Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[rossum]

You are a Buddhist correct? Do your teachings not include compassion for the weak? You have tried to make a god of the law and rules instead of considering the impact of this proposed law upon the weak and vulnerable. You have more “compassion” for a group of self absorbed sex addicts than for those who will be adversely impacted by the push to normalize abnormal behavior. Do you have the same “compassion” for the havoc wrought by violent people, drunks and addicts?

All intoxicating drugs, including alcohol, are against the Buddhist moral rules. Violence is against the Buddhist moral rules. I am not aware that all homosexuals are “self absorbed sex addicts”. Heterosexuals can also be self absorbed and also be sex addicts.

I do not understand people who claim to be so compassionate and non violent they won’t take up arms or eat meat yet they champion the right of some to force their disordered practices on those who find them repugnant.

I am not aware of any law, or proposed law, that will force you to marry someone of the same sex. Those who do not wish to do so will not have to.

rossum

 

[fix]

In legal terms, yes. Slaves used to count as 3/5 of a person and Native Americans did not count at all, remember?

rossum

Those were unjust laws. They did not reflect reality. I assume you know that?

 

[holyrood]

If a law said a minority person was not a human would that be true?

Wow. Just…wow.

And as you said earlier, you are content with the legal definitions. Does this mean you would have been content with that legal definition and told everyone in those days that an enslaved person is really only 3/5 of a person?

You know, this goes to the heart of the matter. What should the law decide? That you are not Christian has no bearing on it. That others in this country are not Christian has no bearing on it.

Throughout about 27 pages now, one objective, practical issue after another has been put forrward, explaining why this is not a good idea for society, for any society, and what it’s practical ramifications will be. And these have been ignored in favor of statements like, “Well, I’ll be a good law-abiding citizen and believe whatever they tell me.” (BTW, if this is true, why don’t you believe it when the law said, in all 50 states, that marriage is between one man and one woman?)

 

[rossum]

The “legal” definition is meaningless because it defies the actual definition of the word based on the natural order of our observable design that has been recognized for millennia throughout a variety of cultures and civilizations.

The legal definition has meaning in a court of law and it has meaning when paying taxes among other things. You are at liberty to ignore part of the law if you wish, but I would not recommend it.

How exactly, does David’s broken life and inherent weaknesses make Jesus illegitimate?

If true marriage is between one man and one woman, then David was not truly married to Bathsheba – he already had the one wife allowed. Hence Solomon was illegitimate because his father and mother were not truly married. Jesus was descended from Solomon, as Matthew says. Jesus was not a legitimate descendant of David.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your tag-line is utter nonsense in its self-defeating premise.

If it were “true” then everything you claim has no objective truth to it.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[holyrood]

I am not aware of any law, or proposed law, that will force you to marry someone of the same sex. Those who do nt wish to do so will not have to.

rossum

Those who do not wish to have abortions need not do so…and yet here we are suddenly on the brink of being forced to pay for other people’s abortions. Take a look at countries around the world and see how these things progress. To deny it is disingenuous at best, deceitful and conniving at worst.

In addition, simply not being involved in a so-called gay marriage is barely even the tip of the ice berg. There are 25+ pages here discussing all the ways this is going to impact EVERYBODY.

**

• The children involved.
• Business owners.
• Churches.
• Freedom of conscience.

**

And proponents sum it up with a feel-good bumper sticker shrug. In other words, you cannot or will not discuss all the ramifications of this.

 

[rossum]

Does “law” necessarily reflect the truth of our natural design?

I reject the concept of “our natural design”. The law merely reflects the law; it may, or may not correspond to reality.

When “law” claimed that blacks were less than fully human - was that true reality?

It was true law; it was not true reality.

Tell me. What is 'Truth"?

Your capitalised “Truth” is a reification, and all reification is incorrect. In Thomist terms, Madkyamika Buddhists accept the existence of ‘accident’; we do not accept the existence of ‘substance’.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

Thomist ‘substance’ corresponds to “ontological depth”, which is our own deceptive overlay on reality. All too often we deceive ourselves. That can only lead to suffering.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why are we discriminating against green people?

National “Hug the Hulk” week?

rossum

 

[scipio337]

Those who do not wish to have abortions need not do so…and yet here we are suddenly on the brink of being forced to pay for other people’s abortions. Take a look at countries around the world and see how these things progress. To deny it is disingenuous at best, deceitful and conniving at worst.

In addition, simply not being involved in a so-called gay marriage is barely even the tip of the ice berg. There are 25+ pages here discussing all the ways this is going to impact EVERYBODY.

**

• The children involved.
• Business owners.
• Churches.
• Freedom of conscience.

**

And proponents sum it up with a feel-good bumper sticker shrug. In other words, you cannot or will not discuss all the ramifications of this.

Amen!

Funny how the goalposts are always moved, no? The battle cry in the 90’s was “equal protection under the law!”, yet some pushed for same sex marriage in California for a full decade after California offered same sex domestic partnerships, with all of the legal protections of marriage.

