.htm

Well, Gay men always do look good in tuxes, particularly when they're maitre'd's at posh upscale restaurants.

Here's an interesting study which mentions lesbian Macaques, which provides an interesting...if inapplicable...potential homonym.

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

More Gay penguins!  Bertrand and Charles.  These guys look like little Gay birdie butlers, I bet:

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

Goodness, homosexuality found in 130 species of birds?  I may never be able to eat fried chicken again!

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


And what's this?  A whole book on homosexuality in animals?  

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312192398/102-0485451-4726550?v=glance


When it comes to biological diversity, folks...count on Mother Nature to give you all sorts of surprises.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When it comes to biological diversity, folks...count on Mother Nature to give you all sorts of surprises.


:asian:


----------



## kenposis (Oct 4, 2005)

Marriage is the first step to creating a stable family structure. Men and women have different behaviors, different characteristics, etc, that are present simply because of their genders. I object to gay marriage on religious grounds--the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not condone it. While I realize that very few debates of this nature can be won by stating what I just did, I'm not aiming to win anything, just to give my opinion before my next class and to say that any further discussion questions can be PMed to me. (Teachers don't wait.....)

~Jessica


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

I was looking references like those, *hardheadjarhad*, but couldn't find what I was thinking of through Yahoo!. Thanks!


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> You are essentially agreeing with what I said.



I'm not, actually. 

For one thing, I'm not resorting to an Appeal To Tradition to support my position. I'm trying to back up my position with post-conventional moral reasoning of universalist principles of justice and compassion.

In other words, the Golden Rule.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 1. Homosexuallity being inborn.



Not to be pedantic, but that depends entirely on how you define 'homosexuality' (attraction to the same sex? actual intercourse with the same sex? homoerotic dreams?) and 'inborn' (genetic predisposition? neurological hard-wiring? hormonal chemistry? developmental pattern?).

Without clarifying your definitions, I cannot appropriately state whether 'homosexuality' is 'inborn' or not.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Just because there is a cultural acceptance, or even proclivity towards, a thing does not mean that a person is inclined to be naturally attracted to a person of the same sex.



Now you're just not making any sense.

Please explain to me the difference between 'proclivity towards' homosexual orientation and 'inclined to be attracted to a person of the same sex'. I believe you are collapsing ideas here.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene.



Not to be rude, but your knowledge of biology and of human development in general is obviously lacking.

At no point did anyone ever claim (as far as I can tell) that there was a single 'gay gene'. I should further point out that a structure does not necessarily have to be genetically 'programmed' to be biologically innate or predisposed. There can be concrete neurological differences, differences in hormonal makeup, and developmental abberations that can all account for the existence of homosexual orientation --- none of which necessarily fall back on a genetic explanation. 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> There are cultural reasons for a lot of things, including infanticide.  Does that mean we should condone that.



Exactly what purpose does such a Red Herring argument serve?  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I don't say this to compare infanticide to homosexuallity, but about social norms.



In other words, you're relying on an Appeal To Tradition (i.e., we should do it this way because that's how we've always done it).



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 2. Modern technology has made many things possible.  But we're not talking about that.  I can kill a thousand people with one bomb...doesn't make it right.



Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

Please re-read my posts. At no point did I ever use 'modern technology' to support a moral issue. I was specifically addressing the fallacious critique that my scenario was 'nonsensical' (i.e., impossible), which you have yet to support.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I can relate to this argument, but the hypothetical was still nonsensical.  Or perhaps a better word would be irrelevant.  It's like talking about frogs with glass butts.....



You're just-so arguments aren't going to cut it here. You have yet to demonstrate how my scenario was 'nonsensical', outside of a reliance on a fallacious Appeal To Tradition.

More importantly, you have yet to explain to those of us advocating gay rights why it is morally acceptable to deny equal legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. You have yet to engage in the hypothetical moral paradigm I have clearly outlined for at least two pages now.

Until you start honestly and clearly engaging in post-conventional moral reasoning to support your position, expect to be called on it.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> And remember, men are still legally allowed to have homosexual sex.  As long as I could still get some, pardon the crassness, I wouldn't really care.  I can still have a meaningful relationship with a person without government sanction.



Just so we're keeping things clear, then --- you'd be perfectly okay if the government legally forbade you from marrying a woman?? If they told you, in no uncertain terms, that you don't have the legal right to do so??

If so, great. However, I don't think the same thing can be said for the majority of the population.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> This is true, but for the efficient function in of "civilized" or modern society, that society instituted marriage for the stability of the family.


 
Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

From the link: "a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing".  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Because we are talking about social norms and the purpose of marriage.  It is normal for a male and female to unite for procreation, this is simply a continuation of the trend, so to speak.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Tradition



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Again, are we talking about genetics, or social norms.



You say that as if they are mutually exclusive --- and as if they are the only two factors that influence behavior. They are not.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> All of this takes us away from the main point though, what is marriage all about, and by extension, what is the governments role.



Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> But in my argument, that's what marriage is all about, the proper rearing and protection of children.



This has been a popular condemnation of gay rights by the Religious Right, but it is completely and utterly unsupported by any scientific evidence.

In fact, several studies that I am aware of demonstrate that children raised by gay couples are no less well-adjusted than those raised by straight couples. Furthermore, children raised by gay couples are actually _more_ well-adjusted than those raised by _single_ straight parents.

So, in other words, your fallacious Appeal To Authority completely falls apart.

Nice try, though. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> Marriage is the first step to creating a stable family structure. Men and women have different behaviors, different characteristics, etc, that are present simply because of their genders. I object to gay marriage on religious grounds--the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not condone it.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Authority


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> While I realize that very few debates of this nature can be won by stating what I just did, I'm not aiming to win anything, just to give my opinion before my next class and to say that any further discussion questions can be PMed to me. (Teachers don't wait.....)
> 
> ~Jessica


Entirely off-topic, I apologize, but I just love when people drop their opinion then try to duck out of any responses.  All I care about is my opinion being heard, blah blah blah.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 5, 2005)

> Nonsensical does not mean impossible, it means foolish.  Even still the theory that you postulated *is* impossible, therefore it's meaningless to entertain it.  I prefer to keep my discussions in the realm of realism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Nonsensical does not mean impossible, it means foolish.  Even still the theory that you postulated *is* impossible, therefore it's meaningless to entertain it.  I prefer to keep my discussions in the realm of realism.



Ah, so another 'just-so' statement, eh?   

This might be a shock, but constantly reiterating a claim that has no support does not 'magically' galvanize support for it. Arguments like, "err, uh, that's the way it is.... _because I say so_!!" just ain't gonna cut it.

You have yet to demonstrate how the scenario I postulated is either impossible *or* foolish. C'mon, now, we're all waiting. 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> You continuously refer to *post-conventional moral reasoning with universalist principles*.  I prefer the term moral relativism for this type of reasoning.



In no way is post-conventional morality the same thing as 'moral relativism'. In fact, 'moral relativism' is something more commonly associated with pre-conventional narcissism.

You may use this term if you wish, but it evinces a fundamental ignorance of the concepts being used and, furthermore, demonstrates a lack of willingness on your part to honestly face the moral issues being discussed.

I smell a smokescreen. And, in case you're interested, I have argued _against_ moral relativism several times in the past on these forums.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I do not have to frame my arguments in this vein because I am not a moral relativist.  Now, if you will simply disagree with my points because I do not choose to argue in this vein, then I guess no further discussion is necessary.  You will not control my viewpoint in order to make me formulate my argument.



You obviously don't know what post-conventional moral reasoning is, so I'll just lay it out for you. 

Post-conventional moral thinking is when the individual has reached a level of moral reasoning in which they step back from the social conventions and cultural mores they are imbedded within to consider what would be fair and moral and just _not_ just for his or herself, _not_ just for his or her family or race or people or country, but what is moral for _all_ people, regardless of sex, race, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation. In no way, shape, or form is this the same thing as 'moral relativism'.

This is a very well-established line of research in developmental psychology. Google the name 'Lawrence Kohlberg' if you want more information.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> And what's ironic is that because you believe in moral relativism, you can't *really* say with any certainty that my argument is incorrect.


