|
good god this thread has gone to hell
|
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
|
Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument.
"I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument?
"I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
|
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
|
On November 25 2012 14:12 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:04 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:47 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 09:09 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:58 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread. Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe. Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. SourceBestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. SourceIndecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. SourceNow, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect. So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours. But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples? So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all. Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public. I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly? But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship. Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position. And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place? I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though. You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well. Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that. (This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. Yes, and if you decide that any word means exactly and only whatever you think it means at any particular time, you can simply declare that you win any argument. That doesn't mean you actually won of course. You can simply declare that you did and stick fingers into your ears when people say otherwise. Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract. You can believe that it is whatever you want, but the law says that it is a contract. And since marriage is a legal matter, we'll be dealing with it the way the law says to. Contracts have a series of laws built around them deciding when they are and are not valid. Contracts made between unwilling parties are not valid; a signature is generally how this is determined, but if duress can later be proven, then the contract is void (ie: you cannot literally have a shotgun wedding). Of one of the parties cannot sign their name or demonstrate that they understand the contract, then there is no contract. Such a party cannot enter into a legally binding contract. And since, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract, animals cannot enter into marriage. Marriage must have consent. You can believe otherwise all you like, but that just means that you're denying reality. The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract. And contracts require consent. So the question is, who should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding marriage contract? The basic definition of marriage is more or less what we as a society choose for it to be. Not what you want it to be, but what we choose for it to be. The only reasonable question is this: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? If you want to move it to incest, fine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons who are closely related from entering into a marriage contract? Well, there are significant downsides to incest, particularly parent/child incest. The parent/child relationship has a vast difference in power between the two parties. Children are raised from infancy to obey their parents, on the presumption that their parents are not assholes. Obviously some children adhere to this more than others, but parents have an ability to groom their children with values and beliefs. They can smother a child to the point where they wouldn't even think of disobeying them. It is very possible for a parent to groom a child to the point where they would willing agree to marry the parent when they reach legal age. In short, it is very difficult to ensure consent in parent/child incest. The amount of coercion, whether subtle or gross, that a parent can inflict on a child, even an older one, is... substantial. Just look at incidents of parent/child incest when the child is below legal marrying age. It's not a happy thing. And if you can't ensure consent, then you've cast doubt on whether the contract is valid at all. Considering that the downsides of coerced marriage in these cases are severe, it's probably best to ban the practice altogether. There are solid psychological reasons to avoid the whole idea. So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
"The law says it is a contract"
"Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract"
"Marriage must have consent"
"The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract"
And then suddenly you go into changing the law to permit homosexual marriage. Good for you. But you're just deciding that you don't like some of the laws that we have, and want to change some of them. Well I want to change others. How are you arguing with me by saying 4 times that my definition is against the law, and then turn around and say you want to change the law?
Your point about incest only works with parent/child relationships, not with any other.
So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
No, I'm saying we should be consistent. I'm saying we should either, on principle, say that all types of marriage, including bestiality, polygamy, and incest should be legal, or we shouldn't recognize marriage at all.
|
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
|
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
|
On November 25 2012 14:17 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 12:53 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 12:34 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial:
- We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal?
- Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\
- If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men). On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
Incest:
- So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed.
- Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2. On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote:
Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal. You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal. The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering. To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus. I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered. I support gay marriage, which affects gay people. Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine. The law says that consent requires a human being. It doesn't matter what you think; a dog cannot give legal consent.
The law in Uganda says that homosexuality is illegal. It doesn't matter what you think.
Also, to repeat myself, why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
|
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians.
My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that.
And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
|
On November 25 2012 14:30 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with? Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong,
May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it?
What do you think about nieces, is that incest?
|
Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs.
|
On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
|
On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote:
Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs.
I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it.
|
On November 25 2012 14:49 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:30 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with? Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you. I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong, May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it? What do you think about nieces, is that incest?
First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality.
Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God.
If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses.
|
On November 25 2012 14:59 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference. Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality. It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
|
I'd vote against gay marriage. It's just something I don't want in society. Yes I know that's unfair, yes I know I don't have any valid reason for it, but... that doesn't change my mind.
In my experience, God's will is something people rely upon as an excuse when they don't have a real reason behind why they believe in something, but aren't brave enough to admit it.
|
On November 25 2012 15:02 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:49 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:30 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with? Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you. I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong, May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it? What do you think about nieces, is that incest? First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality. Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God. If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses.
Agreed, it was one example to show that the bible is inconsistent and thus cannot be used as a literal word of god. (Since who are we to say which of the verses is his?)
Like I said above, the bible is quite consistent on heterosexuality, however when the bible is inconsistent as a whole, we cannot say that even something that's consistent within the bible is therefore true. Would you say such a thing about a school textbook that's proven inconsistent on most subjects, but one subject of it wasn't?
Isn't it quite an oversight from god to make the Bible complex though?
|
On November 25 2012 15:10 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
I'd vote against gay marriage. It's just something I don't want in society. Yes I know that's unfair, yes I know I don't have any valid reason for it, but... that doesn't change my mind.
In my experience, God's will is something people rely upon as an excuse when they don't have a real reason behind why they believe in something, but aren't brave enough to admit it.
Er...once you feel that God wills something, it's kind've unnecessary to think of any other reason to justify that thing. But this is getting more off topic than necessary.
|
On November 25 2012 15:10 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:49 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:30 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with? Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you. I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong, May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it? What do you think about nieces, is that incest? First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality. Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God. If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses. Agreed, it was one example to show that the bible is inconsistent and thus cannot be used as a literal word of god. (Since who are we to say which of the verses is his?) Like I said above, the bible is quite consistent on heterosexuality, however when the bible is inconsistent as a whole, we cannot say that even something that's consistent within the bible is therefore true. Would you say such a thing about a school textbook that's proven inconsistent on most subjects, but one subject of it wasn't? Isn't it quite an oversight from god to make the Bible complex though?
So if you want, we can have (in a different thread) a whole discussion about the legitimacy of religion. You think the Bible is fraudulent, I think it's the work of God. It doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convert you.
My point is the argument against most people in this thread. I'll quote it again:
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
|
On November 25 2012 15:06 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:59 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference. On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality. It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it. One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical. And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.)
However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
