Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

OK, kids in bed and sitting here with a cuppa ...

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

when you say "we" are you labelling yourself a self-confessed sinner? or are you implying that all other mooters here are all sinners?

I'd better be clear what my definition of "sin" is, because I was using it in a technical theological sense, and it has a different meaning in popular language. My definition comes from how it is used in the Bible - it basically just means "falling short of perfection", even a teensy tiny bit only once. So when I lost my temper today with the kids and got a little snappy, that's sin. I think the popular notion of "sin" is some horrible thing like murder, but that's not the meaning of the word at all. Not only does it include ANY wrong action, no matter how small, it also includes not doing good when you know it's the right thing to do; i.e., if I see someone drop some stuff and I choose to walk on by, when I could stop and help them, that's a sin.

And the purpose of realizing one's sin is not to beat up on yourself, either! Not at all! The purpose, IMO, is to be free of the sins through God's power and grace in your life. IMO the message of Christianity is not "everyone's an awful sinner" - it's everyone's a sinner, yes, face reality! but part of reality is God's love for us, too, and that God took responsibility for creating us with free will by taking on the penalty of our inevitable sins onto himself through his son Jesus dying in our place, and that all this is because God loves us so tremendously and wants a relationship with us so much that he's willing to do everything - EVERYTHING! - except force us to be with him. Real love involves choice - God doesn't want robots to love and to love him, he wants people - real people. And to love God and be loved by him is the highest good for any person, and all other loves come to their full potential in this, too.

So yes, IMO everyone in the world is a "sinner" - IOW, everyone in the world has done wrong, or failed to do what they know is right, at least once in their life. That's the theological meaning of the word, and that's how I was using it. I need to be more careful how I use that word, because really, it's one of those words whose current popular meaning does not match what it's theological meaning is.

Sorry I had to get kinda long and technical on you, but I really didn't want you to think I was sitting around with a terrible scowl on my face, hating people and thinking they're awful sinners in a hating way, when I'm not at ALL - I love people tremendously! I think everyone is a sinner, yes, but I think you'd agree with me, given my definition, that everyone is, wouldn't you? We're all in the same boat, IMO. And we're all sinners in that sense, but the truth is that we're all also amazing, wonderful creations, loved by God so much that he payed a tremendous price to redeem us from our sins. I place a tremendous value on EVERY person, as I believe God does. It's just facing reality that all of us have sinned at least once in our lives and are therefore "sinners" in the theological sense.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Whether morals are determined by culture, by a complex interplay of personal choice and social engagement, by God or by an intergalactic star goat has no bearing on whether things are right or wrong or not.

But why should I go by what YOU think is right or wrong? Why shouldn't I go by what I think is right or wrong? You're not in any authority over the human race. Why should anyone go by what anyone else thinks is right or wrong? You seem to be appealing to some common, absolute standard here - do you think one exists?

I think the issue of consent has been raised many times. Only people who can give consent can marry. Logical, no?

I think it is an absolute truth that marriage should be between one consenting man and one consenting woman, but then again, I believe there is such a thing as absolute truths. For those who claim that there isn't such a thing, then I don't see why they all of a sudden become sticklers about consent being an absolute. Illogical.

But what bugs me about this sort of argument is how you seem to be implying that it is just as much of a moral or logical leap to go from "one man, one woman" marriage to "one man, one dog" marriage as it is to "one man, one man" marriage.

Anyone who can't see that is a specious argument is one of the following:

1) an idiot
2) playing with semantics to try to cloud the issue
3) thinks homosexuals are no different from animals
4) lying

I know you are not 1. You claim that 3 and 4 aren't true. Given that that leaves 2, perhaps you can see why people like BB and myself have a problem with the honesty behind that line of questioning.

That's why I hated to even make that post, because I really like both of you guys and I hate risking your dislike, but I'm really into truth, and sometimes truth is a hard thing to bring up. And I seriously see a flaw in the arguments used here to support homosexual marriage, and I need to be truthful about it.