 


			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> My use of the term "gay gene" was meant to mean a genetic basis of homosexuality, whatever it's form.  And the term has been used in this thread before.  There are only two (or three depending on your perspective) and they are genetics or environmental (spiritualism being the other one).  If noone is born a homosexual, then it is a caused by the environment, which would mean homosexuality is a mutation or a choice.



No, the only choices are not 'genetics or environmental'. I don't mean to be a prick here, but your ignorance of human development is glaringly obvious.

A number of phenomena can account for homosexual orientation, not all of which entail a conscious 'choice'. Hormonal imbalance during gestation is one, neurological structural differences is another, and even developmental abberations can account for the phenomenon.

Your lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> You used technology to support your hypothesis about how a primarily homosexual society could exist.



Which is a separate issue from the moral dillema I presented. A dilemma, I note, that you have yet to honestly face down.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> You can only claim this a fallacious argument if you assume that the bible is not a proper authority.  That can be disputed, it's just your viewpoint.



Okay, its obvious you don't know what an Appeal To Authority even is.   

An Appeal To Authority is a logical fallacy whereby an individual simply resorts to an "authority x says so, therefore it is true!" to frame their arguments. Which, not to be rude, is exactly what you and others denying gay rights have done.

There is _no such thing_ as a 'proper authority'. Utilizing _any_ source on the basis of its supposed authority in place of an actual argument or defense is the fallacious reasoning here.

It'd basically be like saying that because this respected doctor with a PhD says massive doses of alcohol can cure lung cancer that it _must_ be true!! It does not logically follow that this is the case. You must engage in sound reasoning, not logical fallacies.

I'm sure I'll hear a rational argument one of these days...

Laterz.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ah, so another 'just-so' statement, eh?
> 
> This might be a shock, but constantly reiterating a claim that has no support does not 'magically' galvanize support for it. Arguments like, "err, uh, that's the way it is.... _because I say so_!!" just ain't gonna cut it.
> 
> You have yet to demonstrate how the scenario I postulated is either impossible *or* foolish. C'mon, now, we're all waiting.


 
Ok, in you're argument you asked the question: how would I feel if, in a primarily homosexual world, would I feel if denied the right to marry.  I simply said that a primarily homosexual world could never have developed, evolutionary-wise, because there would be no reproduction.  You used technology to say that it could.  

I am simply saying that the example given, could not occur.  However, as I stated before, I can understand the basis of an argument based on the Golden Rule.  Use that, rather than making a nonsensical hypothetical.  It was unnecessary to support your question of "how would you feel if..."




> In no way is post-conventional morality the same thing as 'moral relativism'. In fact, 'moral relativism' is something more commonly associated with pre-conventional narcissism.
> 
> You may use this term if you wish, but it evinces a fundamental ignorance of the concepts being used and, furthermore, demonstrates a lack of willingness on your part to honestly face the moral issues being discussed.
> 
> ...


I did, in fact, get my definition of from Kohlber (albeit indirectly from Wikipedia).  This is his very own example for this stage:

Stage five (_human rights_): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. 

How does one resolve this dilema.  There seems to be a subjective view of what is the greater right or wrong.  Where do we get the information to decide.  It's great to have an abstract philosophical discussion on an issue, but were does it get us in the real world.




> No, the only choices are not 'genetics or environmental'. I don't mean to be a prick here, but your ignorance of human development is glaringly obvious.
> 
> A number of phenomena can account for homosexual orientation, not all of which entail a conscious 'choice'. Hormonal imbalance during gestation is one, neurological structural differences is another, and even developmental abberations can account for the phenomenon.
> 
> Your lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed.


You counter yourself on this point.  You concede the fact that I said behaviour has either a genetic or *environmental* cause, yet then you state that my "lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed".  Which is it?

How did those "hormonal imbalances during gestation" or "neurological structural differences" occur?  If you answer with other than genetics *or* the environment, I would possibly be willing to concede the point.   



> Which is a separate issue from the moral dillema I presented. A dilemma, I note, that you have yet to honestly face down.


I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.

