North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

Welcome to the Dark Ages, NC ...

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#221  Postby Shrunk » May 16, 2012 11:46 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:and instead try to elevate a “Dan Savage” moral law code of your own, which permits and promotes homosexuality, you must surely know therefore that there will be an affect in both directions and an effect on both sides.


Many of the bigots who said the sky would fall in if we didn't set fire to black people now and again, or keep them in chains, are now mouthing off about gay people. And it's the same tiresome, ignorant and hate filled bleat. WAAAH WE WANT TO TREAT PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE AS SUBHUMAN, AND THE SKY WILL FALL IN IF YOU DON'T LET US!!! Indeed, quite a few homophobes are also racists. The hilariously named J.B. Stoner was a case in point. Here's one of his bon mots for you to digest:

J. B. Stoner, arch-racist and homophobe wrote:AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and Niggers, and fortunately it is wiping out the queers. I guess God hates queers for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against queers and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a queer into becoming a queer, means his white bloodline has run out.


Now if you want to be associated with someone as crude, backward, lumpen and plain hate-filled as this, then don't be surprised if others point this out. Oh, while you're at it, here's some other choice words you can digest, from some of the people who claim to be "defenders of traditional marriage":

Bob Dornan, Rethuglicon politician wrote:Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet'


Fred Phelps, all round asshole wrote:Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death.


Jesse Helms, racist politician wrote:Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches.


Paul Cameron, discredit pseudoscientist wrote:Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.


Nice people you have on "your side".



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 31495.html


I would have thought it was obvious, but since it isn't: I have no problem with the type of use that Calilasseia made of those quotes. If you need me to explain the distinction, I'll gladly oblige.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19270
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#222  Postby Hnau von Thulcandra » May 17, 2012 11:44 pm

Kazaman wrote:Meanwhile, I'm still awaiting the return of dear old Hnau, whom I've noticed has visited this thread at least twice yet not responded. :ask:

Haha I'm flattered that you noticed my absence; it makes me feel so special. But you needn't be alarmed; I remain quite committed to our lovely little discourse.

purplerat wrote:So if it were a religion you had no particular issue with you would have no problem with it? Or what if it were one race being officially recognized and given special rights and privileges (lets say "Black") but no such recognition, rights or privileges for non-blacks? If you truly are ok with the government arbitrarily giving special rights and privileges to one group over others then you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties so why bother discussing such matters at all?

I have already stated that I have no problem in theory with the one religion I "have no particular issue with", namely Christianity, being supported by the state. Anyhow, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual conduct may be "arbitrary" from a purely abstract scientific standpoint, (aside from the obvious factor of reproduction) but as I mentioned before, science has naught to do with morals. And it's obviously far easier to chose your religion or your romantic partner than it is to chose your race, so you really can't compare them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:No but you are creating an image of an irrational homophobe.

Well I've been called worse things, so I shan't complain. But it's just kind of sadly funny how I'm perceived. The other day I was chatting with someone online about this same subject, and we discovered that we both agreed on the undesirability of same-sex marriage. But then she made some nasty reference to "fags", and I suggested that it was better not to use such slurs, whereupon she said "fuck you" and disconnected.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It is impossible however to oppose the Jewish etnicity and not Jewish people.

Very true. And if there was such a thing as a homosexual ethnicity, it would be naughty of me to oppose it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet you are arguing that you should get to decide who gets married and who shouldn't.

Because marriage is part of the common inheritance of humanity, and we don't want an embittered minority to demand the right to alter it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Like the highly suspicious coincidence of the Chruch becoming accepting of black people as citizens when the abolishionist movement started?

The abolitionist movement was largely started by the Church herself, so that's an odd accusation. Ever since Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts, we have been "accepting of black people", although sadly certain people in certain times and certain places have failed to live up to this.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Following the same line of logic, why did God never clearly and authoritavely speak out against slavery?

Because he permits it, under certain conditions.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet this is what you keep doing by arguing that homosexuals are immoral whent they act on their attraction, when in a consenting relationship.

Heterosexuals are just as immoral when they act on their own sinful attractions in consenting relationships, so it's hardly a one-sided condemnation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again why? Because the bible says so? What makes felatio between two men immoral while a woman giving a blowjob to a man isn't?

Haha well according to traditional Catholic thought both are equally acts of "sodomy".

Thomas Eshuis wrote:We're not the one obsessed by the acts of heterosexuals in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I am growing rather tired of this accusation... nothing would make me happier than for all discussion of homoeroticism to vanish into oblivion. The only reason we seem to be talking about such acts so much is that their fans are demanding we affirm them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Then how is that different from ssm? How does government recognition of ssm endorse homosexuality as a whole when the same isn't true for Islam?

purplerat wrote:I don't see how one could possibly make a distinction between the two rationally - if you oppose same sex marriage because of "Christian values" it takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to accept an Islamic marriage. The state isn't endorsing homosexuality in a same sex marriage any more then they would Islam in a Muslim marriage.
A Catholic church would no more allow two Muslims to marry in a Catholic church and Catholic wedding ceremony than they would allow two homosexuals to do so. So why make a distinction when it comes to what happens outside of the church/religious ceremony? Either it's a marriage which adheres to your religious values or it's not.

There are plenty of aspects of non-Christian religions which the Church considers true, and marriage is one of these. When the Church recognizes Muslim marriages as valid in the eyes of God, she is not saying Islam is true on the whole, she is simply acknowledging the fact that the two faiths overlap on this particular issue. Although an individual Muslim is not necessarily culpable, being a Muslim is objectively a sinful thing, since he is failing in his duty to enter the Church. But that does not mean that every single action he commits as a Muslim is wrong. If he feeds a poor man, he is doing a good deed, and if he marries a wife, he is likewise doing a good deed. So a Muslim marriage, despite its occurring within the confines of a false religion, IS "a marriage which adheres to my religious values". And I want the state to endorse Muslim marriages, just like I want it to endorse Muslim charity.

A Muslim couple could convert to Christianity and remain married, and thus their marriage would become a fully Christian marriage. But if a homosexual couple were to convert to (traditional) Christianity, their union has no such potential, for the very first thing they would have to do would be repent and separate. Saying the Church would not bless a marriage between two Muslims rather pointless; no devout Muslims would WANT such a thing to happen. It would be ridiculous. But the Church certainly would bless a marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim - as she did for my own cousin. This is entirely different from the case of homosexuals, and I can assure you that there are many thousands of them who would dearly love for their marriages to be solemnized by a Catholic priest.

Kazaman wrote:Well, at least you aren't shy. I likewise find it highly suspicious that the non "gay-affirming" Church and scriptures were raised in highly homophobic times and places. It seems like a bit of populism was involved even then. ;) That was not, however, how I envisioned the question. I was implying that you have given absolutely no reason for anyone, even yourself were you to decide to form opinions sensibly, to agree with you or your faction. Why is homosexuality so immoral to you?

I don't know if it would be fair to describe ancient Mediterranean culture as "homophobic". But anyhow, I'm not even trying to get you to agree with my faction. I'm simply trying to show that, given our positions are what they are, we are behaving sensibly.