I think there is an option 5, and that would be this: Anyone who can't see that is a specious argument is this:

5. Someone who hasn't understood Rian's all-too-often clumsy attempts to explain her thoughts on the subject.

But I just looked at the clock, and the rest of the response to your post will have to wait because I promised BB I'd respond to his post tonight. And hopefully it will be a response to the rest of your post, too, God-help-me-I-need-it!


ps ...

It's a great excuse for a party.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

No offence meant- but this cannot pass.

I know you don't mean any offense, BB *Moothug*, and I'm so thankful that if you felt it couldn't pass, that you brought it up, in this loving and thoughtful and respectful manner.

best, BB x

And my very, very VERY best to you, and dos equis to you! XX (the beer AND the kisses!) (is that how you spell it?)

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Rian, if you are willing to stake, here, your whole moot debating and general moot reputation on comparing the rights of men and women with that of sex with animals and compare the morality of all God's sons and daughters with those of unatural acts of beast and man that are clearly against the word of God ... rather than admit you were joining in on a snide and smug attack on another mooter that seemed easy prey ...

God help me, where do I begin?

First off, personally I think sex with animals is very wrong. It looks like you do, too, but I'm surprised to see you say that it's "clearly against the word of God" - I guess I just know so many people that I can't keep everyone's beliefs straight. I didn't realize you thought there even was a God, or that his word would be in the Bible. Do you? I'm sorry for my ignorance and/or forgetfulness if you've mentioned it before. I'm definitely getting older, and some of my brain cells are preceding me to heaven!

Anyway, if you think beastiality is wrong because God says so in his word, then why do you think homosexuality is right? Or am I wrong about that, too?

Anyway, you're apparently claiming that something is wrong because it's against God's word. Well, from my careful studies and thoughts, I think homosexuality is wrong because it's against God's word, to put it VERY simply (and I hate to say that, because IMO it's much more complex then that, but I'll just use the same phrasing you used). So if you're willing to say something is wrong because God's word says its wrong, then I would think you'd be willing to grant me the same right, wouldn't you?

than rather try to uphold a frankly (no offence ) stupid in the extreme position or to try and anger our intelligence with half-baked straw man diversions ...

It's no straw man - if it seems to be, then it's because I haven't explained it well enough.

It seems to me that either 1) there are absolute truths, or 2) there are NOT absolute truths (and I don't see any more options!) If option 1, then a person's belief about what the absolute truth is in the matter should determine whether something is right or wrong, correct? If option 2, then there IS no right or wrong, because to have a right or wrong, you have to have something unchanging to compare it to. (and if you want to say "it's right for this time, but maybe not always", then there's STILL an absolute truth - it's that something IS right for this time.)

From what I see, the people who think homosexual marriage is fine are the people who claim that there are no absolute truths, yet they turn around and base their arguments on things that they claim are RIGHT (i.e., that are absolute truths). This is just plain incorrect reasoning, and that's what I'm pointing out.

People say that two consenting men and two consenting women should be able to marry. They're claiming that ALL PEOPLE should recognize that marriage SHOULD BE between two consenting adults, no matter what the sex - IOW, they're appealing to the existence of an absolute truth. But if they have previously said there isn't such a thing, then I won't allow their appeal without pointing out the double standard.

all i can say, Ri - is please for the sake of all of us ... cut your losses on this stupidity - before you dig yourself into a position that you'll need to go against the word of the Lord to attempt to climb out of this debating pit.

best, BB x

I'm not saying that I think human/animal sex is right. I think it is VERY wrong! But I am pointing out that the homosexual marriage supporters are doing the exact same thing that I'm doing - deciding, according to their personal standards, what they think marriage should be - and yet they say I'm wrong to do that! That's a double standard, and invalidates their argument, if you care to be logical, which I think is important. If a person's beliefs can't stand up to logical analysis, then I think they're irrational and should not be conceded to.

... just to be clear: comparing the rights of human gays to animals is offensive in the extreme

There's no rights involved - a man doesn't have the right to marry his daughter, does he? Then don't complain about gay rights being denied And if the gay marriage supporters claim that sincerity and love is all that matters, along with consent and age and stuff like that, then they are appealing to a common standard which they think is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. And if they don't think there are absolute truths, then their argument is wrong.

And seriously, if there aren't absolute truths, why IS bestiality even wrong? I mean, I think it's wrong, but what reason could a person give that it's wrong if they don't think there are absolute truths?

And let me make very clear that I don't consider homosexuals to be animals. I think they're amazing, valuable people, EXACTLY like hets. But that doesn't stop me from analyzing arguments about them, or about anything. And frankly, if they want to expand marriage definitions to include man/man and woman/woman, then what LOGICAL reason do they have for stopping there? Any reason they have would necessarily involve an appeal to the existence of an absolute truth, and we're right back to the beginning.

If "harm" is brought up again, then of course that appeals to an absolute truth, too - first, that it's "WRONG" to harm someone, and second, that "HARM" is what that particular person thinks it is, as opposed to what someone else thinks it is.

.. and if you are not ... then as the gaffer says - you are, since you are intelligent, ... you are deliberatley playing with semantics in a most unsavoury way here.

I most definitely am NOT playing with semantics - in all sincerity, it's option 5 going on here (see post to Gaffer above)

I hope we can all stick with this a bit longer and I'll try to clarify whatever isn't clear.

*sigh* long, hard post - I wish we could just talk ...

[Rían]

(btw, atheists/agnostics - I'm waiting for you guys to descend on BB and say he's wrong to appeal to the word of God!, just like you tell me that I'm wrong!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

GreyMouser - The part I have difficulty with is that you guys are treating the "consenting adult" thing as an absolute truth, when I hear over and over from most of you that there are no absolute truths.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But why should I go by what YOU think is right or wrong? Why shouldn't I go by what I think is right or wrong? You're not in any authority over the human race. Why should anyone go by what anyone else thinks is right or wrong? You seem to be appealing to some common, absolute standard here - do you think one exists?

* takes deep breath *

My point is that it is irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the debate.

My hope would be that you would examine the arguments and we would have a debate.

Clearly, though, since I'm not an absolutist then my arguments are not valid. Reason, logic and a social contract are, it seems, an inherently inferior basis for morality than superstition.

[Rían]

I think that the question "do absolute truths exist" is VERY relevant to the debate. I guess we just disagree.

I'm examining the arguments and pointing out what I think are logical flaws.

I guess I'm just not explaining myself well. I'm examining your arguments and showing where I think they're flawed. It's late here - time zones are bummers - I need some sleep.

It's not that since you're not an absolutist, your arguments are automatically flawed. It's that since you're not an absolutist, if you make absolutist statements then I'll call you on it.

Goodnight, and I wish we could sit and talk somewhere.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, I think we disagree on that first point.

All threads lead to Rome...

Sweet dreams

[Spock]

remarks about sex with animals, and other vents have gotten too far afield and too personal.

temporarily closed for 48 hrs. to let all cool down

[Spock]

47 hrs-ok, now let's keep on topic and not attack the poster!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, majority rules isn't always appropriate.

But I haven't heard what rocks have to say about this, because oh em gee, they can't talk!

Uh, guys and gals, I was joking with Lotesse and Nurvie! Nurv took it that way, it seems, but a lot of folks seem to have taken offence.

It was intended to be a jest and I thought the made it plain.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea (nonintentionalis) maxima culpa.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(btw, atheists/agnostics - I'm waiting for you guys to descend on BB and say he's wrong to appeal to the word of God!, just like you tell me that I'm wrong!)

I don't know about atheists, but it's perfectly okay for people to use colloquialisms from an agnostic PoV.

[Jonathan]

editied by MOD

[Nurvingiel]

I vMea culpa, mea culpa, mea (nonintentionalis) maxima culpa.[/QUOTE]I kinda figured you were joking. Even with a , jokes are sometimes hard to discern in text. I'd throw in a j/k or a *joking* to be safe, because people do seem to misread your dry (and hilarious IMO) sense of humour sometimes.

KEEP ON TOPIC-MOD

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster probably doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. After all, He did make gay people too with His Noodly Appendage!

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC NO CHIT CHAT

[Rían]

OFF TOPIC

[Valandil]

I had rather not wished to get too absorbed in these "General" topics of late - especially the more "touchy" ones (I just prefer Tolkien) - but I read something the other day that took me a bit by surprise. Let me toss it out there and see what the rest of you think:

Would you expect that the legalization and further acceptance of gay marriage might be used to morally support human cloning?

The argument went something like this: Now that gays can be married, shouldn't they have as much right to children of their own as heterosexuals?

So - as I said - what do you think?

[The Gaffer]

Interesting question, nice to see something beyond the usual in this thread, Val.

I can see it might create a demand for human cloning, but that would have to compete against all the other ways in which gays can already have kids: fostering, adoption, donor insemination (in the case of lesbians), surrogacy, etc.

There are other, stronger arguments for cloning which would take precedence I would have thought.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has a "right" to have kids as such. It reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

"Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box???"

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Would you expect that the legalization and further acceptance of gay marriage might be used to morally support human cloning?

The argument went something like this: Now that gays can be married, shouldn't they have as much right to children of their own as heterosexuals?

So - as I said - what do you think?

I think that's rather far-fetched. Personally I also think it's a bit silly. Most people don't immediately consider cloning if they want a child, why would homosexuals?

Since cloning is a) expensive, b) still with flaw and c) controlled or (at least commercially) banned by the government in most countries that have the necessary facilities, I don't see this as a much-used road to furfill a child-wish.

No, most likely adoption and women who agree to carry somebody else's baby to term (there's probably a correct word for them, but I know only the Dutch one) are going to be considered most.

Whether homosexual couples have an equal 'right' to children as heterosexual couples may still end up be as great legal dispute as their right to marriage.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Would you expect that the legalization and further acceptance of gay marriage might be used to morally support human cloning?

The argument went something like this: Now that gays can be married, shouldn't they have as much right to children of their own as heterosexuals?

So - as I said - what do you think?

No, I don't think legalization of gay marriage will have any significant impact on whether human cloning should be legal. There are already many infertile couples (straight ones) and if something might be used to morally support cloning, it's them. Gay couples would in a way just fall into the category of infertile couples, since a gay couple would be infertile even though the individuals don't have to be.

Now if legislation made it possible for infertile couples to use cloning to get a child, the question would arise if gay couples should have the same right.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, I don't think legalization of gay marriage will have any significant impact on whether human cloning should be legal. There are already many infertile couples (straight ones) and if something might be used to morally support cloning, it's them. Gay couples would in a way just fall into the category of infertile couples, since a gay couple would be infertile even though the individuals don't have to be.

Now if legislation made it possible for infertile couples to use cloning to get a child, the question would arise if gay couples should have the same right.

Jonathan,

I think you contradict yourself here. The pressure from the infertile couples is not driving cloning at present. But, if gay "marriage" is instituted then the necessity for cloning would be enhanced by the "infertility" of gay couples who would no doubt feel obliged to stridently demand it. I can hear the pre-echoes of the gay argument for goverment sponsored cloning even now. The argument is to assert parity and then demand special status.

The problem is "which" partner gets cloned. Males could only produce males and females only females.

So I can forsee the demand for goverment sponsored research to allow the fusion of two same-sexed gametes to merge to produce a 'new' individual. Just such a scenario was in fact a predicate of one of Rober Heinlein's sci-fi tales from the 60's (sorry I can't recall the title of the short story, but it involved two astronauts who had been sent to Mars).

The analogous situation in action today would be the demand for goverment sponsorship of stem-cell research. The alleged and perceived "benefits" are merely alleged and need much work before analysis of risk:benefit ratios could be even projected. You are well aware of all the hype in this area politically now. The same would undoubtedly occur as I have outlined above in the case of the "speciality" of gay "marriage".