Anyway, this statement of your's is based on a *huge *false premise, since I did, in fact, answer your dilemma.  You're assuming that I am not being honest.   




> Okay, its obvious you don't know what an Appeal To Authority even is.
> 
> An Appeal To Authority is a logical fallacy whereby an individual simply resorts to an "authority x says so, therefore it is true!" to frame their arguments. Which, not to be rude, is exactly what you and others denying gay rights have done.
> 
> ...


More false assumptions on your part.  As I stated when I first involved myself in this thread, I am philisophically a libertarian.  Therefore, what one wants to do that does not hurt other is their own choice.  I am in this for a lively political debate.  I want people to know why they believe what they do, especially me.

An issue that I have is that your calling an appeal to authority as being a *falsehood.  *Is there anyway in your mind, that that authority could be correct.  Semantically speaking, it is simply an argument that you are unwilling to accept.

And I did give rational arguments, just none that you are willing to accept.  Although this really gets us nowhere, you engage in these debates with more of a closed mind than those who counter your arguments.  Even if given a rational, logical answer, you still wouldn't allow you ego to drop enough to accept it.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Ok, in you're argument you asked the question: how would I feel if, in a primarily homosexual world, would I feel if denied the right to marry.  I simply said that a primarily homosexual world could never have developed, evolutionary-wise, because there would be no reproduction.



In other words, you dodged the question by substituting a Red Herring.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I am simply saying that the example given, could not occur.



You can claim this as much you like, but something like the given example _has_ occured in some human cultures. Heterosexual intercourse is forbidden on all but a few days out of the year, whereas homosexual intercourse is a year-long practice.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> However, as I stated before, I can understand the basis of an argument based on the Golden Rule.



Ummm.... placing yourself in the situation of the Other _is_ kinda what the Golden Rule is all about.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I did, in fact, get my definition of from Kohlber (albeit indirectly from Wikipedia).  This is his very own example for this stage:
> 
> Stage five (_human rights_): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
> 
> How does one resolve this dilema.  There seems to be a subjective view of what is the greater right or wrong.  Where do we get the information to decide.  It's great to have an abstract philosophical discussion on an issue, but were does it get us in the real world.



Not only have you _not_ demonstrated that post-conventional moral reasoning leads to moral relativism, but you evince a fundamental misunderstanding of Kohlberg's developmental theories.

_In no way_ was Kohlberg making the claim that morality is 'relative'. Instead, he is concerned with looking at how people's _moral reasoning_ develops and grows over the course of their lifetimes. He was not making a judgment whatsoever concerning particular moral beliefs. Rather, he was researching the reasoning and thinking _underlying_ their beliefs.

When somebody is claming there are universal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning, then by no stretch of the imagination are they appealing to 'relativity' or 'subjectivism'.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> You counter yourself on this point.  You concede the fact that I said behaviour has either a genetic or *environmental* cause, yet then you state that my "lopsided claim that all possible biological causes are 'genetic' in nature is unabashedly misinformed".  Which is it?
> 
> How did those "hormonal imbalances during gestation" or "neurological structural differences" occur?  If you answer with other than genetics *or* the environment, I would possibly be willing to concede the point.



Ah, my mistake. I was unaware you were including the individual's prenatal and perinatal environments in the category 'environment', as the individual most assuredly has _no choice_ about what happens to him or her during those stages of biological development.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I agree, the technology used is a separate issue, which is why I wonder why you ever brought it up in the first place.



I brought it up in response to your fallacious Red Herring that such a scenario could never occur in the first place.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Anyway, this statement of your's is based on a *huge *false premise, since I did, in fact, answer your dilemma.  You're assuming that I am not being honest.



Another 'just-so' statement. You have yet to address the hypothetical moral dilemma outside of lobbing fallacious Red Herrings.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> More false assumptions on your part.  As I stated when I first involved myself in this thread, I am philisophically a libertarian.



Uh-huh. Sure.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> An issue that I have is that your calling an appeal to authority as being a *falsehood.  *Is there anyway in your mind, that that authority could be correct.  Semantically speaking, it is simply an argument that you are unwilling to accept.



Okay, let's get something straight now....

