|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted.
|
On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church).
Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion.
|
On December 26 2012 10:32 Reason wrote:
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted.
No no. It's widely believed that he was supposed to sire a son with his sister-in law. God punished him for wasting his semen. That passage has been used as an argument against contraception, masturbation, and non-procreative sex in general.
|
On December 26 2012 10:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church). Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion.
Lol you might be right about that but that kind of makes it look like they are actively looking for stuff to condemn and are only willing to stick to their beliefs if it doesn't cost them too much in terms of popularity which would them pretty morally reprehensible hypocrites among other things...
On December 26 2012 10:39 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:32 Reason wrote:
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted. No no. It's widely believed that he was supposed to sire a son with his sister-in law. God punished him for wasting his semen. That passage has been used as an argument against contraception, masturbation, and non-procreative sex in general.
You'll need to educate me on the context then because why would he be instructed to produce offspring with his brother's wife then?
I am curious but I'd like to draw attention to the fact that we're now straying from the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion with this tangent.
I think my interpretation is sound and regardless from that it could be construed that the punishment was for wasting his semen anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
|
On December 26 2012 10:43 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:37 Klondikebar wrote:On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church). Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion. Lol you might be right about that but that kind of makes it look like they are actively looking for stuff to condemn and are only willing to stick to their beliefs if it doesn't cost them too much in terms of popularity which would them pretty morally reprehensible hypocrites among other things...
And you just described why I am so leery and mistrustful of organized religion.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-pope-family-idUKBRE8BK0M020121221
The pope has called for an inter-religion alliance against gay marriage. Not an alliance against hunger, poverty, or crime. An alliance against gay marriage.
This is why I think secular laws should trump religious expression. Religious expression can't justify itself anymore than I could justify blatant racism.
Edit: About the tangent, it's been a long time since I've read the story but it has something to do with God's chosen bloodline going through that wife. Her husband died but God still needed her to have a son to continue the bloodline he wanted for King David and Jesus so he told her brother in law to make a baby with her. He didn't particularly care for her and definitely didn't want a kid with her so he just masturbated and God did not like that.
|
"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
I mean it specifically says the reason was that he knew the child wouldn't be his, and it also specifically mentions when he was having sex with her, not that he found her repulsive and so just masturbated instead.
I still don't agree... but okay 
Nevermind lol it's not relevant to the topic, thanks for explaining though.
|
On December 26 2012 11:00 Reason wrote:"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.I mean it specifically says the reason was that he knew the child wouldn't be his, and it also specifically mentions when he was having sex with her, not that he found her repulsive and so just masturbated instead. I still don't agree... but okay Nevermind.
There's this weird lineage tracing in ancient jewish culture. Once a woman has been married, you're technically never divorced so any children they have will bear the name of her first husband. And like I said, it's been a while since I've read the story so I didn't remember some of the details. I just remember hearing it a lot as a kid as a reason I shouldn't masturbate.
|
|
|
On December 26 2012 10:22 WarpTV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. There is nothing for me to forgive, I do not know if they are sinning, It is not my place to grant any forgiveness for any thing. Here is a passage about donating sperm. it is was used in the past to say contraceptive is a sin. "Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also." Today we know that it was about donating sperm.
Actually most/many scholars interpret the passage as Onan intentionally disobeying God for unknown reasons, or just taking the opportunity to screw his brother's wife for longer. Nowhere else does the bible imply/say that sex without the intention of procreation is wrong/immoral. The catholic church is the main denomination that has an alternate interpretation.
EDIT: There is also no mention of masturbation either.
|
On December 25 2012 03:27 [F_]aths wrote:
...because unnecessary suffering is bad.
This is a tautology and no religious organization would disagree. What they disagree about and what you are dancing around is the question what constitutes unnecessary. So how do you scientifically proof that the subversion of what is called the traditional family does not cause harm (it certainly does for some people) or that this harm is necessary?
