Posted: 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.
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.