An Appeal To Authority has _nothing_ to do with whether said authority is 'right' or 'wrong'. Constructing a Strawman Argument to defend this won't change that.

No, the thing about an Appeal To Authority is that you are _replacing_ a logical argument or defense with, essentially, "authority x says this, so it must be true!" This is fallacious reasoning, whether the authority is 'right' or not.

In any event, the Bible is not regarded as some sort of final moral authority outside of those that accept the circular premise that it is the 'Word of God'. Ergo, it is a moot point.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> And I did give rational arguments, just none that you are willing to accept.



Red Herrings, Strawmen, and Appeals To Authority are in no way 'rational arguments'.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Although this really gets us nowhere, you engage in these debates with more of a closed mind than those who counter your arguments.  Even if given a rational, logical answer, you still wouldn't allow you ego to drop enough to accept it.



Logical Fallacy: Personal Attack

Uh-huh. Sure.   

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> My use of the term "gay gene" was meant to mean a genetic basis of homosexuality, whatever it's form.  And the term has been used in this thread before.  There are only two (or three depending on your perspective) and they are genetics or environmental (spiritualism being the other one).  If noone is born a homosexual, then it is a caused by the environment, which would mean homosexuality is a mutation or a choice.




There is likely no single "gay gene."  The genetic etiology for homosexuality (where it exists) is most certainly polygenic.  

Environmental influences consist of social conditioning (which I suggest is far less profound than other influences, given the homophobia in our society); pre-natal hormonal fluctuations that impact fetal neural development; pre-natal toxins that imact fetal neural development (aspirin, phthalates and hexachlorobenzene to name three); and post-natal chemical influences on infant/child neural development.  

In addition there is a hypothesis that a mother's immune response to fetal testosterone might skew sexual orientation. Researchers noted that younger brothers with older brothers show significantly greater rates of homsexuality than those younger brothers who have no older brothers (only sisters).  It is posited that in certain instances the mother's anti-body response to the first male fetus's androgens cause feminization of subsequent male children.  

It should be noted that studies on rats have shown a dramatic amount of induced homosexuality in rats whose pre-natal hormones were tampered with.

The idea of one simply choosing to be homosexual is a little too simplistic, and suggests that every one here on this board is by default bisexual.  That means that some of the most strident anti-gay marriage males here on MT could take passionate delight in giving oral sex to a man...all they have to do is make up their mind to do it.

In spite of claims to the contrary by some on the right, the evidence for a biological etiology for homosexuality is increasing.  Funding for research in sexuality has always been difficult, regardless of the nature of the studies...but the data keeps piling up.

NOTE:  *Homosexuality would indeed be passed down via a genetic link if the genes involved are passed down through the mother.  This would not effect human production and the trait would not be "bred out" of existence.*  Strong evidence of this link to matrilineal lines was found by Angela Pattatucci and Dean Hamer in their research at the National Institutes of Health, published in 1993.   


Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

Yes, "biological etiology" is a more precise statement than "gay gene" because in-the-womb factors may be what's significant.

Nall genes that lead to non-reproduction (and I say again, many homosexuals reproduce) will be eliminated. In some cases they only manifest in males, as suggested, for example.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 8, 2005)

> In other words, you dodged the question by substituting a Red Herring.


I actually answered the question. But it possibly was missed, therefore I'll repeat it.  I stated as long as I was still gettin' some, I did not care whether the government allowed me to marry.  I can have a significant relationship with the government to condone it with marriage.




> You can claim this as much you like, but something like the given example _has_ occured in some human cultures. Heterosexual intercourse is forbidden on all but a few days out of the year, whereas homosexual intercourse is a year-long practice.


 



> Ummm.... placing yourself in the situation of the Other _is_ kinda what the Golden Rule is all about.


I understand that.  However, placing impossible scenario's around it doesn't make the argument any better.  It would have been just as easy for him to ask..."how would you feel if you weren't allowed to marry because you're a heterosexual."  That's really all that needed to be asked.



> Not only have you _not_ demonstrated that post-conventional moral reasoning leads to moral relativism, but you evince a fundamental misunderstanding of Kohlberg's developmental theories.
> 
> _In no way_ was Kohlberg making the claim that morality is 'relative'. Instead, he is concerned with looking at how people's _moral reasoning_ develops and grows over the course of their lifetimes. He was not making a judgment whatsoever concerning particular moral beliefs. Rather, he was researching the reasoning and thinking _underlying_ their beliefs.
> 
> When somebody is claming there are universal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning, then by no stretch of the imagination are they appealing to 'relativity' or 'subjectivism'.


You're right, this was a demonstration about that particular stage of development.  But I was "told" that unless I argued my point from this stage, that, in essence, I would be disregarded.  So, looking at the example given by Kohberg, I have a choice to make regarding the "greater moral good."  The question then becomes, who decides what is the greater good, outside of the abscence of a higher than human ethical framework.  That means that someone can justify either behavior, ie. moral relativity.  This is whether he was making any particular judgements regarding either decisions.

And as I asked on another thread, where do these "iversal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning" come from?  And this is if they actually exist at all.



> Ah, my mistake. I was unaware you were including the individual's prenatal and perinatal environments in the category 'environment', as the individual most assuredly has _no choice_ about what happens to him or her during those stages of biological development.


Now that we have that understanding, I never said that one has a choice whether to be gay or not.  I simply suggested that it is not necessarily a natural gentic trait.  And if it is cause by hormonal issues, is that something that we should overlook.  After all, we don't allow schizophrenics to own firearms, what someone in the U.S.A. might call a basic right akin to marriage.  




> I brought it up in response to your fallacious Red Herring that such a scenario could never occur in the first place.


 
It was not a "red herring."  I just prefer to work in the realm of reality, rather than abstract and baseless hypothesises.




> Another 'just-so' statement. You have yet to address the hypothetical moral dilemma outside of lobbing fallacious Red Herrings.


 
See above.





> Okay, let's get something straight now....
> 
> An Appeal To Authority has _nothing_ to do with whether said authority is 'right' or 'wrong'. Constructing a Strawman Argument to defend this won't change that.
> 
> ...


I understand what an appeal to authority is.  What I am saying is that in addition to other arguments that are made, an "appeal to authority" is not a bad thing. 


And a thank you to HHJH, who, rather than provides links to website concerning philosophical issues, actually brings information (and references) to a debate.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 8, 2005)

And in response to your incredulity that I am philosophically a libertarian I will say this.  I am a police officer in the U.S.A.  As such, I respect the rule of law, primarily the U.S. Constitution.  That being said, it is my belief that the Constitution would permit homosexuals to marry.  It would also permit polygamist to marry as many people as they want.  That is barring a Constitutional Amendment which were to prohibit such a union.  


I do not however, believe that just because a thing is legally allowable that it is ethically correct.  And even if I did, it would not bar me from playing "devil's advocate" to further my understanding of an issue.  There have been many persuasive arguments given here.  But there are those who have made resonable arguments with facts and references, rather than saying "logical fallacy", which would persuade me more.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

Let's get a few things straight here:

1) Just because one is satisfied with "gettin' some" doesn't mean the majority of homosexuals that make up approximately 7 percent of the adult population would share such sentiments, nor is it a sound basis for denying them equal legal rights to heterosexuals.

2) Once again, Lawrence Kohlberg's research in no way condones 'moral relativism'. As I stated before, he was interested in seeing how the _reasoning_ or _thinking_ that underlies moral decision-making evolves and matures over the course of an individual's lifetime. He was not making a judgment one way or the other concerning the validity of any given moral belief, as such an analysis is beyond the scope of psychological research. Likewise, he was also not making any kind of explanation as to the 'source' or 'origin' of these moral stages, as this is also beyond the scope of such research.

'Moral relativism' states that no given moral position is intrinsically better or worse than another. Kohlbergian theory would disagree with that, as it most definitely asserts that post-conventional morality is hiearchically superior to both conventional and pre-conventional moralities.

3) And, yes, the majority of research investigating this subject has come down in support of Kohlberg's theories. You can only make the argument that these moral stages do not exist _against_ a wealth of developmental evidence.

4) Claiming a moral scenario is 'nonsensical' when it is both (a) quite possible and (b) has a precedent in cultural anthropology is indeed a Red Herring. Attempting to explain this away with empty platitudes like "I prefer to work in the realm of reality" does not change this.

5) An Appeal To Authority is _always_ a logical fallacy, regardless of what other arguments one surrounds it with. In fact, _any_ appeal to circular reasoning (in which the argument confirms itself) is intrinsically fallacious in nature.

6) Methinks perhaps you should look up the word 'liberterian' in the dictionary.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

I think 7 percent is rather high...the infamous "10%" notwithstanding, usual estimates are around 2-4% for males and half that for females, with higher rates in urban areas averaging out lower rates elsewhere. Where does the 7% come from?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 10, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> And in response to your incredulity that I am philosophically a libertarian I will say this. I am a police officer in the U.S.A. As such, I respect the rule of law, primarily the U.S. Constitution. That being said, it is my belief that the Constitution would permit homosexuals to marry. It would also permit polygamist to marry as many people as they want. That is barring a Constitutional Amendment which were to prohibit such a union.
> 
> 
> I do not however, believe that just because a thing is legally allowable that it is ethically correct. And even if I did, it would not bar me from playing "devil's advocate" to further my understanding of an issue. There have been many persuasive arguments given here. But there are those who have made resonable arguments with facts and references, rather than saying "logical fallacy", which would persuade me more.


 I agree, and I defer to the 10th Amendment on issues like this. I don't believe the federal government should get involved in the issue. The US constitution does not expresses prohibit gay marriage, nor does it expressly protect it. It should be up to individual states to determine where they stand on the issue.

I also don't understand the mindset that says that toleration toward the Gay lifestyle (which is good) should automatically translate in to granting of every whim of Gay lifestyle (suddenly deciding Gay Marriage is necessary).  

I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life.  Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think 7 percent is rather high...the infamous "10%" notwithstanding, usual estimates are around 2-4% for males and half that for females, with higher rates in urban areas averaging out lower rates elsewhere. Where does the 7% come from?



Upon reflection, that figure was the result of some fuzzy math on my part (adding the male and female figures together with a bias toward the upper range). I retract my earlier estimate. 

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?


 Well, marriage is about so much more than what happens in the bedroom--the concern is over things like tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visits, health benefits, second-parent adoption, etc. These things are missing, and many non-marriage solutions are of the "separate but (almost) equal" variety.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, marriage is about so much more than what happens in the bedroom--the concern is over things like tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visits, health benefits, second-parent adoption, etc. These things are missing, and many non-marriage solutions are of the "separate but (almost) equal" variety.


 The attempt to associate the issue with segregation aside, i'm not convinced that it's an issue that should be decided by the federal government.

The issue for me isn't about Gays.  I really don't have a horse in that race...I don't believe homosexuality is some sort of sin.   What I take issue with is the idea that the federal government HAS to sort out every little social disagreement we have.  I believe states should solve that based on the will of the individual people there.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

I'm not trying to tar you with the segregation brush...my point is, separate but equal has failed before, and I think it'll fail again.

But, the federal government _is_ involved--taxes, inheritance, etc. It's already a federal issue.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I agree, and I defer to the 10th Amendment on issues like this. I don't believe the federal government should get involved in the issue. The US constitution does not expresses prohibit gay marriage, nor does it expressly protect it. It should be up to individual states to determine where they stand on the issue.
> 
> I also don't understand the mindset that says that toleration toward the Gay lifestyle (which is good) should automatically translate in to granting of every whim of Gay lifestyle (suddenly deciding Gay Marriage is necessary).
> 
> I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?


 
In this case, the argument for making gay marriage a states rights issue doesn't work.  this is a civil rights issue, which is what the Constitution is all about.  In this case, the 14th Amendment applies:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *

The key word in this phrase being liberty.  In order to deny gays the liberty to marry, it would be incumbent upon the state to prove an injury to the greater society.  This is also enumerated in the fourth amendment.  It is not necessary for homosexuals to prove themselves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> In this case, the argument for making gay marriage a states rights issue doesn't work. this is a civil rights issue, which is what the Constitution is all about. In this case, the 14th Amendment applies:
> 
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *
> 
> The key word in this phrase being liberty. In order to deny gays the liberty to marry, it would be incumbent upon the state to prove an injury to the greater society. This is also enumerated in the fourth amendment. It is not necessary for homosexuals to prove themselves.


 Many laws are based on moral grounds, not necessarily harm to the greater society. Again, the statement "life, liberty or property" is not defined as including so called "priveleges". 

You are assuming that marriage is a right, which is not a fore-gone conclusion.

Again, if we examine the bill of rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other freedoms are listed as exclicit freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Nowhere have I seen freedom to marry as a right guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, it falls under the 10th Amendment as an issue for the states.

If we follow your line of logic, EVERY issue becomes a civil rights issue, no matter how little it applies to the original meaning of the constitution.  

What's furthermore, it would then be incumbent on states to prove a great harm to society resulting from such issues as polygamy, prostitution, pornography, underage marriage, and any number of other issues that could argued as being based on "morality".  What they all have in common with homosexuality is the argument that they are questions of "Civil Rights" not explicitly dealt with by the Constitution.

Further, the idea that the same argument could be made about the earlier era infringements on the rights of blacks and other minorities does not hold up to the test of reason.  African Americans were denied basic fundamental rights, such as voting, free speech, due process, the right to bear arms, etc.  These are all expressly granted by the US constitution, and were arbitrarily denied blacks.  

Again, this kind of broad application of the 14th amendment to include whatever we suddenly decide is a civil rights issue is absurd and abusive.  This is a states rights issue.  If a given state wishes to grant civil unions to homosexuals, more power to them.

I find it ironic that many people espouse the view that the will of the people is absolutely correct....unless the will of the people disagrees with them.  Let the states decide this issue based each states own moral and ethical views.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

The above having been said, I wouldn't consider it the collapse of western civilization if homosexuals were allowed civil unions tomorrow. I'm not particularly fired up about this topic either way, which is why i'm not particularly in favor of making this a federal issue.  It seems much ado about nothing, but I could be wrong.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

Four little tidbits:

1) I would basically agree that this issue should be dealt with at the local level. I see no real basis for federal intervention, either for or against.

2) The running argument for gay marriage, as I understand it, is that homosexuals do not presently possess equal legal rights and privileges in most states as compared to heterosexuals. This is, not to be quaint, very un-American.

3) Again, I think this really revolves around deeper issues concerning the Separation of Church and State. Marriage is a religious ceremony conferring legal rights because it originates from a time when religious and legal powers were not yet separated. Our culture has not come to terms with the place of marriage in a secular society.

4) I personally don't think "the will of the people" is "always correct". To claim otherwise is to invoke mob rule and fallacious Appeals to Popularity. Democracy is not the same thing as popular opinion.

Laterz.


----------



## Josh (Feb 16, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> *This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.*
> 
> 10 reasons to ban gay marriage
> 
> ...


 

LOL..."REAL" americans


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) The running argument for gay marriage, as I understand it, is that homosexuals do not presently possess equal legal rights and privileges in most states as compared to heterosexuals. This is, not to be quaint, very un-American.


 
 Absolutely.  Gay couples should be afforded the same rights as the rest.



> 3) Again, I think this really revolves around deeper issues concerning the Separation of Church and State. Marriage is a religious ceremony conferring legal rights because it originates from a time when religious and legal powers were not yet separated. Our culture has not come to terms with the place of marriage in a secular society.


 
This is, to my mind, the crux.  Why should gay couples legally need marriage to obtain the same rights and priveleges?  Why does it have to be marriage that qualifies someone for these legal rights?  In short, why isn't cohabitation enough for ALL people, gay or not?


The waters are so muddied by the inability of people to seperate the "morality" of homosexuality from the "sanctity" of marriage that miss the whole point - equal legal rights and priveleges can be solved without ever addressing the validity of gay marriage.  And most importantly, it *should be* done this way because of the seperation of church and state.  Let a church decide if they will mary gays.  the state should deal with cohabitation - not religious ceremonies.


----------

