Hey dgs49, Obama just called your bluff

[BoSoxGal]

People have been having civil secular marriage ceremonies for years. That church bullshit is as unnecessary as baptism is to having a child recognized by society - all you need is a birth certificate.

[Crackpot]

Religious marriage will suffer (broadly) because the two are no longer interchangeable putting them in the awkward position of having to verify them.

That makes no sense. If a religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, or some other type of marriage, then a same-sex couple or whoever who come asking for a marriage ceremony will be shown the door. What "checking up" would be required?

But what about a married same sex couple? there are more than a few churches that welcome homosexual congregants (one sin is no better than another) but as they see is accepting a marriage would be putting a seal of approval on something they see as a sin

And many (myself included) would bristle at the idea that their marriage wasn't valid because it didn't occur under the umbrella of a particular religion.

Again, you are making no sense. Marriages don't need to be performed under the umbrella of any religion to be valid at present, how would that possibly change?

You are ignoring the religious context as it stands right now (no same sex marriage) there is little to no conflict between the state and most religions concept of marriage. (the vast majority of the domestic big three anyway) However by adding same sex marriage into the mix it seriously complicates the manner in which religions interact with the state in what historically has been a joint venture.

Many believers see this as the state suddenly deciding to rewrite a long term agreement at their expense.

[Crackpot]

People have been having civil secular marriage ceremonies for years. That church bullshit is as unnecessary as baptism is to having a child recognized by society - all you need is a birth certificate.

show what you know about baptism.

[BoSoxGal]

More than you do about grammar.


eta: it's an imperfect analogy but you're being quite obtuse about the obvious distinction between marriage contracts and religious ceremonies consecrating them.

[Crackpot]

Itwas a typo. Sew soo mee.

[Scooter]

But what about a married same sex couple? there are more than a few churches that welcome homosexual congregants (one sin is no better than another) but as they see is accepting a marriage would be putting a seal of approval on something they see as a sin

I suppose it would be analogous to how some churches view heterosexual couples who live together without marriage - that they would accept them as individuals but not as a couple, as that would be seen as putting a seal of approval on "living in sin".

Besides which, a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage would not be welcoming gay congregants as a couple, either, married or not, so where is the difference from the current situation?

You are ignoring the religious context as it stands right now (no same sex marriage) there is little to no conflict between the state and most religions concept of marriage. (the vast majority of the domestic big three anyway) However by adding same sex marriage into the mix it seriously complicates the manner in which religions interact with the state in what historically has been a joint venture.

How does it complicate anything? Religious bodies that do not believe in same-sex marriages will not perform them, full stop.

You keep making the same assertion using different words without demonstrating how it would come to pass. Perhaps if you provided a concrete example...

Many believers see this as the state suddenly deciding to rewrite a long term agreement at their expense.

There was at one time no civil divorce. Then that changed, but some churches still refused to recognize divorce, and so would not marry anyone who had had one. Somehow everyone managed to figure out how to make that work without anyone treading on anyone else's toes. I cannot see how legalization of same-sex marriage could possibly be any different. It's just another form of legal civil marriage that is not seen as valid by some religious bodies.

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

"... And just because people do not love the idea that "marriage" should extend to include same-sex couples doesn't automatically mean they have an irrational hatred of that group.
... " Meade

Except when doing so deprives homosexuals of equal rights. Then it is irrational hatred.
yrs,
rubato

Could be rational hatred, rubato. I imagine some people manage that when it comes to RC priests or the RC church, for example?

Could be neither hatred nor irrational.

You assume first of all (without rational discussion) that "homosexual" is a class entitled to "equal rights". A nice mantra to substitute for thought. If "homosexual" is a moral evil and wrongness, then to advocate society's recognition of it as "OK" is in fact irrational. If "homosexual is not a moral evil and wrongness, then you may be correct.

To hold the first position however may not be irrational - it may be inaccurate but entirely rational. If that were not so, you are placing the entire discipline of science into the category of "irrational" since science by its very nature holds a belief that explains observed behaviour of the material world until such time as new information suggests a re-evaluation of the first (but rational) understanding. The question in the case of non-material issues or let us say 'moral' issues is not answerable by phenomena but by belief itself.

That all humans are entitled to live free from oppression is probably not 'provable' - it is an inference and to think otherwise is nonsense. There can be no proof that there are proofs. What we believe may be widely accepted because it is useful in the real world but that doesn't make it true. I believe that all humans are entitle to live free from oppression. I do not agree that what is morally wrong can ever be acceptable and protected.

