Pick a side on gay issue!

[trustmc]

trustmc:

It’s called freedom of religion and freedom of conscious.

OK. Before anyone makes a big to-do out of this, I meant “conscience” not “conscious”.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

What do you consider “tolerance”? As far as I can see, the law already “tolerates” homosexual activity, since there are no longer any laws against it. For the government to actively recognise and reward homosexual relationships by naming them marriages is going beyond mere tolerence. If the law actually goes as far as punishing people for saying that homosexual behavior is a sin, this is not only going beyond mere tolerance of homosexuality, it is intolerance of Christianity (and Islam as well).

Ah, you want special rights for heterosexuals. You wouldnt be heterosexual would you?

Oh, and another thing…this ban on polygamy…isnt that in violation of the constitution? It establishes a religious norm as a civil norm?

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

Oh, and another thing…this ban on polygamy…isnt that in violation of the constitution? It establishes a religious norm as a civil norm?

For that matter, so do prohibitions against murder, rape, theft and lying. Perhaps we should decriminalize these in accordance with your understanding of what constitutes a violation of the Constitution.

Mike

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Ah, you want special rights for heterosexuals. You wouldnt be heterosexual would you?

Oh, and another thing…this ban on polygamy…isnt that in violation of the constitution? It establishes a religious norm as a civil norm?

You mean marriage? No, homosexuals are allowed to marry too. No one is allowed to “marry” their own sex, anyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why? It has to do with procreation - remember that? 'So I guess nature gives “special rights” to heterosexuals, doesn’t she?

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

You mean marriage? No, homosexuals are allowed to marry too. No one is allowed to “marry” their own sex, anyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why? It has to do with procreation - remember that? 'So I guess nature gives “special rights” to heterosexuals, doesn’t she?

Is a ver good argument. Of course…love, loyalty, and devotion mean nothing in your version…it’s just about genitals.

Marriage, of course, is not just about procreation, and never was ‘just’ about procreation. Politics, class, caste, tribe, continuing the family name…remember those?

Lot’s daughters got him drunk and fornicated with him to continue the tribe…remind me about their punishment?

Anyway, you are mistaken in your base point. You hide the inequality with the gender neutral “opposite sex” but when you actually use the real genders in each case you will see you cannot use the same language.

“A man can marry a woman” is the right ever man has, “A woman can marry a man” reveals they are NOT THE SAME RIGHTS AT ALL.

The right to marry a woman belongs to a man, the right to marry a man belongs to a woman.

By definition, precise definition they are different.

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

OK. Before anyone makes a big to-do out of this, I meant “conscience” not “conscious”.

con----to con people
science—with method…

I live in fear

 

[Digger71]

Thank God for the charitable Christian! It takes more guts to speak the truth in love to someone than it is to take the easy road of “tolerance.”

Thus the monsters would justify themselves mistaking hate for love and feeling justified in it.

I’ve removed the authors name.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

con----to con people
science—with method…

I live in fear

So it’s better to not have a conscience at all to guide your morality?

Mike

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Ah, you want special rights for heterosexuals. You wouldnt be heterosexual would you?

Oh, and another thing…this ban on polygamy…isnt that in violation of the constitution? It establishes a religious norm as a civil norm?

This is a new understanding of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Laws can and must reflect morality, yet this does not establish a state religion. If all laws that were grounded in morality were eliminated, then all law would be eliminated.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Is a ver good argument. Of course…love, loyalty, and devotion mean nothing in your version…it’s just about genitals.

No, it’s about children and families. It’s about the formation of a family. “Love, loyalty, and devotion” are very good, but they are not really the concern of laws and govenments.

Marriage, of course, is not just about procreation, and never was ‘just’ about procreation. Politics, class, caste, tribe, continuing the family name…remember those?