I'm sympathetic to the believe that morals should arise from real issues and not abstract considerations but I'm also quite sure that any moral based on a few simplistic axioms will be horribly inadequate at producing a "good" society. Just because you don't see how complex your own morals are, doesn't make them based purely on rational thought.
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. The bible is an incoherent mess and to extract livable guidelines from it (and other similarly incoherent source material) is one of the defining functions of the different Christian churches. It doesn't really make sense to tell them they are wrong in their interpretation because they can define what is true in their believe.
Everything still hinges on what marriage should be about. For almost all of us it's about love and all that jazz but historically this is simply wrong (marriage was mainly about monetary and hereditary concerns) and for some denominations this still holds true. Again for example in the Catholic Church marriage has very clearly a procreational component, they could deny gay couples marriage because they cannot have children with each other and not because they are gay, which is what they do to impotent people and thus pretty coherent.
[EDIT]: I would appreciate if anyone could offer an argument why inherently ageist rites of passage should be allowed if every gender based rite is a nono. Also why should the arbitrary legally protected groups be the only ones that matter? For example there is obvious and widespread discrimination against ugly people, is this alright because there is no law against it?
|
On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 03:27 [F_]aths wrote:
...because unnecessary suffering is bad. This is a tautology and no religious organization would disagree. What they disagree about and what you are dancing around is the question what constitutes unnecessary. So how do you scientifically proof that the subversion of what is called the traditional family does not cause harm (it certainly does for some people) or that this harm is necessary? I'm sympathetic to the believe that morals should arise from real issues and not abstract considerations but I'm also quite sure that any moral based on a few simplistic axioms will be horribly inadequate at producing a "good" society. Just because you don't see how complex your own morals are, doesn't make them based purely on rational thought.
Simple axioms can lead to very complex things. (Take the natural numbers and the concept of prime numbers. Prime numbers form a set of numbers with strange properties.)
Simple axioms doesn't necessarily lead to simplistic morals. Lets take the infamous example of pulling a lever to change the track of a train so it kills one man, but avoids killing five men on the other track. Is is moral to pull the lever? What about pushing a fat man on the track to stop a train, again avoid killing five others? Apparantly, morals doesn't reduce to simple arithmetic. Morality is more than comparing the body count.
We have to ask moral questions even if we knew that the god of the bible existd and that he forbad gay marriage. "Sacrifice your son" for example is immoral even if God commands it. Why is it immoral? Because the son gets killed, this is a denial of decades of experience, and the father gets sad not of losing his own son, but also nightmares and regret of being a murderer, a child murderer even. We also have to ask if gay marriage is immoral with or without god's law.
We can use science – in a broad sense – to show that many religious care about the wrong things. The willingness to deny couples the joy of marriage only because they are both the same gender (while both are still human beings) shows a serious moral distortion. Gay marriage causes much less suffering (some folks feel disgust, which is a form of suffering) while other issues in the world lead to much greater suffering: The death of innocent people, curable diseases which afflict much pain but which are not treated because of the wrong money distribution (tax cuts for the rich) and so forth. Even though I admit that morality does not reduce to simple body counts or simple arithmetic, we can at least roughly demonstrate the effect of different policies and we can get at least a notion of the suffering we cause or alleviate. Taking gay marriage for an important moral issue in the current state of the world shows a great disconnect to the reality of actual suffering, of the real moral imperatives at hand.
|
You should drop using "science" because what you describe is not scientific, not even in a broad sense. You pretty much go with your gut feeling to decide what is unnecessary suffering, which is fine but you cannot call it scientific.
What does denial of experience even mean? Why is it immoral? Why is triggering sadness or regret inherently immoral? Is it immoral to suicide because your family will be sad? Is it immoral to make a sad movie? I'm not interested in your opinion on these questions but in how you design a scientific (in the broadest sense you want) experiment to solve them.
If you only have some simple axioms to decide moral questions the complexities will be hidden in the reductions to said axioms (as in your case in the meaning of unnecessary). This is based on the belief (or call it axiom) that the world is actually complex with which you hopefully agree. You can then make up new axioms to alleviate the complexities from the reductions (making the moral system more complex) or ignore the problem so that your decision was not based on these axioms after all but rather on the very subjective reductions.
As to your last paragraph, I support gay marriage and in this thread I only argued against forcing the church to marry gay couples and I don't disagree too much with your line of arguing. I do disagree however, that this is an objective/scientific/rational approach. We cannot demonstrate how much people suffer by being denied marriage and we cannot foresee what long term grand-scale effects these decisions have.
|
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit. The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
|
On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand.
Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic?
I apologise, good sir.
|
In response to OP.
I think the idea that no group is allowed to discriminate is an overgeneralization. Surely being a dumb racist is wrong but discriminating as to whom to allow into your friend list and as a result into your parties is a discrimination too. (ok maybe the example is poor but you get the idea: there are acceptable forms of discrimination). So like in numerous other debates, the question here is where do we draw the line?
|
On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science.
Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions 
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms).
To Reason: Sure argue all you want about that stuff (like me, I'm the king of pointless arguments). But if you are asking yourself why the church is acting like it is although there is some bible reference to the contrary, I hope I could enlighten you (and WarpTV who thought this was utmost importance).
|
I don't see why Gays should be denied the right of being miserable just like straight folks.
I heard Roseanne say something on TV not long ago that went along the lines of: "Think gay sex is gross? Then let them marry! That'll stop the sex pretty fast."
Troof.
|
On December 29 2012 00:01 Cheerio wrote:
In response to OP.
I think the idea that no group is allowed to discriminate is an overgeneralization. Surely being a dumb racist is wrong but discriminating as to whom to allow into your friend list and as a result into your parties is a discrimination too. (ok maybe the example is poor but you get the idea: there are acceptable forms of discrimination). So like in numerous other debates, the question here is where do we draw the line?
Surely being a dumb homophobe is wrong?
Sounds like a good place to start drawing lines if that's your logic.
To silynxer:
We weren't arguing about anything, we were having a discussion. I'm more inclined to agree with Klondike that they pick and choose their interpretation based on outside factors that have nothing to do with their actual "interpretation" of what the Bible says, and I believe we have already established a few. (The was the purpose of the discussion to draw attention to this issue and attempt to explore/discuss it but you haven't said anything on that subject yet because you're too busy arguing about science and morality...)
I am also very curious about impotent people not being allowed to marry... this is very interesting. They are essentially condemned to a life of solitude and celibacy then or must be sinners in the eyes of God?
It would appear this is only with certain churches, as is the anti gay-marriage sentiment?
I'd be interested to see how this correlates..
|
Oh I think while some stuff the Church does is clearly opportunistic many members are true believers as well and act like that. I wouldn't know enough about that to determine which is more prevalent. The trouble is that all kinds of historic decisions will become new sources of how to interpret the Bible, the process is self-referential (there is the stuff with the Pope being infallible, making statements of all Popes a bit troublesome).
About impotence, I think in this strict form this only appears in the Catholic church. I also wouldn't use this as any argument for or against gay marriage but rather to make an obvious example how marriage can be about more than (romantic) love for someone.
We can hope that the Protestant Church will at some point allow gay marriage (look how they treat women), the Catholic Church not so much.
|
I guess over time people will simply graduate towards the less extreme of these faith since they are all essentially the same but one seems to be imposing a much higher degree of discrimination than others.
On December 29 2012 01:02 silynxer wrote:
I also wouldn't use this as any argument for or against gay marriage but rather to make an obvious example how marriage can be about more than (romantic) love for someone.
From the churches prospective I absolutely would though, which is what I'm pointing out. If a man and a women can't get married if they can't procreate then absolutely two people of the same gender could not get married for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
