Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 136 of 304 (317803)
06-05-2006 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rob
06-05-2006 4:09 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Is there not such a thing as a 'universal moral law' which we must all live by?
you think there is. he thinks there is not.
(i would say it was you who just fell into a trap...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 4:09 AM Rob has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 304 (317804)
06-05-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
06-04-2006 6:50 PM


Re: Faith is wrong
Keep the faith, Faith...
Rob
You too Rob. Appreciate your posts. I think I'll leave this thread in your hands.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 6:50 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 9:01 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 304 (317805)
06-05-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by RickJB
06-05-2006 3:15 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
But I'm a litle confused. You yourself have said that homosexual pairings should be allowed some form of legal status. Is this not, by modern definition, the true meaning of marriage?
I don't think I said anything about "legal status" beyond what is available to all of us. They can make contracts and covenants between each other as they please, disown their natural families in favor of each other or whatever, without having anything remotely like a marriage involved in it as far as status goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 3:15 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 6:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 163 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 9:23 AM Faith has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 5068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 139 of 304 (317806)
06-05-2006 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
06-04-2006 6:50 PM


Re: Faith is wrong
First of all you are twisting Lewis's words to into a context beyond their original scope. Exactly how does homosexual marriage make a society less brave or honest?
Secondly, an appeal to some form of "eternal morality" is false since homosexuality is, and always has been, an element of human existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 6:50 PM Rob has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 140 of 304 (317807)
06-05-2006 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rob
06-05-2006 4:09 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
quote:
Is there not such a thing as a 'universal moral law' which we must all live by?
No - all laws and morals are defined by situational context.
Surely you were not going to pull the old chestnut of -
1. There is a universal moral law
2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver
3. Therefore, there must be God

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 4:09 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 6:09 AM CK has not replied
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 6:16 AM CK has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 141 of 304 (317811)
06-05-2006 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 12:23 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
These issues need to be dealt with before gay marriages are included (for prevention) not afterwards when they are exploited. I think that just including gay marriages as marriages opens the laws, or statutes etc, up for exploitation because gay marriages weren’t in mind when they were written. For race and women it worked fine, but for gay I think it’s different because with the way the insurance is now, I’d marry a guy so we’d both have cheaper health insurance.
How is this any different (or any more likely) than different-sex people who currently marry for the same sort of reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 12:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 9:55 AM Belfry has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 142 of 304 (317813)
06-05-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
06-05-2006 5:10 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
I don't think I said anything about "legal status" beyond what is available to all of us. They can make contracts and covenants between each other as they please, disown their natural families in favor of each other or whatever, without having anything remotely like a marriage involved in it as far as status goes.
so, they should be able to enter into legal contracts defining themselves and their partners as a state-recognized family unit, but they can't get "married?" what's the difference?
or are you saying that they should be able to enter into all legal contracts except marriage?
or are you saying, "i don't care, just don't let them in the church?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 143 of 304 (317814)
06-05-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by CK
06-05-2006 5:17 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Surely you were not going to pull the old chestnut of -
1. There is a universal moral law
2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver
3. Therefore, there must be God
i much prefer the "argument by clapton" proof of god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 5:17 AM CK has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 144 of 304 (317815)
06-05-2006 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by CK
06-05-2006 5:17 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Quote: No - all laws and morals are defined by situational context.
Really? Then if I disagree with that, would I be wrong? Or does your statement apply universally? I ask beecause you are assuming an absolute my friend, in order to deny them.
You cannot challenge the law-of non-contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction. If you challenge the law, you will have to imply that I am wrong and you are right.
Quote: Secondly, an appeal to some form of "eternal morality" is false
So bigotry is not wrong? It is ok for me to do what has been done throughout the history of the human race? Or are you also going to invoke a universal / absolute / eternal and transcendant moral framework?
If we say it is 'wrong' to impose morality, we only undermine our own mind.
I would like to share a very insightful quote from a great theologian. I believe it is from near the turn of the century 1900.
"The new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
- G.K. Chesterton
I think you will find all of this links nicely together. When we catch a glimpse of the coherency of it all, it tends to move beyond simple reason in some way, and instead appears rather divine in nature.
Off to work, have a nice day, rob

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 5:17 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 6:24 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 146 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 6:27 AM Rob has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 145 of 304 (317819)
06-05-2006 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Rob
06-05-2006 6:16 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Quote: No - all laws and morals are defined by situational context.
Really? Then if I disagree with that, would I be wrong? Or does your statement apply universally? I ask beecause you are assuming an absolute my friend, in order to deny them.
You cannot challenge the law-of non-contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction. If you challenge the law, you will have to imply that I am wrong and you are right.
i heard more than enough of this line of wankery in my postmodern philosophy class.
he didn't say there are no absolutes. he said that morality is not universal. those are two very different statements.
If we say it is 'wrong' to impose morality, we only undermine our own mind.
we can say what is morally right and wrong for us to do. while trying to make this look a contradiction, you forget that this is a very simple principle.
treat others how you would like to be treated.
if there IS a universal moral principle, that is it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 6:16 AM Rob has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 146 of 304 (317821)
06-05-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Rob
06-05-2006 6:16 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
quote:
So bigotry is not wrong?
Well owning slaves is not according to the christian god
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: You may buy your male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you ... You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever."
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for the slave is his money."
So are we accepting or rejecting this version of the christian god concept as the provider of universal moral law?
Also I generally don't try and single out posting styles but it's generally considered arrogant if you make constant reference to how profound your statements are or how clever you think you are.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 6:16 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 6:37 AM CK has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 147 of 304 (317825)
06-05-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by CK
06-05-2006 6:27 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Owning slaves is not the same as bigotry...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 6:27 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 6:40 AM Rob has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 148 of 304 (317827)
06-05-2006 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rob
06-05-2006 6:37 AM


Re: Just for you Crash
Owning slaves is not the same as bigotry...
no, it's not. our system of slavery in this country was, because it was largely race-based. but biblical slavery was not.
however, i'll make up for ck's slack. while slavery in and of itself is not the same as bigotry, genocide is awful close:
quote:
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rob, posted 06-05-2006 6:37 AM Rob has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 304 (317834)
06-05-2006 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by arachnophilia
06-05-2006 6:09 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
so, they should be able to enter into legal contracts defining themselves and their partners as a state-recognized family unit, but they can't get "married?" what's the difference?
or are you saying that they should be able to enter into all legal contracts except marriage?
Yes. Perhaps new forms of contracts designed to accommodate their concerns. I don't mean a contract that "defines" them as a "state-recognized family unit" at all, however, just various legal provisions to cover some of the things they think marriage would do for them, concerning insurance benefits and kinship rights or whatever. There have to be other ways to solve these problems than making a mockery of marriage.
or are you saying, "i don't care, just don't let them in the church?"
They are welcome in church, to hear how they are sinners who need to repent and give up their sins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 6:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 304 (317835)
06-05-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by arachnophilia
06-05-2006 3:38 AM


Orientation, not practices
I'm not talking about particular practices, which would get us into questions of sin rather than normality. I'm talking about the homosexual experience of "orientation" toward the same sex. This is what is abnormal -- and obviously so, I would think.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 3:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 8:07 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024