Beards and Gay Marriage

[Bradski]

cont’d…

So far, I’m getting that you think one advantage is that it would make gay people in long-term relationships feel better. I acknowledge that is an advantage. Can you cite any other advantages?

I could, but I won’t. Because, and I didn’t think I’d have to repeat myself so soon, it has nothing at all to do with me. I could care less why any two people want to get married. Maybe they’re Star Trek fans. Maybe it benefits them financially. Maybe they like weddings. Maybe they’re simply in love.

The point is, you don’t have to fill in a questionnaire before you get married explaining why you are doing it. Nobody should be in a position to question you on fidelity. Or on what type of sex you enjoy. Or whether you are going to have children. It doesn’t have anything to do with me, or with you, or with anyone else.

Personally, I think that all you need for a ‘marriage’ is a commitment between two people. I simply asked my wife if she wanted to spend her life with me. It was enough for me that she said yes. But she wanted a legal document (for the sake of the children! Go figure), so we had the paperwork done. Well, OK, it was easier with a legal document so we are legally married. And if anyone else wants that piece of paper, guess what…?

It has nothing to do with me or you or anyone else.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting. How do you come to this conclusion? For example, how much latin do I know? According to you?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

For matter, you have not answered what it is that you think ‘quid pro quo’ means or how it is relevant in this context?

Its relevance has to do with an equal exchange: you claimed that I was using jargon to obscure rather than elucidate.

I make that claim to you.

It was just easier to say “Quid pro quo”.

I thought that you would understand that, or at least, google it surreptitiously on your own and not let your ignorance of the Latin application limn here.

 

[Bradski]

If you don’t like the long-established definition of marriage, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to redefine the institution, or “ruin the game”, is just selfish and rude.

You’re going to have to come up with some reasons why it’s ruining your game.

But it’s not just Christians, and marriage is not just a “religious view.” The conjugal union between a man and woman sometimes results in children – stabilizing that relationship is good public policy. There’s no policy reason for stabilizing the romantic/platonic relationships between two loving friends.

If you’re discounting the religious view, then how about stop using biblical phrases such as ‘one flesh’. You can’t have it both ways. Either use secular arguments (in which case you need to show that some harm will come from continuing to allow gay marriage - I think we’re at the point where we can say that), or religious ones.

A man and woman become “one flesh” through coitus; in the context of marriage, this union is known as the “marital act.” Same sex couples cannot create a bodily union in the same way that a man/woman couple can.

There ya go again. ‘One flesh’, ‘bodily union’. Hey, what happens in the bedroom is not your business.

Certainly – just as a father and his adult daughter might also bond socially and psychologically during consensual sex. Should the state recognize that relationship as well?

There should be a law similar to Godwins Law in regard to gay marriages. Could I call it Bradski’s Law? To be invoked the moment someone mentions incest in a thread on gay marriage.

It is so invoked.

 

[PRmerger]

If I were bitten by a radioactive spider and gained super-powers, that would be useful. Anomalous, yes. Silly, granted, far too silly for anyone to use it as the basis for a series of films even once, let alone more than once. Surely?

But useful.

I’d like to see how that would work for you.



Given the natural law, and the fact that you are subject to it, even as a superhero (have you seen how messed up their lives are?) you wouldn’t be happy utilizing your powers.

 

[Bradski]

And yet you seem to be objecting folks doing the same thing for marriage. We say: a marriage is a marriage by definition, and society will not work if you insist it’s any committed relationship that demands the status of a marriage.

If something is a circle (by the generally accepted Euclidean definition), then plane geometry (aka Euclidean geometry) will not work.

If you think that a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples means that society won’t work, then you can explain why. You have to show that ‘this definition is wrong because…’ and then show reason. And these cannot be opinions or we’re all going to be discussing this forever. You have to show us what is not working.

I find the divorcing of marriage from sex to be the most peculiar of propositions that have been made by the Pro-Gay Marriage side.

Catholicism has always define marriage as a lifelong commitment in which the man and woman exchange valid matrimonial consent, and which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse.

It’s simply…weird…that people want to say they can be married without the ability/desire to have sex.

OK. You think it’s weird. But with reference to the above, thinking something weird or peculiar is not the same as showing society not working in some way. Personally, I think that having a system whereby you have to have sex, and a particular sort of sex, is a bit peculiar. But I’m not going to argue against it. Because…it has nothing to do with me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But she wanted a legal document (for the sake of the children! Go figure)

Moral obligation for the sake of the children. There’s a thought.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I think that all you need for a ‘marriage’ is a commitment between two people.

Why does it have to be two?
And why people?

 

[orang]

In all honesty what would it matter. A person who shots up will eventually commit suicide if they don’t quit, but it does not always stop them.

Every gay marriage causes suicide, is suicide not death. Sin is death of the soul.

Concern for gay people, or a drug addict, or addict of any kind of any person in sin, begins with prayer for them, and treating them with respect and love that comes from God.

Accepting sin does no one any favor. Rejecting sin does not change sin, anymore then disagreeing with what sin is.

God wrote the book on sin, not us.

To say that someone can let sin consume their lives and it is okay with God is simply a lie. It not only destroys their lives it destroys the lives of many who love them.

You see God did not say to us, you can decide what is sin and what it not sin. He left us a Church. The Church is the pilar of all truth not personal decisions.

The Bible is indeed the true word of God, rather you accept it to be or not to be changes nothing.

When Jesus was trying to teach and was rejected, he did not say to them you can agree or disagree:shrug:. No.

He said your Father is the Devil Because if you were from God and of God you would listen to ME. But you are not from me, because you reject me, and my truth.

2 people of the same sex living together and having sex is a abomination to God. He hates it, and it disgusts him. Read the O.T. he leveled the whole town.

You can have any opinion of it you choose, but opinions do not change the truth of God.

If 2 men or women having sex and living together would bring true Love or happiness, God would not forbid it. God knows more then we will ever know, what is and is not good for us.

I have NEVER seen anyone in this world who has lived their life rejecting God and his Love and rules ever achieving true happiness in this world.

Oh I’ve seen them try, and follow the devil and do his works, and I have seen his power also, its always just enough that they eventually destroy themselves with it.

Truth is this, there is no complete happiness in this world, it only comes in the next. Because complete happiness is living with God in his world for eternity. Only the wise can see and accept this. And to achieve this we must obey his word.

Good words .

 

[PRmerger]

If something is a circle (by the generally accepted Euclidean definition), then plane geometry (aka Euclidean geometry) will not work.

If you think that a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples means that society won’t work, then you can explain why. You have to show that ‘this definition is wrong because…’ and then show reason. And these cannot be opinions or we’re all going to be discussing this forever. You have to show us what is not working.

But why?

You can’t show why defining this as circle is wrong, except by repeating what the actual definition of a circle is.

http://etc-mysitemyway.s3.amazonaws...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

Essentially all you can do is say: it’s not a circle because it has angles. And circles don’t have angles.

Similarly, what we say is: it’s not a marriage because it has the same gender. And marriages don’t have same genders.

But you don’t accept that, apparently, when we use the same model.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re going to have to come up with some reasons why it’s ruining your game.

Yeah.

DrTaffy? How is it ruining your game?

If you don’t like their game, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to stop them playing, or trying to ruin their game by heckling, is just selfish and rude

 

[PRmerger]

OK. You think it’s weird. But with reference to the above, thinking something weird or peculiar is not the same as showing society not working in some way.

Ok. But I haven’t posited that something being weird is the same as showing society is not working in some way.

 

[PRmerger]

I had a discussion on another forum just a few days ago where a member stated that that you should use the pronoun ‘it’ for gay people. He said he would use it in reference to any family member who was gay.

I hope this person wasn’t a Catholic!

If he was, I would hope that you would refer him to the numerous teachings of his Church that would would rebuke and admonish this type of behavior. (Please PM me and I will direct you to these documents).

I would love it for an atheist to correct a Catholic about what the Church actually teaches!

 

[PRmerger]

There should be a law similar to Godwins Law in regard to gay marriages. Could I call it Bradski’s Law? To be invoked the moment someone mentions incest in a thread on gay marriage.

It is so invoked.

As it should be so invoked. It is a logical application of the view espoused that any relationship that wishes to be acknowledged ought to be given the right to be called a marriage.

And there has ne’er been any refutation of this application of the logic.

Calling any repetitive presentation of an argument an appeal to Godwin’s Law is an abuse of his law. Godwin’s Law is essentially a rule that states: you have appealed to ad hominems in your argument. Calling someone a Nazi is simply a cop-out and does not further the dialogue.

