Posted: May 22, 2012 8:23 pm
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.
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.
Whomsoever fits the shoe ....
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.
Complete failure to refute the point being made has been noted.
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.
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....
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?
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
, performed with false rituals and to a false god?imitation
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.
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.
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: