Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m saying, that as a building block of society, we ought to leave the definition of marriage alone that we’ve been using for 15 or so centuries unless there’s solid data showing that it will have no adverse effects on society. By adverse, I mean that it will not drive normal marriage rates down, normal birthrates down, and that the children raised in these gay marriages won’t be more ill-adjusted than the heterosexual mean.

In that case, slavery should never have been abolished. It was the building block of America (cheap free labor) and you got rid of it because some people got their panties in a twist about equal rights?

What’s up with that shit? I mean come on, you yanks need to man up. There was no data to suggest that slavery could be abolished without some sort of negative effect, why the fuck did you do it? Are y’all retarded or something? And whats up with allowing interracial marriage and removing segregation? I mean jeez people, you gotta take society into account here.

Do you see what I’m doing here?

golf clap Well done, sir!

[/quote]

Not quite. I’m only using this argument because no normative standards of any type are allowed into this discussion. The argument over whether or not to allow slavery was reasoned using the Bible in many cases. Nowadays, the Bible is inadmissable because liberals will think some sort of theocracy is being threatened if we use it.

So I’m trying to go a secular route - our civilization has worked just fine using what we have, and the alternatives are well, anything. Let the polygamist Muslims have their definition, the people that want to marry pets, vegetables, etc. You can’t one minute use a relativistic standard and the next use a moral absolute.

The argument for gay marriage is relativistic - the gays have decided we ought to change the definition of marriage to suite them because, well just because. It would be the moral equivalent of slavery not to!

When slave trafficking was being discussed in the English Parliament or on the Continent or in the Vatican, the Bible was admissible and was used normatively.

Of course, relativistic arguments run into various problems. If society decides to kill the Jews, that’s the moral direction they’ve chosen to take and since normative standards aren’t admissible, there’s not much we can say. Dietrich Boenhoffer - pah! What do we care what the Bible says?

So the very definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is floating out there somewhere in the ether. Of course, somebody could always try to make a Biblical argument for same sex marriage on Biblical grounds or something like that, but we wouldn’t want to usher in a theocracy now would we?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have no aversion to homosexuals despite the fact I find a unattractive and male on male is disgusting. But it’s their choice. You may be heterosexual, but you are still a bigot.

So you, the unbigoted heterosexual here, have no aversion to sex with another man - you just haven’t done it? Gee, if sex with a woman is just the same as sex with a man, what’s holding you up? Haven’t found the time?

I’ve edited my post. You may want to do the same as my change might alter the meaning of the post in your eyes. Just letting you know.

EDIT: Also, could you put in who typed out what you’re responding to? It’s not just me and you arguing here.[/quote]

I was responding to you. It seems I read too quickly. Happily, it appears you and I have the exact same stance towards homosexuality! We’ve both got an aversion to it, therefore, according to the definition you’ve provided, we’re both bigots!!!1111!!! Welcome into the fold.

[Makavali]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I was responding to you. It seems I read too quickly. Happily, it appears you and I have the exact same stance towards homosexuality! We’ve both got an aversion to it, therefore, according to the definition you’ve provided, we’re both bigots!!!1111!!! Welcome into the fold. [/quote]

I’m well aware you were responding to me, others who might happen on this thread won’t be.

I don’t have an aversion to homosexuality. I can accept that some people feel that way about people of the same gender. I can also accept that they might want to get married and settle down. You on the other hand, mask your contempt for them with slippery slopes and semantics. If homosexuality wasn’t such a big deal to you, then you wouldn’t feel the need to argue about how they shouldn’t get married.

So, no I’m not a bigot (WRT homosexuals). You however seem to fit the term rather well.

[whoami]

Why do so many people think that if we do not follow the Bible, then we have no morals? If left alone, we’re just gonna go crazy and kill each other (to an even larger extent than what’s already happening)?

What about trying to make people happy? Maybe trying to reduce human suffering? I know one will encounter some difficult choices using this philosophy, but most of the time it makes things pretty easy. Proper education will lead to people being less fearful, less neurotic and less ego-driven. At the moment though, people must educate
themselves, as the schools are too busy teaching BS.