Except, when one is actually in dialogue with a Nazi, it’s inutile to invoke Godwin’s Law, right?

Similarly, when one is actually presenting a true parallel, it’s an abuse of Godwin’s Law to appeal to it.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re discounting the religious view, then how about stop using biblical phrases such as ‘one flesh’.

Using Biblical phrases is not only the purview of those in religious dialogue.

All who are truth seekers are free to use Biblical phrases. They belong to everyone.

Just as the term “circle” while a mathematical term, is not restricted to only mathematical dialogue.

To wit:
google.com/#q=%22I+used+a+circle+to%22

Barely any of those sites deal with math.

 

[PRmerger]

If you think that a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples means that society won’t work, then you can explain why. You have to show that ‘this definition is wrong because…’ and then show reason. And these cannot be opinions or we’re all going to be discussing this forever. You have to show us what is not working.

I know you want some concrete examples of how gay marriages would harm society such as, “The price of turnips would then be sky high if gay marriage is permitted!”
or
“Everyone would start storing their lithium batteries in their stomachs, leading to a very, very disordered society that regurgitates everything in a vomitorium!”

But I’m not going to give concrete examples.

What I will do is simply say this, which is a truth that I am certain we can agree upon:

All other things being equal: a society whose foundation is based on a lie cannot flourish, while a society that is grounded in truth will flourish.

We can agree that one’s foundation must be solidly embedded in truth, right?

We can’t trust a building that was built by an engineer who thinks that a circle has 4 right angles, right?

 

[Bradski]

I know you want some concrete examples of how gay marriages would harm society such as, “The price of turnips would then be sky high if gay marriage is permitted!”

You’re darn tootin’ I want some examples. But unfortunately…

But I’m not going to give concrete examples.

But we’re back to the bloody geometric shapes again…,

We can’t trust a building that was built by an engineer who thinks that a circle has 4 right angles, right?

Quite probably not. Because structural engineering involves a lot of geometry. Which doesn’t work if the basic definitions are incorrect. Not works less well, or nearly correct, but not at all. So if the definition is wrong it leads to problems.

Now your definition of marriage is not wrong. It works for a lot of people. But it’s, how shall I say, a little too specific in the amount of detail. And all that detail is mostly derived from religious beliefs. Not only is a marriage between two people, but it has to be between two people of different gender, it has to include sex and it even prescribes the type of sex. It even, for heaven’s sake, dictates why you should be having sex.

These days, most people prefer a simplified version of your particular definition. It discounts the gender, the sex, the type of sex, the reasons for actually getting married and, believe or not, makes the assumption that the people getting married are free to make these decisions themselves.

Now if you think that someone’s definition of a circle is wrong, then you can show why (it’s the wrong definition because geometry won’t work and the building will fall down). If you think that someone’s simplified definition of marriage is wrong, then equally you are obliged to show why you think that is so by telling us what problems will result if it’s accepted.

If there are any problems leading from it, then it shouldn’t be difficult to list them. Otherwise, all you are doing is saying ‘Your definition is different to mine’. On which we can all agree. And it goes without saying that I’m more than happy for you to personally abide by all the conditions that you feel should be attached to yours.

 

[Protestor]

You can’t show why defining a square as circle is wrong, except by repeating what the actual definition of a circle is.
Essentially all you can do is say: it’s not a circle because it has angles. And circles don’t have angles.
Similarly, what we say is: it’s not a marriage because it has the same gender. And marriages don’t have same genders.

First off, do you mean edges when you say angles? There are plenty of angles, at least the way I think of them, in a circle.

Could we make the circle big enough to put a square inside? or maybe the square has to be small .AHGghg why are we using this belabored analogy. Why can the definition not be changed? I don’t want to hear about squares or circles in your answer either. We change definitions all the time. The church has shined light on meaning of old definitions at least a few times in history. I am actually opposed to the church changing her def in this scenario, but I like to know her reasons. Has she already proclaimed infallibly that marriage can only be between a man and a women? I guess you already answered this in the beginning before this convo took a downward spiral into entrenched positions. I was going to delete this but all this square and circle business was driving me crazy.It’s just your opinion that a square cannot be a circle it’s not like it is a priori knowledge or whatever

Nice arrested development reference

 

[GaryTaylor]

These days, most people prefer a simplified version of your particular definition. It discounts the gender, the sex, the type of sex, the reasons for actually getting married and, believe or not, makes the assumption that the people getting married are free to make these decisions themselves

Pretty much leaves us tribal mental midgets where obligation, reason and moral responsibility are left to the tribal mentality behind closed doors and are, well, strict emotion. Hard to use the animal kingdom to show the consistency of similar behavior patterns this way, the animals are smarter than the “species” of people as I have mentioned earlier. You are only validating the claim.