Kazaman wrote:
Now, you seem to have misread what I said, because I did not claim celibacy or abstinence necessarily stripped anyone of humanity, but that the Vatican's stance (and yours, naturally) strips homosexuals of their humanity. It does so by painting them as lost souls who need guidance and help, who have, as you said, some sort of "condition" which needs curing. It does so without justification.This disgraceful and deplorable attitude is what creates the toxic and divisive culture which I described and I challenge you, again, to justify your opinion in some substantive way, especially in the face of its consequences.

My stance would be that all human beings on Earth are "lost souls who need guidance and help" and every single one of them has a "condition which needs curing", namely sin. Does this strip them of their humanity? Well yes, in a way it does, because whenever we sin we lose something of the image of God wherein mankind was created. But embracing sin will never allow us to regain our lost humanity; we can only attain it by rejecting sin. I really don't see how this doctrine can be interpreted as "toxic and divisive", because all humans are in this together.

Kazaman wrote:You clearly cannot fathom what I mean by shame. This is a regret for something which cannot be changed. This is a shame for feeling. A shame for wanting to love. A shame for wanting companionship. A shame, yes, for physical attraction. They feel fearful and ashamed because they know that people will hate them if they act on their love and attraction; their family, their friends, their peers. They feel ashamed because they hear and read, every day, casual conversation of whether their love and attraction is considered moral. They read and hear condemnations of their love and attraction. They feel like they are broken, perverted, pathetic, disturbed. They blame it on themselves. Have you ever felt shame like that? Have you ever had your friends abandon you because you wanted to be open and honest with them? Have you ever felt that you could never truly be close to your family? Have you ever been scared that you might be left to live without a family? How dare you dismiss that and then have the nerve to call yourself compassionate.

I've never felt it to such a degree, no. But I've certainly felt plenty of shame and guilt in my life. Contrary to popular belief, we Christians don't consider ourselves perfect. And we think that the best way to get rid of those feelings is to stop doing the things which cause them.

But alternatively, of course, one could do what you did and say

I can assure you, lastly, that although I have had physical sexual relations and held romantic relationships unashamedly with men, I have committed no immoral act.


Now I certainly don't recommend the second option. But it remains a possibility. And in either case, I don't think it's fair to complain about the shame you feel.

Kazaman wrote:Upon further reflection, you seem to imply here that homosexuals could, if they wanted, abandon their affections and lead what I'm sure you consider to be the only respectable path of a married life as a heterosexual. The mere thought that you might believe that is outrageous and absurdly hilarious and I dearly hope that is not the case.

Well given that sexual orientation is generally not a binary cage but a sliding scale, I'm sure that there are plenty of "bisexuals" currently with same-sex partners who could conceivably find happiness with spouses of the opposite sex. But I certainly don't suggest that anyone should marry someone he's not attracted to. That would be mean.
"I am an Anglo-Catholic in religion, a classicist in literature, and a royalist in politics".
User avatar
Hnau von Thulcandra
 
Posts: 566
Age: 22
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#223  Postby Kazaman » May 18, 2012 1:57 am

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Kazaman wrote:Well, at least you aren't shy. I likewise find it highly suspicious that the non "gay-affirming" Church and scriptures were raised in highly homophobic times and places. It seems like a bit of populism was involved even then. ;) That was not, however, how I envisioned the question. I was implying that you have given absolutely no reason for anyone, even yourself were you to decide to form opinions sensibly, to agree with you or your faction. Why is homosexuality so immoral to you?

I don't know if it would be fair to describe ancient Mediterranean culture as "homophobic". But anyhow, I'm not even trying to get you to agree with my faction. I'm simply trying to show that, given our positions are what they are, we are behaving sensibly.


I was referring to the pre-Roman Levant, Roman Judea, the post-Roman Occident and the Byzantine Empire specifically, not Ancient Rome and Roman Greece, which were obviously tolerant to some degree (although not, notably, from the standpoint of formal marriage, and even in casual sexual partnerships there was a considerable amount of stigma). Anyhow, that's a tangent that would be interesting but unfortunately irrelevant.

Kazaman wrote:
Now, you seem to have misread what I said, because I did not claim celibacy or abstinence necessarily stripped anyone of humanity, but that the Vatican's stance (and yours, naturally) strips homosexuals of their humanity. It does so by painting them as lost souls who need guidance and help, who have, as you said, some sort of "condition" which needs curing. It does so without justification.This disgraceful and deplorable attitude is what creates the toxic and divisive culture which I described and I challenge you, again, to justify your opinion in some substantive way, especially in the face of its consequences.

My stance would be that all human beings on Earth are "lost souls who need guidance and help" and every single one of them has a "condition which needs curing", namely sin. Does this strip them of their humanity? Well yes, in a way it does, because whenever we sin we lose something of the image of God wherein mankind was created. But embracing sin will never allow us to regain our lost humanity; we can only attain it by rejecting sin. I really don't see how this doctrine can be interpreted as "toxic and divisive", because all humans are in this together.


I can't believe it. I really cannot believe it, and I have no idea how I could have possibly put it any clearer. Homophobic policies, no matter their perceived egalitarian nature or lack of considerable severity, validate homophobic behaviour. Can you imagine how sickening it would be to read this as I did when I was in Catechism?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


My bold, obviously. To a closeted homosexual, it doesn't matter whether they call for compassion and respect, because in the context of things such as "disordered," "condition" and "chastity," that is entirely empty of any its usual connotations. It reads instead as though their existence if pitiable and sad, and to be honest when I was taught that in Catechism my stomach lurched and I felt physically ill.

Policies such as that validate homophobic behaviour. They validate parents who disown and abandon their children based on their homophobia, which happens a just over a quarter of LGBT youth. It validates homophobic slurs, heard on average two-dozen times per day PFLAG Canada. It creates an environment where systemic discrimination by the government is pushed by a sufficient plurality of the population, such as we see in many countries, including the United States. This creates a divisive and toxic culture, where homosexuals have higher rates of self-harm, substance abuse and mental illness. 30% if all suicides are committed by LGBT youth. 43% of transgender youth attempt or commit suicide. This is a direct result of the propagation of homophobic and transphobic hatred and propaganda. Do you still remain willfully ignorant of the consequences of your position? Most importantly, do you still refuse to justify your position?

Kazaman wrote:You clearly cannot fathom what I mean by shame. This is a regret for something which cannot be changed. This is a shame for feeling. A shame for wanting to love. A shame for wanting companionship. A shame, yes, for physical attraction. They feel fearful and ashamed because they know that people will hate them if they act on their love and attraction; their family, their friends, their peers. They feel ashamed because they hear and read, every day, casual conversation of whether their love and attraction is considered moral. They read and hear condemnations of their love and attraction. They feel like they are broken, perverted, pathetic, disturbed. They blame it on themselves. Have you ever felt shame like that? Have you ever had your friends abandon you because you wanted to be open and honest with them? Have you ever felt that you could never truly be close to your family? Have you ever been scared that you might be left to live without a family? How dare you dismiss that and then have the nerve to call yourself compassionate.

I've never felt it to such a degree, no. But I've certainly felt plenty of shame and guilt in my life.


Of course you haven't felt shame to that extent, but I have and when I did I was in the same religion and shared many of the same moral beliefs as you. Can you understand how it seems so absolutely ridiculous to me that you have no problem saying the Catholic doctrine of sin is egalitarian when they systematically discriminate against people of non-heterosexual orientations? These are not arbitrary things which can be willingly changed or given up with work and therapy, for fuck's sake. It's not like drugs or violence. It's a fundamental aspect of someone's nature and it can be no more changed to conform to the misguidedly and disgustingly castigatory policies of the Catholic Church than a black African could change their skin tone to be accepted into Mormon priesthood.

Contrary to popular belief, we Christians don't consider ourselves perfect. And we think that the best way to get rid of those feelings is to stop doing the things which cause them.


Oh wow. Do you have any idea what you just said? That's the same twisted logic by which misogynists claim women who are the victims of sexual harassment, molestation and assault should stop "dressing slutty," "teasing and taunting" or "asking for it." Blaming the victim is not all right, it is in fact egregiously disrespectful and distasteful, and I sincerely hope you plan to issue an apology for that.

But alternatively, of course, one could do what you did and say

I can assure you, lastly, that although I have had physical sexual relations and held romantic relationships unashamedly with men, I have committed no immoral act.


You're almost right. One ought to do that, actually, and you ought to support people into becoming comfortable enough with their sexuality and gender identity to say much the same by dropping your unjustified homophobic beliefs.

Now I certainly don't recommend the second option. But it remains a possibility. And in either case, I don't think it's fair to complain about the shame you feel.


I don't think I need to deign this with a response considering that I have already responded to claims similar to this, although I will take the opportunity for the umpteenth time to prove me wrong and justify your stance that homosexuality is immoral.

Kazaman wrote:Upon further reflection, you seem to imply here that homosexuals could, if they wanted, abandon their affections and lead what I'm sure you consider to be the only respectable path of a married life as a heterosexual. The mere thought that you might believe that is outrageous and absurdly hilarious and I dearly hope that is not the case.

Well given that sexual orientation is generally not a binary cage but a sliding scale, I'm sure that there are plenty of "bisexuals" currently with same-sex partners who could conceivably find happiness with spouses of the opposite sex. But I certainly don't suggest that anyone should marry someone he's not attracted to. That would be mean.


Yes, it's certainly conceivable, but you have given no justification for your aversion to same-sex relations, so it shouldn't concern a bisexual who receives such criticism from you. As long as what you say is nothing but unsupported assertions founded upon what can as of yet only be seen as the blind acceptance of dogma, they can rest easy knowing that any criticism of their relationship is mere irrational homophobia.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 20
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#224  Postby purplerat » May 18, 2012 2:56 am

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
purplerat wrote:So if it were a religion you had no particular issue with you would have no problem with it? Or what if it were one race being officially recognized and given special rights and privileges (lets say "Black") but no such recognition, rights or privileges for non-blacks? If you truly are ok with the government arbitrarily giving special rights and privileges to one group over others then you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties so why bother discussing such matters at all?

I have already stated that I have no problem in theory with the one religion I "have no particular issue with", namely Christianity, being supported by the state.

So you admit that while you would object to somebody else imposing their religion on you, you would have no problem imposing your religion on others. In that case to you accept my assessment that such a position means "you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties"? If the answer is yes then why even bother discussing such topics if all you care about is making everybody else do what makes you personally the happiest?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Anyhow, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual conduct may be "arbitrary" from a purely abstract scientific standpoint, (aside from the obvious factor of reproduction) but as I mentioned before, science has naught to do with morals.

Yet you have presented no non-arbitrary moral justification for objecting to gay marriage.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
And it's obviously far easier to chose your religion or your romantic partner than it is to chose your race, so you really can't compare them.

Gender is no more a choice than is race. Telling women they can't marry a woman is the same as telling blacks they can't marry a white.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 6805
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#225  Postby Hnau von Thulcandra » May 18, 2012 5:16 am

Kazaman wrote:I can't believe it. I really cannot believe it, and I have no idea how I could have possibly put it any clearer. Homophobic policies, no matter their perceived egalitarian nature or lack of considerable severity, validate homophobic behaviour. Can you imagine how sickening it would be to read this as I did when I was in Catechism?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


My bold, obviously. To a closeted homosexual, it doesn't matter whether they call for compassion and respect, because in the context of things such as "disordered," "condition" and "chastity," that is entirely empty of any its usual connotations. It reads instead as though their existence if pitiable and sad, and to be honest when I was taught that in Catechism my stomach lurched and I felt physically ill.

Policies such as that validate homophobic behaviour. They validate parents who disown and abandon their children based on their homophobia, which happens a just over a quarter of LGBT youth. It validates homophobic slurs, heard on average two-dozen times per day PFLAG Canada. It creates an environment where systemic discrimination by the government is pushed by a sufficient plurality of the population, such as we see in many countries, including the United States. This creates a divisive and toxic culture, where homosexuals have higher rates of self-harm, substance abuse and mental illness. 30% if all suicides are committed by LGBT youth. 43% of transgender youth attempt or commit suicide. This is a direct result of the propagation of homophobic and transphobic hatred and propaganda. Do you still remain willfully ignorant of the consequences of your position? Most importantly, do you still refuse to justify your position?

I'm not sure how you can claim the Catechism "validates homophobic behavior", since it very clearly states that unjust discrimination is sinful. People who disown their children or use verbal abuse are just as contrary to the Catechism as the people they would abuse, and are they quite disgusting. I don't know what you're trying to prove by listing these doleful statistics. I agree that bullying and hatred have horrible results. But bullying and hatred are not the inevitable results of Christian moral teaching, although it is plainly true that vile people ignorantly attempt to use it as a justification. Correlation does not imply causation.

Kazaman wrote:Of course you haven't felt shame to that extent, but I have and when I did I was in the same religion and shared many of the same moral beliefs as you. Can you understand how it seems so absolutely ridiculous to me that you have no problem saying the Catholic doctrine of sin is egalitarian when they systematically discriminate against people of non-heterosexual orientations? These are not arbitrary things which can be willingly changed or given up with work and therapy, for fuck's sake. It's not like drugs or violence. It's a fundamental aspect of someone's nature and it can be no more changed to conform to the misguidedly and disgustingly castigatory policies of the Catholic Church than a black African could change their skin tone to be accepted into Mormon priesthood.

I never said that sexual orientation can be changed. As much as I would like changing it to be possible, science seems to show that it's fairly fixed, and surprisingly enough I don't like to argue with science. So I shall concede your point, albeit without the inflammatory language. But the immutability of homosexuality does not necessarily result in Catholic doctrine causing horrible spiritual discrimination against homosexuals, for sex is but one of many possible areas in which a person can transgress the moral law. Every individual's soul is different, and I am sure that many a given heterosexual suffers far more temptation than many a given homosexual. Even if we confine ourselves to the area of sex, homosexuals are by no means under a unique condemnation. For example, a man deserted by his validly-married wife has zero legitimate outlet for his erotic desires, and is obliged to remain in agonizing celibacy if he wishes to stay in the Church's good graces.