Edit:
That might be a bit off topic, but I believe a lack of education is the reason why we have hateful morons everywhere.
If one opposes change, one will have to live a life in despair.

[Makavali]

[quote]whoami wrote:
Why do so many people think that if we do not follow the Bible, then we have no morals? If left alone, we’re just gonna go crazy and kill each other (to an even larger extent than what’s already happening)?[/quote]

Ironic you should say this, because I can guarantee that a LOT of the worlds problems (not all though) can be reduced to Christian Bible vs. Muslim Bible (aka Qur’an).

I’d like to say food for thought, but it’s not something new.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Is it your role to insult someone who you feel has been insulting others?

“Fuck off?”

Is that all you guys think about?

Continue…

Insult if you want, but if that’s all you want to do, then yes… fuck off. Otherwise start contributing something other than backhanded insults.[/quote]

He can’t actually contribute anything other than personal attacks and bigoted slurs. Apparently his wife is just as dumb, but thats really of no surprise, considering her choice in mate.

[wirewound]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Not quite. I’m only using this argument because no normative standards of any type are allowed into this discussion. The argument over whether or not to allow slavery was reasoned using the Bible in many cases. Nowadays, the Bible is inadmissable because liberals will think some sort of theocracy is being threatened if we use it.[/quote]

That’s because a theocracy would be one possible threat of over-reliance on the bible as a moral guidebook.

So I’m trying to go a secular route - our civilization has worked just fine using what we have, and the alternatives are well, anything. Let the polygamist Muslims have their definition, the people that want to marry pets, vegetables, etc. You can’t one minute use a relativistic standard and the next use a moral absolute.

Straw man - no one is arguing for polygamy or marrying one’s pets. The argument from tradition is also a logical fallacy. ‘Because it has always been done this way’ is not a reasonable argument that it should continue to be done this way.

The argument for gay marriage is relativistic - the gays have decided we ought to change the definition of marriage to suite them because, well just because. It would be the moral equivalent of slavery not to!

However, moral relativists don’t (intentionally) crash planes into buildings. It takes an absolutist to do something like that. Considering the dangers, ‘relativism’ doesn’t seem that bad.

[quote]When slave trafficking was being discussed in the English Parliament or on the Continent or in the Vatican, the Bible was admissible and was used normatively.

Of course, relativistic arguments run into various problems. If society decides to kill the Jews, that’s the moral direction they’ve chosen to take and since normative standards aren’t admissible, there’s not much we can say. Dietrich Boenhoffer - pah! What do we care what the Bible says? [/quote]

What you call relativism, I call the introduction of new norms. We didn’t oppose the genocide of the jews because the bible said we should - we opposed it because we decided, en masse, that it was a terrible act that should not continue.

So the very definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is floating out there somewhere in the ether. Of course, somebody could always try to make a Biblical argument for same sex marriage on Biblical grounds or something like that, but we wouldn’t want to usher in a theocracy now would we?

Ask Mohammed Atta where his definitions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were. Moral absolutes lead to unavoidable contradictions with either themselves or reality at some point.

Saying that rejecting moral absolutism necessarily requires that one embrace relativism - that’s a false dichotomy.

[jsbrook]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m saying, that as a building block of society, we ought to leave the definition of marriage alone that we’ve been using for 15 or so centuries unless there’s solid data showing that it will have no adverse effects on society. By adverse, I mean that it will not drive normal marriage rates down, normal birthrates down, and that the children raised in these gay marriages won’t be more ill-adjusted than the heterosexual mean.

In that case, slavery should never have been abolished. It was the building block of America (cheap free labor) and you got rid of it because some people got their panties in a twist about equal rights?

What’s up with that shit? I mean come on, you yanks need to man up. There was no data to suggest that slavery could be abolished without some sort of negative effect, why the fuck did you do it? Are y’all retarded or something? And whats up with allowing interracial marriage and removing segregation? I mean jeez people, you gotta take society into account here.