Catholic paradigm natural family planning still intact as with the animals. Above pattern show behavior tendency by not reasoning or understanding the obligation, not seeing the thought choice through.

For the “sake of the children” what shall we do for their sake? Abortion? Marry them off at 9 for sexual exportation? Should we teach them moral obligation responsibility or emotional release by any means off the top of the head behind closed doors. What should we expect next since everyone isn’t thinking ahead and living in the moment emotionally?

You are also confirming by symptoms this is “behavior” related.

Frankly, none of this is any surprise to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m sure you have felt guilty about something. And that was invariably because you felt you were knowingly doing something that you were convinced was wrong. The act doesn’t itself have to be wrong. You just need to believe it to be so. So imagine if you are told that what you are actually feeling is wrong. Maybe if you were strong willed enough you could stop drinking or masturbating or whatever was causing your guilty feelings. That would assuage your guilt. You might even feel a little righteous. But what happens when you can’t stop thinking about something that makes you feel guilty. It’s not something you can prevent. If you have been convinced it’s wrong, then that debilitating feeling of guilt is there with you at all times. How do you think that feels?

I know exactly how that feels, and I know exactly how it feels to feel that way in response to actions related to homosexuality. Perhaps you are forgetting that I’ve dealt with this myself. At any rate, yes, I agree that some amount of the guilt and shame is there because people are badly Catechized – for example, because people grow up thinking that merely being gay is wrong.

But I think there is also such a thing as valid guilt. When a serial killer feels bad after killing someone, that’s valid. When a doctor feels bad about doing a surgery while drunk, that’s valid. And yes, when a boy feels bad about masturbating, that’s valid guilt. Often times, the guilt is exacerbated by false teachings about sin (or by parental shamings), but there is – underneath it all – a very true and real guilt there. This guilt tells us that what we did is wrong, and we should stop.

At this point, there are two options: Either (a) gay people are incapable of controlling themselves or (b) gay people, like everyone else, can choose whether and when to have sex. Option (a) is very insulting to gay people. Anyone, gay or straight, can develop a sexual addiction, but you don’t have to have a sexual addiction, obviously, to be gay. So we should pick option (b). But if we do, we see that there is a way to get rid of valid guilt: to stop doing the thing that makes you feel guilty.

(Note: The above should be more complicated, to take into account the fact that, Biblically, we are all slaves to sin, and we can only be freed by God’s action in our lives, not by our own efforts. But we all have access to God’s love and intervention in our lives, etc.)

And please, no platitudes about only the homosexual act itself being a sin. Even in a Christian forum like this I have seen so little generosity of spirit from some members regarding fellow Christians who happen to be gay that it simply makes me very angry indeed. I had a discussion on another forum just a few days ago where a member stated that that you should use the pronoun ‘it’ for gay people. He said he would use it in reference to any family member who was gay.

(1) I agree that forum posters are often cruel and bigoted against gay people. I vocally speak against them when they are. I don’t see the connection between that and why we shouldn’t separate acts from attractions. Can you enlighten me?

How many times have you seen the word ‘perversion’ used in threads like this? Well, if something is a perversion and you want to do it then you must be perverted. You become yourself, according to your fellow Christians, a pervert. Even if you don’t act on it, you are constantly, day by day, for the rest of your life, thinking to yourself: ‘I keep wanting to do perverted things. How can I stop!’

We’re all perverts. A perversion is just a desire for the good that is badly aimed (“perverted”), so that following that desire doesn’t make us ultimately happy. I agree that “pervert” has acquired a very bad connotation, but it shouldn’t have that connotation.

Personally, I, as you say, “keep wanting to do perverted things” – indeed, I want to do the same things gay people want to do. And I understand the impulse to hate myself for it. But the Bible, the Church, and personal revelation have shown me a crazy and bizarre truth: that God loves me! He loves sinners like me. In fact, Jesus chose to spend time with sexual sinners instead of with the “righteous”.

The idea that sin should make us hate ourselves, even kill ourselves, is a form of Pelagianism – the idea that we can save ourselves by “being good.” We aren’t good, and we can’t be good. But God is merciful upon us! :extrahappy:

A link on Pelagianism: newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

And a link on perversion: firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

But now it’s out in the open. The majority of people see nothing wrong with being gay, so there’s no problem in having gay people in politics, in sport, in music, in theatre, in the office, in the check out. But what we have now is a reaction from an increasing minority who want to go back to the way we were. When it wasn’t talked about. When people like this knew their place. Where you didn’t have football players kissing their partners on TV. I mean, where will it all end!

It’s certainly not true that all Christians who oppose homosexual activity want gayness not to be talked about. There are an increasing number of people in the Church who call themselves “gay and celibate”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So we have an increasingly vocal minority complaining ever louder about the situation. And the rhetoric is not now whispered in hushed comments behind someone’s back. Not yelled out by hoons with too much beer and too little sense. Now the term ‘pervert’ is common currency. Now we have politicians blaming natural disasters on homosexuality. Whereas in previous times, bigoted people kept their obnoxious views to themselves and their common-cause friends, now anyone with an internet connection has carte blanche to voice their hatred of homosexuality at every opportunity.

I don’t know how a lot of gay people manage to put up with it. Maybe support from family and friends? Because without that, getting this form of abuse on a daily basis would turn any person’s thoughts to suicide.

Notice the structure of your argument. Homosexuality is more acceptable now, you admit, but nevertheless the suicide rate remains the same. So you hypothesize a hidden cause that has been getting worse even as homosexuality has become more acceptable: you hypothesize that the slander against gay people has gotten worse over the past 40 years, but somehow it hides better. First of all, if you talk to older gay people, they will explicitly deny this, and talk about how much better things are now. But secondly, positing a hidden cause is simply a way for you to be able to hold your position at all costs – whenever someone makes an objection, just posit another hidden cause.

As for the point that vitriol online is at an all-time high, this might be true. But last time I checked, people were not forced to go to places spewing this vitriol. When people come out in safer environments, like on Facebook or in real life, there is not nearly as much criticism as there was 40 years ago. Anyone who decides to broadcast their sexuality to Fred-Phelps-like fundamentalists online is just asking to be condemned.

We are not talking about nullifying marriages. We are talking about whether they should be allowed in the first instance. If you have a figure in mind as to the percentage of gay people who cheat on their partners after marriage and use that as a basis for not allowing gay marriage, then one would assume that you’d have to use that same percentage for heterosexual marriages. Or would it be different. Either way, do you have a figure for both?

OK, sure, I myself would prevent anyone who – in advance – considers divorce or infidelity a viable option from getting married. And I don’t see any reason to expand marriage to groups that will consider divorce or infidelity an option. For such an expansion involves federally subsidizing broken homes, and providing a basis for unfaithful parents to cause rancor in their children’s lives. (Note: There are cases when divorce is justified, but no one should marry a person thinking about those cases. Marriage is not like trying on an outfit.)

I could, but I won’t. Because, and I didn’t think I’d have to repeat myself so soon, it has nothing at all to do with me. I could care less why any two people want to get married. Maybe they’re Star Trek fans. Maybe it benefits them financially. Maybe they like weddings. Maybe they’re simply in love.

See, this tells me that we’re talking completely past each other. You think marriage is a pretty neat thing that some people want to do, not a sacred union intended for the raising of children. On your definition, I definitely agree that gay people should not be forbidden from doing neat things – let’s go out and find the people who want to prevent gay people from doing neat things, string them up by the toes, and ridicule them!

But if marriage is the normative institution in this society for raising children, then we ought to consider the raising of children as the primary question. Now I am quite sure that gay people can (individually) be just as good parents as straight people, but I am concerned – as a person who lost his dad at a young age – that kids have a right to a mom and a dad. And I am concerned that gay couples might not be very stable, although I admit that I have that same concern about most straight couples. I am personally opposed to no-fault divorce, which has done a great deal of harm to our society.