 

[rossum]

Those who do not wish to have abortions need not do so…and yet here we are suddenly on the brink of being forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

I am Buddhist and I am forced to pay for other people’s wars. Are you saying that all Buddhists (and JWs) should be remitted all their taxes that go to pay for the military?

rossum

 

[scipio337]

I am Buddhist and I am forced to pay for other people’s wars. Are you saying that all Buddhists (and JWs) should be remitted all their taxes that go to pay for the military?

rossum

You’ve never heard of “conscientious objection to military taxation”? And since when is national defense (a valid role of government) the equivalent to euthanizing a portion of the population?

Superfluous name tag

 

[Dawnia]

In legal terms, yes. Slaves used to count as 3/5 of a person and Native Americans did not count at all, remember?

rossum

Might want to have your memory checked…

The 3/5th rule was for census purposes only…blacks were not 3/5 of a person. Blacks were not considered “persons” at all and had absolutely no rights what so ever for a considerable length of time in US history.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The legal definition has meaning in a court of law and it has meaning when paying taxes among other things. You are at liberty to ignore part of the law if you wish, but I would not recommend it.
rossum

So when the 'law" eventually legitimizes pederasty and pedophilia and thus declares them “normal”, you’ll have no moral objections - right?

And I assume you would have followed the legal reality of the “law” when slaves were less than fully human. Right?

And if you lived in Nazi Germany you would have had no moral objections to the Final Solution since the “law” deemed Jews to be sub-human. right?

 

[LisaA]

Those who do not wish to have abortions need not do so…and yet here we are suddenly on the brink of being forced to pay for other people’s abortions. Take a look at countries around the world and see how these things progress. To deny it is disingenuous at best, deceitful and conniving at worst.

In addition, simply not being involved in a so-called gay marriage is barely even the tip of the ice berg. There are 25+ pages here discussing all the ways this is going to impact EVERYBODY.

**

• The children involved.
• Business owners.
• Churches.
• Freedom of conscience.

**

And proponents sum it up with a feel-good bumper sticker shrug. In other words, you cannot or will not discuss all the ramifications of this.

Precisely! You can look at this argument from the standpoint of biology, theology, sociology and come to the conclusion that the potential benefits to a small segment of the population in no way overcomes the negative impact on society, on children, and on both private and public institutions.

Not a single compelling reason has been given to upturn a well established societal norm that has been recognized for thousands of years, that has demonstrated to be a characteristic of stable and prosperous societies. Oh a few people will get more of yours and my tax dollars so Bill can put Joe on his health insurance but as Ridge so carefully noted, correcting any of these perceived financial issues is easily done.

But to the Leftists who reject cultural norms and longstanding traditions in the quest for a utopian society where everyone is “equal,” the facts do not matter.

Lisa

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I reject the concept of “our natural design”. The law merely reflects the law; it may, or may not correspond to reality.

Really?

So do you eat through your rectum and defecate through your mouth?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

It was true law; it was not true reality.

And law that is contrary to reality is illegitimate.

Your capitalised “Truth” is a reification, and all reification is incorrect. In Thomist terms, Madkyamika Buddhists accept the existence of ‘accident’; we do not accept the existence of ‘substance’.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

-- Jay Garfield, "Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation." OUP 2002.

Thomist ‘substance’ corresponds to “ontological depth”, which is our own deceptive overlay on reality. All too often we deceive ourselves. That can only lead to suffering.

In other words “truth” is what you make of it, and you make “nothingness” out of all of it.

So everything you say in here is nothingness. And as such, irrelevant to anything.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Your capitalised “Truth” is a reification, and all reification is incorrect. In Thomist terms, Madkyamika Buddhists accept the existence of ‘accident’; we do not accept the existence of ‘substance’.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

The words of emptiness and the emptiness of words. All is nothing and nothing is all.

Pure gibberish.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Is sinning disobedience? Is homosexual behaviour a sin?

rossum

Being homosexual is not a sin according to the Catholic faith. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. The Bible does condemn the behavior. Likewise Catholicism considers acting on homosexuality as sinful. That is the distinction.

 

[Midwest88]

The ‘change in heart’ is based on ridiculous reasoning. No doubt the MSM and the supporters of gay ‘marriage’ will use this to further their agenda. What a RINO this guy is.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

Speaking of paradox, and now a word from The Prince of Paradox:

“To the Buddhists was given a conception of God of extraordinary intellectual purity; but in growing familiar with the featureless splendour, they have lost their heads; they babble; they say that everything is nothing and nothing is everything, that black is white because white is black. We fancy that the frightful universal negatives at which they have at last arrived, are really little more than the final mental collapse of men trying always to find an abstraction big enough for all things. “I have said what I understood not, things too great for me that I know not. I will put my hand upon my mouth.” Job was a wise man. Buddhism stands for a simplification of the mind and a reliance on the most indestructible ideas; Christianity stands for a simplification of the heart and a reliance on the most indestructible sentiments. The greater Christian insistence upon personal deity and immortality is not, we fancy, the cause so much as the effect of this essential trend towards an ancient passion and pathos as the power that most nearly rends the veil from the nature of things. Both creeds grope after the same secret sun, but Buddhism dreams of its light and Christianity of its heat. Buddhism seeks after God with the largest conception it can find, the all-producing and all-absorbing One; Christianity seeks after God with the most elementary passion it can find—the craving for a father, the hunger that is as old as the hills. It turns the whole cry of a lost universe into the cry of a lost child.”

• G. K. Chesterton (from The Speaker, Nov 17, 1900)