Posted: 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.
How noble of you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.