Do you see what I’m doing here?

golf clap Well done, sir!

Not quite. I’m only using this argument because no normative standards of any type are allowed into this discussion. The argument over whether or not to allow slavery was reasoned using the Bible in many cases. Nowadays, the Bible is inadmissable because liberals will think some sort of theocracy is being threatened if we use it.

So I’m trying to go a secular route - our civilization has worked just fine using what we have, and the alternatives are well, anything. Let the polygamist Muslims have their definition, the people that want to marry pets, vegetables, etc. You can’t one minute use a relativistic standard and the next use a moral absolute.

The argument for gay marriage is relativistic - the gays have decided we ought to change the definition of marriage to suite them because, well just because. It would be the moral equivalent of slavery not to!

When slave trafficking was being discussed in the English Parliament or on the Continent or in the Vatican, the Bible was admissible and was used normatively.

Of course, relativistic arguments run into various problems. If society decides to kill the Jews, that’s the moral direction they’ve chosen to take and since normative standards aren’t admissible, there’s not much we can say. Dietrich Boenhoffer - pah! What do we care what the Bible says?

So the very definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is floating out there somewhere in the ether. Of course, somebody could always try to make a Biblical argument for same sex marriage on Biblical grounds or something like that, but we wouldn’t want to usher in a theocracy now would we?

[/quote]

The Bible was actually used selectively. Because it’s not consistent. Many places in the Bible condone slavery. And the Bible IS actually used on both sides of the debate for gay marriage. There is one place in the Bible that speaks against homosexuality.

And opponents DO point to it. The Bible also preaches tolerance and loving thy neighbor and ‘judge not lest ye shall not be judged.’ And proponents DO point to that.

[jsbrook]

The problem with using the Bible is not its use per se but when either side points to the provision in the Bible that supports their position like it definitively resolves the situation because it’s ‘the Bible.’ When that cannot be the case. Because, while it may be inspired by God, the Bible is an internally inconsistent document. And a document that men have also changed throughout the millenia. The changes are traceable.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Is it your role to insult someone who you feel has been insulting others?

“Fuck off?”

Is that all you guys think about?

Continue…

Insult if you want, but if that’s all you want to do, then yes… fuck off. Otherwise start contributing something other than backhanded insults.

He can’t actually contribute anything other than personal attacks and bigoted slurs. Apparently his wife is just as dumb, but thats really of no surprise, considering her choice in mate.

At least I’m smart enough to know which sex I’m attracted to. It seems that you had a little problem with that in the past. Hook up, but not have sex with, any guys lately?

[/quote]

I made out with an mtf last…saturday, I think. Does that count?

Its funny that you think I’m concerned with your opinion of me based on my sexual history. As far as you’re concerned, Mick, I’ve fucked ever person and animal I’ve ever seen ever in my life ever.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Look PRCalDude I’ve had enough of your bigotry toward homosexuals. If you don’t think that one man should be sticking his penis into another mans asshole and be rewarded by the state to do so…well…it’s obviously you that needs to be enlightened. After reading all of these fine posts by Captain butt pirate and his accomplice I’m just about convinced…but not quite.

Now let’s put aside the constant animosity that seems prevalent on this thread. Here is my contribution to that end:

What did one gay sperm say to the other gay sperm? How do we find the egg in all this shit?

Okay…okay how about this one:

What did the two condoms say when they walked past the gay bar? Let’s go in and get shit faced.

I bet everyone feels better now…right?

[/quote]

I miss Boston Barrister.

[wirewound]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Is it your role to insult someone who you feel has been insulting others?

“Fuck off?”

Is that all you guys think about?

Continue…

Insult if you want, but if that’s all you want to do, then yes… fuck off. Otherwise start contributing something other than backhanded insults.

He can’t actually contribute anything other than personal attacks and bigoted slurs. Apparently his wife is just as dumb, but thats really of no surprise, considering her choice in mate.

At least I’m smart enough to know which sex I’m attracted to. It seems that you had a little problem with that in the past. Hook up, but not have sex with, any guys lately?

I made out with an mtf last…saturday, I think. Does that count?

Its funny that you think I’m concerned with your opinion of me based on my sexual history.

Let me “straighten” you out:

You’re the one bragging about not knowing if you were heterosexual or homosexual…I’m the one making jokes about it (funny jokes). And…yes you do care about my opinion as you keep answering me.

[/quote]

You shouldn’t confuse boredom with concern.

Just sayin’ - these are the internets. Serious business.

[Makavali]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I’m the one making jokes about it (funny jokes).[/quote]

No, you’re the one making old shitty jokes.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]whoami wrote:
Why do so many people think that if we do not follow the Bible, then we have no morals? If left alone, we’re just gonna go crazy and kill each other (to an even larger extent than what’s already happening)?

What about trying to make people happy? Maybe trying to reduce human suffering? I know one will encounter some difficult choices using this philosophy, but most of the time it makes things pretty easy. Proper education will lead to people being less fearful, less neurotic and less ego-driven. At the moment though, people must educate
themselves, as the schools are too busy teaching BS.

Edit:
That might be a bit off topic, but I believe a lack of education is the reason why we have hateful morons everywhere.
If one opposes change, one will have to live a life in despair. [/quote]

Nobdody here is making the argument that if we don’t follow the Bible, there will be no morals. There will be morals, they will just be relative to something else besides the Bible.

[PRCalDude]

That’s because a theocracy would be one possible threat of over-reliance on the bible as a moral guidebook.

That’s fine, just stop using abolitionism as your example of secular progressivism. The Bible was used heavily in the discussion over whether or not to abolish slavery. You can’t have it both ways.

Straw man - no one is arguing for polygamy or marrying one’s pets. The argument from tradition is also a logical fallacy. ‘Because it has always been done this way’ is not a reasonable argument that it should continue to be done this way.

Au contraire. The Muslims are already pushing for polygamy in the UK and Australia. I’ve provided links to this before, and at least one proponent of gay marriage on this thread has mentioned that it should be allowed.

What’s good for the gays will be good for everyone else. Marriage is whatever any group sees fit if we allow the definition to be plastic.

However, moral relativists don’t (intentionally) crash planes into buildings. It takes an absolutist to do something like that. Considering the dangers, ‘relativism’ doesn’t seem that bad.

Relativists act relatively to someone elses absolute. Gays have their absolute, Mohammed Atta acted according to Surah 9:5, Christians have theirs, and secular liberals, when push comes to shove, will just go with the flow. Relativists, by definition, have no absolutes to use to condemn men like Atta. They may say, “Murder is wrong.” Great. Wrong according to whom? Murder for us was jihad to Atta and he thought he’d be on his way to Paradise with its virgins and young boys “like scattered pearls.”

What you call relativism, I call the introduction of new norms. We didn’t oppose the genocide of the jews because the bible said we should - we opposed it because we decided, en masse, that it was a terrible act that should not continue.

Great. So now why aren’t the people of the state of CAlifornia, who voted “en masse” to oppose gay marriage, not allowed to impose their values? AFter all, it was nothing more than a majority vote that decided to go to war against Hitler, right? At least 51% decided we ought to put a stop to Hitler, therefore, it was the right thing to do, right?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The problem with using the Bible is not its use per se but when either side points to the provision in the Bible that supports their position like it definitively resolves the situation because it’s ‘the Bible.’ When that cannot be the case. Because, while it may be inspired by God, the Bible is an internally inconsistent document. And a document that men have also changed throughout the millenia. The changes are traceable. [/quote]

Are you conversant with Hodges’ exegesis on the topic? How about Garrison’s or Wilberforce?

You’re all over the map with your assertions here and none can be addressed in just one fell swoop. You’ve discussed transmission and textual criticism, logical consistency, and (unwittingly) Biblical theology. Ultimately, if you’re not a Christian, you’re not going to believe the Bible and have no reason to. Either way, the central truths of Scripture are so clearly propounded that even the simplest among us can understand them.