Racism is morally wrong - race can never therefore be used as a basis to refuse a societal 'right' such as marriage
Homosexuality is morally wrong - it can never therefore be used as a basis to grant a societal 'right' such as marriage

Racists, Mother Theresa, homosexuals, thieves, liars, democrats, adulterers, Christians, divorcees, Republicans, atheists, Nazis etc etc are entitled to protection of the law against unjust persecution not because that entitlement is provable from Nature-cause/effect relationships observable in the world but because that is God's moral law and hence axiomatic or tautological in our world.

Where one aspect of moral law conflicts with another aspect of moral law, the prohibition (AFAIR) supersedes the permission. For example, you can eat all the fruit except one. You are free - but not free to murder. A man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh - but man shall not use another man as if he were a woman, nor a woman use another woman as if a man.

Now all of the above is arguable (of course) and all of the above may (in the sense of human logic) be wrong - mistaken -incorrect - invalid reasoning. I don't think it is wrong. But it is not based on irrationality. And it is not based upon hatred.

Unless of course you agree that God hates the sin even while loving the sinner?

Meade

[dgs49]

Given the revelation of this weeks's Newsweek (cover), perhaps Scooter could define, "homosexual," so that we can have a rational discussion.

I have attempted to do this in the past, in this and other fora, but received nothing but multiple blasts of shit from the Peanut Gallery.

If we have a huge problem of discrimination against "homosexuals," then it's only rational to try to define the term.

To illustrate, I watched a rerun of a prime-time drama last night ("Harry's Law") in which one of the main story lines was that blood banks discriminate against "homosexuals."

Clearly, this is not the case. Nobody has ever even proposed a legal definition for "homosexual." The blood bank screens for BEHAVIORS that are deemed to be "high risk."

If not Scooter, then perhaps one of the attorneys can propose a legal definition of "homosexual" that could support an anti-discrimination law.

[Scooter]

blood bank screens for BEHAVIORS that are deemed to be "high risk."

No they don't. If that were true, then gay men who have been in monogamous relationships whose only sexual activity consisted of mutual masturbation would not be prevented from donating blood, but they are. And if you want to discuss donation bans further, start a thread about it and I'd be happy to demolish the "logic" behind them once again.

As to your primary question, a dictionary can be a helpful tool. I would suggest you consult one.

[Grim Reaper]

Racism is morally wrong - race can never therefore be used as a basis to refuse a societal 'right' such as marriage
Homosexuality is morally wrong - it can never therefore be used as a basis to grant a societal 'right' such as marriage

Racism is wrong because it's a breakdown in logic. There is no real difference between the different skin colors.

Homosexuality is wrong... because the Bible tells me so. There is no logical reason to say why homosexuality is bad.

Racists, Mother Theresa, homosexuals, thieves, liars, democrats, adulterers, Christians, divorcees, Republicans, atheists, Nazis etc etc are entitled to protection of the law against unjust persecution not because that entitlement is provable from Nature-cause/effect relationships observable in the world but because that is God's moral law and hence axiomatic or tautological in our world.

And yet, all of those people, except for one group, are allowed to marry each other.

[Grim Reaper]

Given the revelation of this weeks's Newsweek (cover), perhaps Scooter could define, "homosexual," so that we can have a rational discussion.

This is really the only thing you could come up with? Really?

You get blasted by the "peanut gallery" because you come up with utterly irrational nonsense like that post.

I'm interested in hearing what you think "homosexuality" means so we know where to start in educating you about how wrong you are.

[Scooter]

This is the man who said someone could not call themselves "black" unless they were descended from slaves, so...

[Crackpot]

Wouldn't that make all Jews "black"

[Sue U]

Wouldn't that make all Jews "black"

I dunno, but when I was in college, I did join the Black Student Union.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Racism is wrong because it's a breakdown in logic. There is no real difference between the different skin colors.

I don't know what 'breakdown in logic' refers to. Racism is not wrong because a human syllogism says so; how do you prove your first premise? (I don't follow why no real difference between skin colours is relevant - we'd have to discuss your use of the word 'real').

Homosexuality is wrong... because the Bible tells me so. There is no logical reason to say why homosexuality is bad.

Not quite. Sin is wrong because it is an offense against God. The Bible is God's word on that. Homosexuality is a sin. Morality is defined by God, the ground of reason and the basic premise - not by beginning with a human premise. A rational argument for opposing homosexual marriage is built upon that.