Which are, of course, related to procreation. Politics - in the days of monarchy - certainly had to do with procreation (to continue the dynasty) Caste - illegitimacy would reduce a child’s class in any society (and even in societies with little stigma, it reduces a child’s socio-economic status). Tribe - not sure what exactly you’re referring to, is it marriage involving joining the spouse’s tribe? Clearly, since there are likely to be children it would be important that those children be “born into” one tribe or another - continuing the family name? Obviously about procreation. IOW, marriage is basically an arrangement to create the most desireable situation for procreation, for starting a family.

Lot’s daughters got him drunk and fornicated with him to continue the tribe…remind me about their punishment?

What on earth does this have to do with marriage? That is incest.

Anyway, you are mistaken in your base point. You hide the inequality with the gender neutral “opposite sex” but when you actually use the real genders in each case you will see you cannot use the same language.
“A man can marry a woman” is the right ever man has, “A woman can marry a man” reveals they are NOT THE SAME RIGHTS AT ALL.
The right to marry a woman belongs to a man, the right to marry a man belongs to a woman.
By definition, precise definition they are different.

Well, you speak of rights, but this is not really about rights to be recognised by the govenment. Marriage is not just a contract - there are already forms you can fill out to name the guardian for your children, your healthcare proxy, the beneficiary of your life insurance, who is in your will etc. Civil marriage is a recognitiion, by the govenment, of a situation that exists in nature - yes, only between men and women. This is what marriage really is, and so in this sense two men have no more “right” to marry than they have to get pregnant or breastfeed.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Thus the monsters would justify themselves mistaking hate for love and feeling justified in it.

I’ve removed the authors name.

Hmm - you talk about “hate”, but you’re the one calling people “monsters”. Unless perhaps you’re referring to Dracula and Frankenstein?

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Hmm - you talk about “hate”, but you’re the one calling people “monsters”. Unless perhaps you’re referring to Dracula and Frankenstein?

I was passing comment on a phenomina, not on any specific individual or group of individuals. You seem unduly sensitive.

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

This is a new understanding of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Laws can and must reflect morality, yet this does not establish a state religion. If all laws that were grounded in morality were eliminated, then all law would be eliminated.

Of course, laws can reflect morality, but they can also reflect immorality. Ethics strikes me as a better grounding.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

No, it’s about children and families. It’s about the formation of a family. “Love, loyalty, and devotion” are very good, but they are not really the concern of laws and govenments.

Of course, governments (western governments) are concenred with economically managable units, and minimum costs. This is one reason same-sex partnerships are gaining recognition in many countries. The benefits of partnership go far beyond just children, there are health benefits in plenty, for example.

Of course, love, loyalty and devotion are not the concern of governments, which is why same-sex unions should be recognised. Otherwise the government is directly interfering and mandating relationships.

BlindSheep:

Which are, of course, related to procreation. Politics - in the days of monarchy - certainly had to do with procreation (to continue the dynasty) Caste - illegitimacy would reduce a child’s class in any society (and even in societies with little stigma, it reduces a child’s socio-economic status).

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Marriages where often a means to seal a treaty or allegience. Procreation was expected eventually, but after a single male heir it was not the purpose, and indeed, was never the primary purpose.

You are making a mistake in retrofitting your values to previous types of marriage. Mistaking your purposes for theirs.

BlindSheep:

IOW, marriage is basically an arrangement to create the most desireable situation for procreation, for starting a family.

ditto my last comment.

BlindSheep:

What on earth does this have to do with marriage? That is incest.

Unpunished incest because it was to carry on the family name. It’s an oddity, that is all.

BlindSheep:

Civil marriage is a recognitiion, by the govenment, of a situation that exists in nature - yes, only between men and women. This is what marriage really is, and so in this sense two men have no more “right” to marry than they have to get pregnant or breastfeed.

Well, clearly same-sex relationships occur in nature so by your own argument civil partnerships should be extended to them to reflect this.