Kazaman wrote:Oh wow. Do you have any idea what you just said? That's the same twisted logic by which misogynists claim women who are the victims of sexual harassment, molestation and assault should stop "dressing slutty," "teasing and taunting" or "asking for it." Blaming the victim is not all right, it is in fact egregiously disrespectful and distasteful, and I sincerely hope you plan to issue an apology for that.

I entirely agree that is it uncharitable and improper to deflect blame from the criminal to the victim in any crime, even if the victim acted stupidly. But there is a vast difference between causing harassment, molestation, and assault on the one hand, and expressing civil disapproval on the other. I roundly condemn the first set, regardless of whom they are perpetrated against. But no one has the right to have society agree with him. I have many times been told that I should be ashamed of myself for my antiquated and bigoted virtues, and while I obviously disagree with such accusations, I don't charge my accusers with unreasonable cruelty.
"I am an Anglo-Catholic in religion, a classicist in literature, and a royalist in politics".
User avatar
Hnau von Thulcandra
 
Posts: 566
Age: 22
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#226  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 18, 2012 7:21 am

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
I have already stated that I have no problem in theory with the one religion I "have no particular issue with", namely Christianity, being supported by the state.

So you would have a problem with any othe religion being supported by the state?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Anyhow, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual conduct may be "arbitrary" from a purely abstract scientific standpoint, (aside from the obvious factor of reproduction) but as I mentioned before, science has naught to do with morals.

And as I mentioned before, there is no significant difference between homosexual 'conduct' and heterosexual 'conduct', neither in the absolute sense nor the abstract sense. And reproduction is completely irrelevant as that isn't a requirement for marriage.
Science has a lot to do with rationality and since it's irrational to discriminate against LGBT people....

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And it's obviously far easier to chose your religion or your romantic partner than it is to chose your race, so you really can't compare them.

And this is where you are wrong. You can choose who you marry, as there is no restriction of being in love. You have however no choice whatsoever who you get attracted to or fall in love with.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:No but you are creating an image of an irrational homophobe.

Well I've been called worse things, so I shan't complain.

How noble of you. :coffee:
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:But it's just kind of sadly funny how I'm perceived.

When you use the arguments and rationalisation you've been using it's a valid characterisation.
Let me guess now you're going to grace us with a semi-pro LGBT statement you made once?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:The other day I was chatting with someone online about this same subject, and we discovered that we both agreed on the undesirability of same-sex marriage.

Well goodie. There are also people who agree with the many other things, doesn't mean they or you are right.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:But then she made some nasty reference to "fags", and I suggested that it was better not to use such slurs, whereupon she said "fuck you" and disconnected.

Wow, you told someone of for using the word 'fag', what now? Want a medal? Just because you're a mild homophobe, doesn't mean you're justified in being one.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It is impossible however to oppose the Jewish etnicity and not Jewish people.

Very true. And if there was such a thing as a homosexual ethnicity, it would be naughty of me to oppose it.

No study has been able to show there is a concious choice involved in being gay, therefore to claim that you oppose homosexualit but not gay people is impossible.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet you are arguing that you should get to decide who gets married and who shouldn't.

Because marriage is part of the common inheritance of humanity, and we don't want an embittered minority to demand the right to alter it.

Ah the old appeal to ficticious tradition fallacy. I was waiting for you to show your true colours.
First of all marriage has been altered many times and has had same-sex version in vairous cultures around the globe, throughout history, so the unchanging inheretence you claim in non-existent, secondly an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Like the highly suspicious coincidence of the Chruch becoming accepting of black people as citizens when the abolishionist movement started?

The abolitionist movement was largely started by the Church herself, so that's an odd accusation.

It isn't. A majority of the abolitionists were Christians true, but the Church wasn't evolved from the start, nor does the Christian involvement in the abolitionist movement take away the fact that up till then the bible had been used to support slavery, not condemn it.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Ever since Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts, we have been "accepting of black people", although sadly certain people in certain times and certain places have failed to live up to this.

This is yet another No True Scotsman fallacy. For years the bible was used to support slavery both by common people and by the Church to condone it.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Following the same line of logic, why did God never clearly and authoritavely speak out against slavery?

Because he permits it, under certain conditions.

Congratulations, you're the first Christian who's admitted that slavery is morally justifiable according to the bible, in my opinion it isn't under any situation, but props to you for admitting it is in Christianity, under certain circumstances.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet this is what you keep doing by arguing that homosexuals are immoral whent they act on their attraction, when in a consenting relationship.

Heterosexuals are just as immoral when they act on their own sinful attractions in consenting relationships, so it's hardly a one-sided condemnation.

In both cases you have failed to argue why it is immoral to do so.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again why? Because the bible says so? What makes felatio between two men immoral while a woman giving a blowjob to a man isn't?

Haha well according to traditional Catholic thought both are equally acts of "sodomy".

Your laughter not withstanding, this does not help your position one bit. All you have done is made repeated statements of "'cause the bible says so", which is rather poor argumentation.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:We're not the one obsessed by the acts of heterosexuals in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I am growing rather tired of this accusation... nothing would make me happier than for all discussion of homoeroticism to vanish into oblivion. The only reason we seem to be talking about such acts so much is that their fans are demanding we affirm them.

And I am getting tired of this ludicrous canard, legalising same-sex marriage =/= affirming, supporting or promoting same-sex intercourse. You can still be as irrationally opposed as you want to be.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Then how is that different from ssm? How does government recognition of ssm endorse homosexuality as a whole when the same isn't true for Islam?

purplerat wrote:I don't see how one could possibly make a distinction between the two rationally - if you oppose same sex marriage because of "Christian values" it takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to accept an Islamic marriage. The state isn't endorsing homosexuality in a same sex marriage any more then they would Islam in a Muslim marriage.
A Catholic church would no more allow two Muslims to marry in a Catholic church and Catholic wedding ceremony than they would allow two homosexuals to do so. So why make a distinction when it comes to what happens outside of the church/religious ceremony? Either it's a marriage which adheres to your religious values or it's not.

There are plenty of aspects of non-Christian religions which the Church considers true, and marriage is one of these. When the Church recognizes Muslim marriages as valid in the eyes of God, she is not saying Islam is true on the whole, she is simply acknowledging the fact that the two faiths overlap on this particular issue.

Thereby affirming the Islamic religion.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Although an individual Muslim is not necessarily culpable, being a Muslim is objectively a sinful thing, since he is failing in his duty to enter the Church. But that does not mean that every single action he commits as a Muslim is wrong. If he feeds a poor man, he is doing a good deed, and if he marries a wife, he is likewise doing a good deed.

