by ignored_one 96 Replies latest social current
I'm against redefining marriage because if we do...where is the limit to this redefinition?
Well, so far the limit seems to be that a marriage - or any voluntary association - can only involve competent consenting adults. Even those you imagine are clamouring for polyamourous or incestuous marriages to be legalised want nothing more. Why should that be a problem?
Perry
There is no comparison between cultic-type plural marriages with dubious consensuality and other marriages, heterosexual, homosexual, or group, where informed consent is not in any real doubt.
You ignore the issue of consensuality. Consensuality IS an issue in the cultic scenarios you describe, but NOT in a normal marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Why do you feel they are comparable? Explain why; in one there is doubt over consensuality, in the other there is none.
Just as voting could not reasonably be withheld from people on account of race (no harm comes from it, even if there is no historic precedent), so to should marriage not be withheld from homosexuals. Despite lack of precedent is causes no harm if done between consenting adults (and any marriage should be between consenting adults).
You are advocating doing something akin to stopping private citizens owning guns because some cultists stockpile them.
Do you perhaps feel by seeking to associate something anyone reasonable would object to (plural cultic marriage with dubious informed consent) with something you have some kind of issue with (gay marriage) you will garner support for your position? As that is what the cult's attorney is doing, and both he and you ignore the issue of consesuality; he because he just doesn't want to go there in court, you because to bring it up makes the two situations incomparable, thus removing a wholey unsupportable 'objection' to gay marriage.
If you are truely concerned about minors in the situation you describe, then seperate focused legislation will protect those that need it without infringing on the freedom of others. In Germany, for example, there are different ages of consent; if parents or social workers feel someone over the normal age of consent is not responsible to take descisons regarding sex, the age of consent is raised for them, and anyone substansially older than them are subject to harsher penalities for having sex with them.
A law like this, along with a repeal of all laws permitting marriage under 16 without parental or judicial consent (a lot of states still have them on their books; I think you can still marry a 12 year-old in Kansas if a judge says you can), and enforcement of exisiting laws punishing sex with minors, would protect girls in cult scenarios AND not infringe on gay people's rights.
In fact, such legistlation would protect girls in the situation MORE than anything you describe; all you are talking about is not changing the law to prevent some sliding-slope conseqeunce; I'm suggesting changes that would make the curent situation better.
dubla
whats telling is someone who has specifically spoken out against "inciting hate based on religion" attempting to paint an entire religion in a bad light after a few comments scroll by.
Nice try, no cigar. Everyone but one who specifically mentioned his Christianity and another who is known for it sent messages of goodwill. I commented accurately on a series of actual events involving real people.
The ridiculous "Muslims are butchers" and "Islam is intriniscally bad" fantasies of the terminally uninformed characterising the thread you refer to do not have such a basis in reality. Those fantaises were used to extrapolate an entire religion's morality on that thread. I commented on the behaviour of two specific Christians.
Please don't compare apples to pears.
Bradley
I honestly cannot see how anyone can be a Christian and condone homosexuality. It's seems pretty clear the Bible is against it. That being said, I believe the Bible is a man-made book chok full of errors so it does not affect in the least my view of homosexuals.
You're using a 'cleft-stick' argument.
Effectively you are saying someone must believe the Bible is inspired of god to the letter, and that there is no cultural bias from the writers.
Why MUST someone believe that?
If they do, you will be down on them like a ton of bricks - thus the cleft stick. You are insisting there is ONLY one way of being a Christian, even though you feel that way is logically unsupportable; defining someone's beliefs in a way that will allow you to attack them (but does not neccesarily accurately describe their beliefs) is a strawman argument.
(side note to dubla: that's how anti-Chritian I am... oooooo, bad Abaddon, hates Christians soooooo much he argues they have freedom not to believe everything literally )
You don't explain why it is impossible for someone to call themself a Christian and see the Bible as an inspired (as in very clever and wise but possibly not of god) guide to life if one uses the common sense that you need to determine what is relevant to us today and what is 'cultural noise' that can be discarded.
You are in effect saying a Christian cannot say "well, the culture was homophobic; if Jesus had come today he'd be in a culture where we're pretty sure homosexuality is intrinsic to some extent, and obviously there would be no criticism of such people provided they did no harm to others as it wouldn't be fair".
I love it when people -- sometimes they're Christian, sometimes they're not -- pull out the "Do not judge..." and "Love thy enemy..." routine thus ignoring the many instances where Jesus, Paul and the apostles were judgmental, hateful and told their followers to do the same. I don't think quoting one of the most inconsistent books in all of history is any way to win an argument.
You're missing the fun bit Bradley. Yeah, the Bible contradicts itself, tell me something I don't know.
To use its contradictions to show that those of that belief who point fingers at others do not even meet their own beliefs requiorements themselves (in terms of being judgemental or not loving an enemy) is just good fun.
Yeru
I'd actually love to have a drink with you one day. Despite our difference in views! Look, I know you feel that your feelings in some areas (abortion and homosexual marriage) are NOT dictated by your beliefs. I don't agree with you. It's like a JW saying they won't have blood but it's not because of their religion: possible, but scarecely credible.
ThiChi
So, posting a comment that you wondered what path your nation is heading down in a thread about homosexuall marriage is the way you show tolerance?
If someone had posted a comment like that in a thread regarding interacial marriage, everyone would be very clear about whether you tolerated that or not.
If you don't make your feelings clear by what you say don't blame me.
Gay mariage for good ! Good Start (it was about time) - We had one here too (HEY !)
Who's got the right to say NO ? who are we to say NO ? This is their life and we may have a child who is gay (his right) and want him/her to be happy. Why do people get that much into other people's business ... THEIR CHOICE ... NOT OURS.
One more reason I am "happy to be Canadian". Not PROUD, what the heck does that mean? Proud I happened to tbe born on a certain little postage stamp of land? But I digress. No, just HAPPY and grateful to be born in a country that is a little more tolerant of others, though racism, classism and homophobia are still issues we are dealing with, among many others.
I have a lesbian friend who got married a couple of years ago, and yah, I will admit that when I first knew her (back in the 80s) I felt a bit threatened. I thought she would 'hit' on me and treat me like MEN do! But I told her how I felt ,,, she was taken aback at first, but then laughed and said, "why would I be interested in you, you like men!" My attitudes have, since then, changed. Maybe those who are 'against' gay/lesbian/bi marriage should make a sincere effort to get to know someone who is gay/lesbian/bi, then you just may begin to see them as PEOPLE, who deserve the same rights as the rest of us!
There is NO COMPARISON between old or middle-aged men who want to marry teenage girls, and a healthy gay/lesbian/bi relationship between consenting ADULTS. They are two completely different things, and IMNSHO, the 'slippery slope' argument holds no water.
WHAT-ever!
talesin
In the long run the debate is senseless, the cat is out of the bad, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, etc etc etc. So, when I'm married to six women each with six of my kids and you're supporting us with your taxes, no complaints.
abaddon-
Everyone but one who specifically mentioned his Christianity and another who is known for it sent messages of goodwill.
so thats two, right?
I commented on the behaviour of two specific Christians.
so, is that 2-2 then?
side note to dubla: that's how anti-Chritian I am... oooooo, bad Abaddon
i didnt say you were anti-christian....i have no idea if you are or not. what i implied is that you were making a sweeping (negative) suggestion about christians in general, with a very small number of examples in which to make such a generalization. i stand by that implication.
aa
In the long run the debate is senseless, the cat is out of the bad, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, etc etc etc. So, when I'm married to six women each with six of my kids and you're supporting us with your taxes, no complaints.
Why would anybody have to support you with their taxes any more than they do now? This non sequitur is reminiscent of when you said the morning after pill should be banned or it would be used as a weapon. Come on Yeru, you're capable of better arguments than that. Personally I think that instead of recognising more kinds of marriage, governments should make no distinction between individuals who are married and those who are not (except for providing the normal legal protection for whatever contract the couple (or group) has entered into). This would allow any consenting adults to enter into any kinds of relationships they wanted or none at all and be treated exactly the same by the government. Religions could of course continue to define marriage in whatever way they wanted but this should have no influence on law. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that.
I can't support 36 kids on my salary, but, since I'll now be able to marry six women, I plan on giving them six kids each (imagine how fun that will be), therefore, ya gotta support me. Non sequiter? I think not...the taxpayers are supporting a load of Jack Mormon kids in several rural Nevada/Utah towns where they are practicing polygamy...when polygamy is legalized (which is surely will be), the practice will become MUCH more common...Plan on supporting polygamists progeny.
""ThiChi
So, posting a comment that you wondered what path your nation is heading down in a thread about homosexual (spelling corrected) marriage is the way you show tolerance?
If someone had posted a comment like that in a thread regarding interracial marriage, everyone would be very clear about whether you tolerated that or not.
If you don't make your feelings clear by what you say don't blame me.""
You are very good at putting words in peoples mouths. Again, nice try. I have not blamed anyone for anything.
From the Traditional Christian viewpoint, interracial marriage is not forbidden nor condemned in the Bible, so you only offer a false dilemma here.
Yer is right, we have already gone down the slippery slope. There is already a Federal Court Case pending defending Polygamy based on the legal gains in some parts of the Country related to the same sex marriage issue. Another case on appeal (which I posted here about a month ago) is a Father that is living as husband & Wife with his 30 year old Daughter. The appeal is based on the same premise.
I pray for a spiritual renewal of our Nation. Marriage is a sacrament, ordained by God, and reiterated by his Son, Jesus Christ, while on earth.
As a Christian, I know full well that until our Lord comes, I am living in "Occupied Territory" and as such, in the minority. These issues will confront us, and we must resist by being a witness to what is right. I do regret that some "use God?s mercy" as an excuse for loose conduct and other rationalsations, mis- representing the Bible?s plain teachings in this area.
This issue is not "Speculative Theology" as some here suggest. I will continue to point out this fact. We need all viewpoints, right?
Wow, you must own a very small bible...
Using your logic, then you must disredard many scriptures on this and other subjects the Bible deals with, regarding conduct. I belive you are twisting the scriptures on the Subject of Judgement.
Lets see, Should I listen to you or the apostle Paul?
Pfffffffffffftt, the bible is just a book written by men who wanted to control the people. The sooner people realise that, the better off they will be. To many contradictions in it for that book to be true.