BTW in case it is not clear; the issue is not that I wish to 'punish' or 'oppose' someone else's sin. It is my sin I'm concerned about. To acquiesce in a societal change that condones, promotes and approves of violating moral law is for me to sin.

And yet, all of those people, except for one group, are allowed to marry each other.

Specious. All of those people, expect for one group, are not sinning against God's creative marriage ordinance. I could have included fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, polygamists, bigamists.... feel free to add 'em.

When NAMBLA urges societal acceptance of their particular "right", what's your counter argument? (Bound to be something along the lines of... "well people below the age of 16 need to be protected against.....")

The failure of moral arguments from natural cause/effect logic is that in the end, they always boil down to "whatever most people want". Thus right and wrong become arbitrary constructs belonging to time/place rather than absolutes

Meade

[Guinevere]

Meade, that's your interpretation of the Bible. How do you reconcile your interpretation with that of other christian denominations which not only tolerate homosexuality, but have consecrated homosexual bishops, and performed (and recognize) same-sex marriage ceremonies? Off the top of my head I can think of the Episcopal Church of the US (my own denomination), the Lutheran Church in the US (which is partnering with the Episcopalians to share sanctuaries, memberships, and clergy), and some Methodists. These are all large "main-stream" denominations, but you can also include the Unitarians, too --- who have a significant present here in New England.

[RayThom]

Was Jesus married? Was he homosexual? His sexual orientation is dealt with much fuzzy logic. A little bit more historical/biblical context and information would mollify much of this overblown marriage argument. Alas, much has been edited and redacted over the years to ever allow us to make an informed decision. Too many believe what they are told, whether it be fact or fiction. "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." And that's faith, which is neither right nor wrong. It's merely an ongoing argument looking for answers that will never come to neither the closed-minded nor the enlightened. Secular humanism seems to be the logical choice but it will never sell. It's just not complicated enough.

Meanwhile, where does the sanctity of a church sanctioned Decree of Nullity fit into all of this? The church may not believe in divorce but the state will always demand proof of nullification. Sacraments vs. the law. For me a no-brainer. But I am just a simple man with a simple plan. I have more meaningful concepts to ponder.

[Grim Reaper]

I don't know what 'breakdown in logic' refers to. Racism is not wrong because a human syllogism says so; how do you prove your first premise? (I don't follow why no real difference between skin colours is relevant - we'd have to discuss your use of the word 'real').

There are some physiological differences between the different races, but nothing that suggests one skin color is "better" than the other. Racism is the breakdown of logic that says "my skin color is obviously worth more than other skin colors, so that makes me a better person than others". There's nothing backing it up, it's all nonsense.

Not quite. Sin is wrong because it is an offense against God. The Bible is God's word on that. Homosexuality is a sin. Morality is defined by God, the ground of reason and the basic premise - not by beginning with a human premise. A rational argument for opposing homosexual marriage is built upon that.

The Bible defines a lot of things that nobody takes seriously anymore. And again, the Bible has been repeatedly edited and translated over the past thousand or so years. Anything in it should be taken with a grain of salt as far as being "God's word" anymore.

BTW in case it is not clear; the issue is not that I wish to 'punish' or 'oppose' someone else's sin. It is my sin I'm concerned about. To acquiesce in a societal change that condones, promotes and approves of violating moral law is for me to sin.

You're denying these people access to a service that no other people are denied. This is an arbitrary punishment just because of their sexual orientation. If you were really concerned about sin, you'd be petitioning to have homosexuality made a crime punishable by death. After all, that's what the Bible says should be done.

Specious. All of those people, expect for one group, are not sinning against God's creative marriage ordinance. I could have included fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, polygamists, bigamists.... feel free to add 'em.

Yet they're all sinners who are allowed to marry, except for one specific group.

When NAMBLA urges societal acceptance of their particular "right", what's your counter argument? (Bound to be something along the lines of... "well people below the age of 16 need to be protected against.....")

Of course it's going to be something like that. That's not two consenting adults. It's a pretty pitiful argument too, since it has absolutely no similarity to homosexuality.

The failure of moral arguments from natural cause/effect logic is that in the end, they always boil down to "whatever most people want". Thus right and wrong become arbitrary constructs belonging to time/place rather than absolutes

And allowing the majority to define what the minority can do usually leads to the minority being oppressed.

[Gob]

Not quite. Sin is wrong because it is an offense against God. The Bible is God's word on that. Homosexuality is a sin.

Why should the rest of society be constrained by whatever fairy tales you choose to believe?