It is amusing that your counterargument is to compare something we see all around us with something we never see, and claim the two are equivilent. Yet I suspect you cannot even see the material difference in your examples.

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

So it’s better to not have a conscience at all to guide your morality?

Mike

As there seems to be a humour laps…would you really want to live your life by being conned in a methodical fashion? Are you saying “any rules as long as there are some rules!”

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Hmm - you talk about “hate”, but you’re the one calling people “monsters”. Unless perhaps you’re referring to Dracula and Frankenstein?

You might have noted I deliberately removed the authors name because it was just a general observation.

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Of course, laws can reflect morality, but they can also reflect immorality. Ethics strikes me as a better grounding.

Laws can be unethical with equal ease. I have no problem with grounding laws in ethics, as long as the ethics are moral.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

As there seems to be a humour laps…would you really want to live your life by being conned in a methodical fashion? Are you saying “any rules as long as there are some rules!”

No, what I’m saying is that rules should be based on an informed and well-developed conscience. If you think that a conscience is nothing more than a methodical con job, then no wonder you’re so confused about right and wrong.

Like I’ve said before (quoting Bishop Fulton Sheen), anyone can logically rationalize his way to a lie when he begins with a lie. You begin with the lie that marriage should be between any two persons with no other higher purpose than for self-gratification. Procreation is subordinate and even incidental to marriage. From there you arrive at the lie that homosexuals are discriminated against.

The truth is just as BlindSheep mentioned above:

Marriage is not just a contract - there are already forms you can fill out to name the guardian for your children, your healthcare proxy, the beneficiary of your life insurance, who is in your will etc. Civil marriage is a recognitiion, by the govenment, of a situation that exists in nature - yes, only between men and women. This is what marriage really is, and so in this sense two men have no more “right” to marry than they have to get pregnant or breastfeed.

To better understand the thinking of Judeo-Christian ethicists from whom we traditionalists take our cues – that is, if you’re genuinely open to an honest intellectual debate and not just trying to push our buttons – consider reading this article which I found to be one of the best defenses of traditional marriage and the right ordering of homosexual desires. When I have more time, I’ll pull out some excerpts that I hope will ground this debate in mutual civility.

Mike

 

[trustmc]

From “The Homosexual Movement,” First Things, March 1994, by the Ramsey Colloquium:

The understanding of marriage and family once considered normative is very commonly dishonored in our society and, too frequently, in our communities of faith. Religious communities and leaderships have been… deeply complicit in the demeaning of social norms essential to human flourishing.

…In the light of widespread changes in sexual mores, some homosexuals understandably protest that the sexual license extended to “straights” cannot be denied to them.

We believe that any understanding of sexuality, including heterosexuality, that makes it chiefly an arena for the satisfaction of personal desire is harmful to individuals and society. Any way of life that accepts or encourages sexual relations for pleasure or personal satisfaction alone turns away from the disciplined community that marriage is intended to engender and foster…

 

[trustmc]

From “The Homosexual Movement,” First Things, March 1994, by the Ramsey Colloquium:

One reason for the discomfort of religious leaders in the face of this new movement is the past and continuing failure to offer supportive and knowledgeable pastoral care to persons coping with the problems of their homosexuality… Confronted by the vexing ambiguities of eros in human life, religious communities should be better equipped to support people in their struggle, recognizing that we all fall short of the vocation to holiness of life.

Marriage and the family-husband, wife, and children, joined by public recognition and legal bond-are the most effective institutions for the rearing of children, the directing of sexual passion, and human flourishing in community. Not all marriages and families “work,” but it is unwise to let pathology and failure, rather than a vision of what is normative and ideal, guide us in the development of social policy…

That the institutions of marriage and family are culturally conditioned and subject to change and development no one should doubt, but such recognition should not undermine our ability to discern patterns of community that best serve human well-being. Judaism and Christianity did not invent the heterosexual norm, but these faith traditions affirm that norm and can open our eyes to see in it important truths about human life.