Except the marriage is performed with Muslim rites and in the name of a supposedly false god, so your cherrypicking doesn't fly.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:So a Muslim marriage, despite its occurring within the confines of a false religion, IS "a marriage which adheres to my religious values". And I want the state to endorse Muslim marriages, just like I want it to endorse Muslim charity.

Sorry but you're just not being consistent here.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:A Muslim couple could convert to Christianity and remain married, and thus their marriage would become a fully Christian marriage. But if a homosexual couple were to convert to (traditional) Christianity,

Do define 'traditional' Christianity for us since there are many different version of it.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:their union has no such potential, for the very first thing they would have to do would be repent and separate.

According to your interpetation, several Christian denominations disagree with you.
Do you have any rational arguments to oppose ssm, or is all you have an appeal to faith?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:I don't know if it would be fair to describe ancient Mediterranean culture as "homophobic". But anyhow, I'm not even trying to get you to agree with my faction. I'm simply trying to show that, given our positions are what they are, we are behaving sensibly.

In the privacy of your own religion, yes, this is however about society as a whole, not just your specific interpetation of Christianity.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14329
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#227  Postby CookieJon » May 18, 2012 9:23 am

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


I'm not sure how you can claim the Catechism "validates homophobic behavior", since it very clearly states that unjust discrimination is sinful.


It's so simple I'm amazed you're not sure!

The answer is that the Catechism contradicts itself; The Catechism both denounces unjust discrimination AND promotes unjust discrimination (by its validation of homophobic behaviour**).

So, it's now up to you to explain why "validating homophobic behaviour" is not unjust in order to explain the blatant contradiction in the Catechism.

You might be able to do this, so my request for an explanation is entirely earnest. It's quite possible I've simply overlooked an obvious reason why validating homophobic behaviour is actually justified!

If that's the case, you can help me out...

Tell me how justice is served by the Church validating the homophobic behaviour of its adherents by encouraging them to consider gay people as "intrinsically disordered", a "threat to civilisation", "abominations", and "contrary to natural law".

---

** I assume we do actually agree that "intrinsically disordered", "threat to civilisation", "abominations", "contrary to natural law", etc. are objectively negative (the justification of the negativity notwithstanding), and would certainly not only validate existing personal biases, but actually give cause to those who consider the Catholic Church an authoratative organisation to adopt homophobic attitudes, and therefore engage in homophobic behaviour. That seems pretty self-evident to me, although if you disagree, we can discuss that first. AFAICT, we're only quibbling about whether the uncontested encouragment of homophobia is justified or not.
User avatar
CookieJon
Moderator
 
Posts: 8384
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#228  Postby Hnau von Thulcandra » May 22, 2012 7:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you would have a problem with any othe religion being supported by the state?

Yes, I would. But in any case, I highly doubt the First Amendment is going to change anytime soon, so it’s a rather pointless question from the American perspective. The way things stand now, we all agree that we can't have an official religion. But while we have no official religion, voters and politicians are still going to have religious motivations, and while I'll obviously disagree with many of those motivations, I'm not going to blabber about the Establishment Clause whenever someone says something I mislike.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And this is where you are wrong. You can choose who you marry, as there is no restriction of being in love. You have however no choice whatsoever who you get attracted to or fall in love with.

Maybe so. But there is more to marriage than love.

"First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Wow, you told someone of for using the word 'fag', what now? Want a medal? Just because you're a mild homophobe, doesn't mean you're justified in being one.

Oh joy, so now I'm only a "mild homophobe". Very comforting.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:No study has been able to show there is a concious choice involved in being gay, therefore to claim that you oppose homosexualit but not gay people is impossible.

But there certainly is a conscious choice in choosing with whom you fornicate, unless you're under severe psychological disturbance.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Ah the old appeal to ficticious tradition fallacy. I was waiting for you to show your true colours.
First of all marriage has been altered many times and has had same-sex version in vairous cultures around the globe, throughout history, so the unchanging inheretence you claim in non-existent, secondly an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

Pfft it doesn't matter that it's changed its emphasis over the years. Polygamous marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages - all these may be inferior to our modern romantic notions, and some of them were abusive, but they were still marriages. They all had the basic components of a man and a woman. And doubtless many cultures have had odd homosexual customs; I won't deny that. I never claimed the modern movement was the first.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It isn't. A majority of the abolitionists were Christians true, but the Church wasn't evolved from the start, nor does the Christian involvement in the abolitionist movement take away the fact that up till then the bible had been used to support slavery, not condemn it.

It's not like there was a sudden shift out of nowhere. The Epistle to Philemon shows that freeing slaves was regarded as virtuous from the very beginning. "Thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved...." And going even further back, in the Old Testament, there were grave penalties for stealing people into slavery, along with permission for slaves to free from harsh masters.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Congratulations, you're the first Christian who's admitted that slavery is morally justifiable according to the bible, in my opinion it isn't under any situation, but props to you for admitting it is in Christianity, under certain circumstances.

Aw yay.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And I am getting tired of this ludicrous canard, legalising same-sex marriage =/= affirming, supporting or promoting same-sex intercourse. You can still be as irrationally opposed as you want to be.

Ah, but same-sex marriage is already perfectly legal. If two men want to live in the same house and call each other "husband", no one is going to arrest them. That's just what heterosexual couples did in the years before government got involved. So I don't want to "ban" same-sex marriage. I just don't think government should waste its time giving unnecessary public approval to it. It seems to me that if homosexuals truly believe their love is just as pure and true and valid as that of their heterosexual brethren, then they shouldn't feel the need to have the state pat them on the head and say "Yes, you really are indeed married; don't listen to those nasty bigots. Have some cookies."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thereby affirming the Islamic religion.

How is Christianity affirming Muslim marriages affirming Islam, while atheists affirming Muslims marriages is not affirming Islam? It seems a pretty basic truth to me that something can be partially good and yet not totally good. And while there are doubtless some good aspects of homosexual relations, we don't believe that their imitations of marriage are one of them, and therefore we cannot support them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except the marriage is performed with Muslim rites and in the name of a supposedly false god, so your cherrypicking doesn't fly.

Allah is not a "false god" according to Christianity, he is simply the name by which Muslims worship the one true God in an imperfect, incomplete, and muddled manner. Now I shall admit that certain other religions do indeed invoke false gods, but their marriage are still just as valid. If you worship idols you are damned regardless of if you marry or not, so Christians gain nothing by opposing idolaters' marriages. And we do gain something by supporting them, because marriage is A Good Thing, all else being equal.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sorry but you're just not being consistent here.

Blehp. I guess it makes you uncomfortable that Christianity is not so exclusive and bigoted as you'd like to imagine. But we do believe in goodness outside our ranks, sorry to break it to you.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Do define 'traditional' Christianity for us since there are many different version of it.

For the purposes of this discussion I would define "traditional" as those churches which accept as authoritative the Pauline condemnation of sodomy, without going into bizarre convoluted excuses about how it was actually referring to temple prostitutes or child molesters.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
According to your interpetation, several Christian denominations disagree with you.
Do you have any rational arguments to oppose ssm, or is all you have an appeal to faith?

If I'm arguing with fellow Christians, then there's hardly anything wrong with appealing to faith. :P

CookieJon wrote:It's so simple I'm amazed you're not sure!

The answer is that the Catechism contradicts itself; The Catechism both denounces unjust discrimination AND promotes unjust discrimination (by its validation of homophobic behaviour**).

So, it's now up to you to explain why "validating homophobic behaviour" is not unjust in order to explain the blatant contradiction in the Catechism.

You might be able to do this, so my request for an explanation is entirely earnest. It's quite possible I've simply overlooked an obvious reason why validating homophobic behaviour is actually justified!

If that's the case, you can help me out...

Tell me how justice is served by the Church validating the homophobic behaviour of its adherents by encouraging them to consider gay people as "intrinsically disordered", a "threat to civilisation", "abominations", and "contrary to natural law".

---

** I assume we do actually agree that "intrinsically disordered", "threat to civilisation", "abominations", "contrary to natural law", etc. are objectively negative (the justification of the negativity notwithstanding), and would certainly not only validate existing personal biases, but actually give cause to those who consider the Catholic Church an authoratative organisation to adopt homophobic attitudes, and therefore engage in homophobic behaviour. That seems pretty self-evident to me, although if you disagree, we can discuss that first. AFAICT, we're only quibbling about whether the uncontested encouragment of homophobia is justified or not.

I completely agree that the Catechism's teaching can be and has been used as an excuse for "homophobic behavior". But I fail to see how that is relevant. Someone may believe that in bullying persons perceived as homosexual he is following Catholic teaching, but in actuality he is wrong. Because there is absolutely no reason why marking certain freely chosen erotic acts as immoral has to lead to discrimination.

And anyhow you didn't even quote the Catechism accurately... it never actually says that "gay people" are disordered. It says that certain actions which they have an resistible inclination to commit are disordered. You can certainly argue that's it's cruel to ask them to abandon those acts, but I really wish people could stop confusing the two.
"I am an Anglo-Catholic in religion, a classicist in literature, and a royalist in politics".
User avatar
Hnau von Thulcandra
 
Posts: 566
Age: 22
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#229  Postby BrandySpears » May 22, 2012 8:08 pm

North Carolina Christian group invites ALL WHITES to attend meeting.
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2 ... ity-event/
User avatar
BrandySpears
 
Posts: 6389

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#230  Postby CdesignProponentsist » May 22, 2012 8:21 pm

BrandySpears wrote:North Carolina Christian group invites ALL WHITES to attend meeting.
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2 ... ity-event/


A bunch of clowns calling each other wizards and knights while dressed up as ghosts. Normally I would think "Harry Potter convention".
"Infinite loop?! I don't have time for that!" - Bender Bending Rodríguez
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 8742
Age: 47
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#231  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 22, 2012 8:23 pm

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you would have a problem with any othe religion being supported by the state?

Yes, I would.

Thank for admitting your position on this point is completely hypocritical.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:But in any case, I highly doubt the First Amendment is going to change anytime soon, so it’s a rather pointless question from the American perspective.

This point isn't about the First Amendment or the American perspecitve, this is about the consitency of your viewpoints.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:The way things stand now, we all agree that we can't have an official religion. But while we have no official religion, voters and politicians are still going to have religious motivations, and while I'll obviously disagree with many of those motivations, I'm not going to blabber about the Establishment Clause whenever someone says something I mislike.

Except this isn't about saying things you disagree with, but enforcing morals and believes on people that those people don't agree with.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:And this is where you are wrong. You can choose who you marry, as there is no restriction of being in love. You have however no choice whatsoever who you get attracted to or fall in love with.

Maybe so. But there is more to marriage than love.

Which part of the bolded sentence fragment did you not understand?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:"First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."

Your fallacious appeal to tradition is completely irrelevant, especially since it is a religious and non-existent tradition.
Unless you're suggesting alll 700 wives of king Solomon were for procreational purposes?
This is about civil and secular marriage, not religious marriage.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Wow, you told someone of for using the word 'fag', what now? Want a medal? Just because you're a mild homophobe, doesn't mean you're justified in being one.

Oh joy, so now I'm only a "mild homophobe". Very comforting.

Whomsoever fits the shoe ....

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:No study has been able to show there is a concious choice involved in being gay, therefore to claim that you oppose homosexualit but not gay people is impossible.

But there certainly is a conscious choice in choosing with whom you fornicate,

Still failing to understand that neither marriage nor homosexuality require having sex.
More-over you've failed to argue what's wrong with consenting adults having sex.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Ah the old appeal to ficticious tradition fallacy. I was waiting for you to show your true colours.
First of all marriage has been altered many times and has had same-sex version in vairous cultures around the globe, throughout history, so the unchanging inheretence you claim in non-existent, secondly an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

Pfft it doesn't matter that it's changed its emphasis over the years.

It's not an emphasis it's an inherently different form. Polygamous marriage isn't a different emphasis of straight, procreational marriage, nor are child marriages.
Besides shifting the goal posts won't work.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Polygamous marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages - all these may be inferior to our modern romantic notions, and some of them were abusive, but they were still marriages.

As were the same-sex marriages that have taken place, both in the past and present.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:They all had the basic components of a man and a woman.

Ecept they didn't.
They had components of a man and several woman, a woman and several men. A man and a child, a woman and a child. You're sophistry is clear for all to see.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And doubtless many cultures have had odd homosexual customs; I won't deny that.

Yet you try to dismiss them by calling them odd.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:I never claimed the modern movement was the first.

No, you claimed that marriage has had one unchaning tradtion/form when it evidently didn't.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It isn't. A majority of the abolitionists were Christians true, but the Church wasn't evolved from the start, nor does the Christian involvement in the abolitionist movement take away the fact that up till then the bible had been used to support slavery, not condemn it.

It's not like there was a sudden shift out of nowhere.

No, there was shift, period. For years churches and clergy man supported slavery by claiming, for example, that black people were the descendants of Noah's son Ham and therefore less than Western people. That they weren't really people.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:The Epistle to Philemon shows that freeing slaves was regarded as virtuous from the very beginning.

It didn't condemn it.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote: "Thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved...." And going even further back, in the Old Testament, there were grave penalties for stealing people into slavery, along with permission for slaves to free from harsh masters.

There are also statements in the OT for the conquering Jews to take the daughters of their slaughters as wifes, defacto slaves.
As there are verses in the NT that support slavery, like Ephesians 6:5-9. Heck, Paul even sent a runaway slave back to his owner.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Congratulations, you're the first Christian who's admitted that slavery is morally justifiable according to the bible, in my opinion it isn't under any situation, but props to you for admitting it is in Christianity, under certain circumstances.

Aw yay.

Complete failure to refute the point being made has been noted.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:And I am getting tired of this ludicrous canard, legalising same-sex marriage =/= affirming, supporting or promoting same-sex intercourse. You can still be as irrationally opposed as you want to be.

Ah, but same-sex marriage is already perfectly legal.

Really? Last I checked several states grant no marital rights to same-sex couples and several states, North Carolina for example have expressly outlawed it. You seem to be out of touch with reality.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:If two men want to live in the same house and call each other "husband", no one is going to arrest them.

If you seriously intend this to be an argument, you should really rethink your position as this is one of the most ludicrous you've made to date. We're talking about the civil institution of marriage, not what people do or do not call each other at home.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:That's just what heterosexual couples did in the years before government got involved.

Ehm, no. they had religious and/or spiritual marriages, which were (usually) recognised by the tribe.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:So I don't want to "ban" same-sex marriage. I just don't think government should waste its time giving unnecessary public approval to it.

Again why??? What's wrong with consenting adults of the same gender marrying each other? You have failed to present a single rational argument. All you have presented is either appeals to tradition/religion or arguments against marriage in general.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:It seems to me that if homosexuals truly believe their love is just as pure and true and valid as that of their heterosexual brethren, then they shouldn't feel the need to have the state pat them on the head and say "Yes, you really are indeed married; don't listen to those nasty bigots. Have some cookies."

You've just lost what little respect I had left for you. I know you probably don't care, but there it is.
If you are really don't see that marriage is (also) about legal, financial rights, you're very, very lost.
What you've presented here is an argument against marriage itself. For heterosexuals shouldn't need that recognition either, unless they're all really insecure or something.
This isn't argument against ssm, it's a statement of your hypocricy concering this topic.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thereby affirming the Islamic religion.

How is Christianity affirming Muslim marriages affirming Islam,

Because by affirming Muslim marriages you are affirming their specifically Islamic rituals and believes. You're logic, not mine.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:while atheists affirming Muslims marriages is not affirming Islam?

It's not my argument, it's yours. I never claimed that by recognising a certain phenomenon, you respect or recognise all aspects or behaviours of said phenomenon.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:It seems a pretty basic truth to me that something can be partially good and yet not totally good.

You haven't argued what's not good about homosexuality. And no 'homosexual acts' doesn't work since no 'act' performed by same-sex couples is markedly different in any rational sense.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And while there are doubtless some good aspects of homosexual relations, we don't believe that their imitations of marriage are one of them, and therefore we cannot support them.

Ooh the arrogance.... :nono:

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except the marriage is performed with Muslim rites and in the name of a supposedly false god, so your cherrypicking doesn't fly.

Allah is not a "false god" according to Christianity,

Islam didn't exist when Christianity became a religion. The only way Christianity can have a position on Islam is after it came into exitence, meaning it is dependant on which denomination you adhere to.
Your claim doesn't hold true for Christianity in general.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote: he is simply the name by which Muslims worship the one true God in an imperfect, incomplete, and muddled manner.

And you know your specific interpetation among the 2000+ Christian denominations is the correct one, how exactly? :ask:

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Now I shall admit that certain other religions do indeed invoke false gods, but their marriage are still just as valid.

And by your logic, so are their gods and religions, since if you condone one aspect, you condone it all.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:If you worship idols you are damned regardless of if you marry or not, so Christians gain nothing by opposing idolaters' marriages.

What do you gain by opposing ssm if gay people are condemned to go any way?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And we do gain something by supporting them, because marriage is A Good Thing, all else being equal.

Even when it is an
imitation
, performed with false rituals and to a false god?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sorry but you're just not being consistent here.

Blehp. I guess it makes you uncomfortable that Christianity is not so exclusive and bigoted as you'd like to imagine.

But your interpetation is. By your own statements and admissions. Further you're continual insinuations that you speak for Christianity as a whole is ludicrous.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:But we do believe in goodness outside our ranks, sorry to break it to you.

Again, being happy about perceived morally good acts, doesn't erase the bigotry of opposing things that a. don't affect you and b. are harmless and c. you have no rational arguments against.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Do define 'traditional' Christianity for us since there are many different version of it.

For the purposes of this discussion I would define "traditional" as those churches which accept as authoritative the Pauline condemnation of sodomy,

As far as I know traditional isn't dependant on one specific position, but rather on how closely it follows the original and longstanding believes and tenets.
So Paulism is it? The same Paul who sent a runaway slave back to his master. There are many Christian denominations that are far more traditional than Paulinist denominations. Not to mention the objection to Paul's influence on Christianity.

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:without going into bizarre convoluted excuses about how it was actually referring to temple prostitutes or child molesters.

Care to explain how they are convoluted, instead of disengenuously dismissing them out of hand.
Especially since the word homosexuality didn't exist when the bible was written and Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable and the soldiers raping, not having loving intercourse with men?

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
According to your interpetation, several Christian denominations disagree with you.
Do you have any rational arguments to oppose ssm, or is all you have an appeal to faith?

If I'm arguing with fellow Christians, then there's hardly anything wrong with appealing to faith. :P

Yea, you're not among fellow Christians now are you? More-over this is about a legal, civil and secular institution and therefore your require rational arguments, not appeals to religion.

Also this is the biblical tradition of marriage:
Attachments
tumblr_m3w2kqdRzk1r22u08o1_1280.jpg
tumblr_m3w2kqdRzk1r22u08o1_1280.jpg (146.83 KiB) Viewed 221 times
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on May 23, 2012 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14329
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#232  Postby Emmeline » May 22, 2012 9:18 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Also this is the biblical tradition of marriage:
Image

Excellent - thank you Thomas. :cheers:
User avatar
Emmeline
 
Posts: 8897
Female

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#233  Postby Kazaman » May 22, 2012 9:21 pm

I wouldn't bother too much longer with this. I mean, his whole "argument," for what it's worth, boils down to "homosexuality is immoral because the Church said so; they should be called to chastity because their sex is deranged and icky, and they should not be allowed to marry because I would be personally offended. By the way this isn't homophobic at all, because I don't go around shouting slurs and the Catechism also says to respect the poor icky homos." It's such a vacuous, contradictory and laughable position. There're really no more points to be made.

I'm not posting any more until he responds to my numerous demands for a rational argument rather than an inherently fallacious one, and it is because of those many blatant evasions that I have yet to respond to his latest reply to me.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 20
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#234  Postby BrandySpears » May 23, 2012 5:02 am

Rev. Worley's Greatest Hits - Electric Lesbian Zoo
http://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/e ... esbian-zoo
User avatar
BrandySpears
 
Posts: 6389

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#235  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 23, 2012 8:35 am

Emmeline wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Also this is the biblical tradition of marriage:
Image

Excellent - thank you Thomas. :cheers:

Thank you. I can't take credit for the picture though, that was posted by Aca on the peanut gallery thread.
I can take it when people have different views than me, but when they make such discriminating and hypoctirical remarks like these, that affect me as well, I will destroy their arguments thouroughly.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14329
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#236  Postby jez9999 » May 23, 2012 10:39 am

BrandySpears wrote:Rev. Worley's Greatest Hits - Electric Lesbian Zoo
http://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/e ... esbian-zoo

And the TYT coverage:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4q2-nbvrw[/youtube]
=== Jez ===
User avatar
jez9999
 
Posts: 2471

Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#237  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 23, 2012 10:57 am

jez9999 wrote:
BrandySpears wrote:Rev. Worley's Greatest Hits - Electric Lesbian Zoo
http://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/e ... esbian-zoo

And the TYT coverage:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4q2-nbvrw[/youtube]

Yes, I saw this already. He's agin it. Shamelessly proposing a final endlosung. He must be very proud of himself as he repeatedly states in his speech.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14329
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#238  Postby Hnau von Thulcandra » May 25, 2012 7:49 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Thank for admitting your position on this point is completely hypocritical.

It would be hypocritical if I believed that religious equality and freedom was intrinsically virtuous, sure.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except this isn't about saying things you disagree with, but enforcing morals and believes on people that those people don't agree with.

And other people are in turn attempting to enforcing their own morals on me. It goes both ways.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Your fallacious appeal to tradition is completely irrelevant, especially since it is a religious and non-existent tradition. Unless you're suggesting alll 700 wives of king Solomon were for procreational purposes? This is about civil and secular marriage, not religious marriage.

Solomon was explicitly rebuked in Scripture for his many wives. So he and his ilk can hardly be called representatives of the biblical tradition.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Still failing to understand that neither marriage nor homosexuality require having sex.

Well of course homosexuality doesn't require having sex. That's what I'm been trying in vain to point out all this long. As for marriage, well it may not require having sex, but then again being in love does not require marriage.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Ecept they didn't.
They had components of a man and several woman, a woman and several men. A man and a child, a woman and a child. You're sophistry is clear for all to see.

Oh very well, I apologize for my impreciseness. Make it "A male and a female". But with polygamy each wife a man has is a different marriage, I'd say, so I can't grant that part of your criticism.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:No, there was shift, period. For years churches and clergy man supported slavery by claiming, for example, that black people were the descendants of Noah's son Ham and therefore less than Western people. That they weren't really people.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the oldest churches in the world... certainly far older than modern Western notions about "black people" and "white people".

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As there are verses in the NT that support slavery, like Ephesians 6:5-9. Heck, Paul even sent a runaway slave back to his owner.

I have already admitted that the NT urges submission of slaves to masters, but this is not because slavery is such a wonderful thing - rather it is because the writers look forward to when God will personally roast cruel masters in hellfire. So it's hardly an unqualified endorsement. And Paul's letter the Philemon sends him back, yes, but it also makes it clear that Christians are to treat each other as brothers, even if one is a slave and the other a master.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You've just lost what little respect I had left for you. I know you probably don't care, but there it is.

Interesting. I do care, don't worry. And normally it would be a sad thing to lose someone's respect. But given that I haven't changed any of my positions during this debate, any respect you previously accorded me must have resulted from you misunderstanding my opinions. And it would be dishonorable to accept respect under false pretenses. So I'm glad we got this cleared up.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:If you are really don't see that marriage is (also) about legal, financial rights, you're very, very lost.What you've presented here is an argument against marriage itself. For heterosexuals shouldn't need that recognition either, unless they're all really insecure or something. This isn't argument against ssm, it's a statement of your hypocricy concering this topic.

Well then, for the avoidance of all possible hypocrisy:

I, Hnau von Thulcandra, as a heterosexual, hereby solemnly declare that I do not need the government to recognize my hypothetical future marriage, and that I shall be entirely content if it simply lets me marry in church and then live with my lovely wife in peace.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Islam didn't exist when Christianity became a religion. The only way Christianity can have a position on Islam is after it came into exitence, meaning it is dependant on which denomination you adhere to. Your claim doesn't hold true for Christianity in general.

Well I admit that there are plenty of loony Evangelicals who think Allah is some sort of pagan moon deity, but I think my position is fairly mainstream overall. The Catholic catechism, for instance, makes it clear that Islam worships the Christian God.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What do you gain by opposing ssm if gay people are condemned to go any way?

Well it's true that the rate of homosexual sins which are comitted will probably remain about equal whether we let them marry or not. I think this is more a matter of our own souls than theirs, as selfish as that might sound, for if I vote for same-sex marriage, I am partaking in their sin by way of encouragement.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Even when it is an
imitation
, performed with false rituals and to a false god?

A pagan marriage is not an imitation of Christian marriage. How could it be, when paganism is older than Christianity? Now pagans don't do them as well as we Christians, obviously, but it's the same basic act. If I make an analogy, a Christian marriage is like crossing a river in a boat, nice and dry. A pagan marriage is like swimming across, which is a bit more difficult, but you get to the same destination eventually. A same-sex marriage, however, is like standing on one bank and painting a picture of the other side. It might be a very pretty painting, a truly stunning work of art, but as long as your feet remain stationary, you're never going to get to the real place.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:By your own statements and admissions. Further you're continual insinuations that you speak for Christianity as a whole is ludicrous.

I never said I spoke for it as a whole, but I think I'm very much in line with the teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, for instance.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As far as I know traditional isn't dependant on one specific position, but rather on how closely it follows the original and longstanding believes and tenets. So Paulism is it? The same Paul who sent a runaway slave back to his master. There are many Christian denominations that are far more traditional than Paulinist denominations. Not to mention the objection to Paul's influence on Christianity.

I'm really not sure what you mean here... which denominations would you consider "Paulinst"?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Especially since the word homosexuality didn't exist when the bible was written and Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable and the soldiers raping, not having loving intercourse with men?

Well obviously the word didn't exist in biblical times. That's why I get so annoyed when people talk about the Bible being "anti-homosexual". No, it's not anti-homosexual, it's anti-sodomy. It condemns deeds, not orientations. And this leads nicely into the question of the sin of Sodom - I am perfectly willing to believe that said city (and her sister Gomorrah) had nothing at all to do with the act now bearing her name. It's just the traditional term, and I use it without making any claim as touching its namesake.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yea, you're not among fellow Christians now are you? More-over this is about a legal, civil and secular institution and therefore your require rational arguments, not appeals to religion.

Ah, but I'm not really trying to make any of you change your minds about same-sex marriage. I'm just endeavoring to explain what me and my like-minded coreligionists believe, since there seems to be an awful lot of misrepresentation floating around.
"I am an Anglo-Catholic in religion, a classicist in literature, and a royalist in politics".
User avatar
Hnau von Thulcandra
 
Posts: 566
Age: 22
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#239  Postby Shrunk » May 25, 2012 10:41 am

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And other people are in turn attempting to enforcing their own morals on me. It goes both ways.


This should be so obvious that I should not have to point it out, but allowing people to do something in their own lives that you personally consider immoral is not enforcing their morals on you.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19270
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

#240  Postby trubble76 » May 25, 2012 11:01 am

Shrunk wrote:
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:And other people are in turn attempting to enforcing their own morals on me. It goes both ways.


This should be so obvious that I should not have to point it out, but allowing people to do something in their own lives that you personally consider immoral is not enforcing their morals on you.


But christian morals are in the bible so they are definitely correct, our anti-bigotry bigotry that calls for equality and fairness is disgusting because we disagree with their god that homosexuality is an abomination. :popcorn:
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11018
Age: 37
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest