Thanks. Cults like ISIS, various nasty genocidal campaigns, the rise of China (which cares only about China/the Chinese) as a world power, and climate change denial, which seems to me like cutting of your nose to spite your face, have shaken my faith in us to rise above our own selfishness and stubbornness and try to work together to survive as a planet. But you're right; we are generally, as a whole, better off today. I don't have faith that will last in the short term.quash said:Jinx 2 said:Are you sure about that? We seem hellbent on undermining our own survival, and I would hardly call all the Deep State and Q canard (not to mention stories about virgin births or golden tablets or special eyeglasses) rational.quash said:Florda_mike said:
Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......
People are the problem here on earth
What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people
Not real sure that's God's solution though?
We're a rational species, evolved to survive.
We're certainly capable of rational thought, but we don't practice it nearly often enough.
I am certain of it. Since the Enlightenment the moral arc sweeps upward, poverty has been hammered and a working class stiff has better material goods than a 19th century king. We have an improved understanding, not just of our world, but of our universe. I am bullish on humanity.
Would you have kicked Seth out of your home?
25,673 Views |
396 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Florda_mike
Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .fadskier said:Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.Waco1947 said:Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.fadskier said:Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?Waco1947 said:"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.bearassnekkid said:Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?Waco1947 said:
Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.
On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?
Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.
And, like usual, you present no evidence.
Waco1947 ,la
Jinx 2 said:There are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. The first, in Genesis chapter 1, does not say God created woman FOR man. It says God created both: "Male and female created he them." And that's all that's said about it. That is the older story.Forest Bueller said:Waco1947 said:In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.Forest Bueller said:Jinx 2 said:I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.Forest Bueller said:Waco1947 said:fadskier said:I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.Waco1947 said:No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.fadskier said:
I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.
I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.
Proverbs 22:6
Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.
This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.
Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.
The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.
47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verse I was looking at are in Genesis.
Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him." 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[e]
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
God created a woman to be the wife of a man, not another man. Men with men are simply not a marriage.
A civil union, yes, but a believer, should believe Gods design for marriage, not new age cultures design.
We just are going to disagree here.
If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, you believe these two stories are complementary, and that one supplements the other. If you believe, as I do, that the canon of religious writings was selected and interpreted to support certain agendas--and that this collection of history, stories and proverbs is an incredible repository of religious and cultural history that contains a great deal of wisdom and also tells us a lot about how warlike and sinful and petty people can be, rather than an inerrant guide to life, then you might suspect the second story was added to support an agenda in which women are relegated to eternal submission and control of men rather than viewed as equal partners.
In no way do I believe women are below men or subjugated to their "rule". A man if married is charged to "give up his life" for his spouse. To love her as "Christ loves the Church". Marriage is a model of Christs love for His church. He chose to illustrate this through the complementary relationship between and husband "man" and wife "woman"..
Just because men and women have different roles, doesn't make one ruler over the other.
God had not yet created a suitable mate for a man. That men and women were created to complement each other doesn't lessen either of their existence, That said, God did not create another man, to be the mate or spouse of another man. He created a woman to be the spouse of a man.
Ephesians 5:24 [url=https://biblehub.com/context/ephesians/5-25.htm][/url]
24. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26. so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27. that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
28. So husbands ought also to love their own wives
as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29. for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30. because we are members of His body. 31. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
NASB 1995
If a man in real world practice, "gives himself up" for his wife, he certainly will not feel like he is a ruler over her, because he isn't.
English Standard Version
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
If a man loves his wife as Christ loves His church, it is very clear, he is to serve her, not be served. As Christ came to serve and not to be served, as a man should also be towards his wife, even to the point of giving up his life for her.
Any other attitude is not from Christ, but from men.
This is a really good question.Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.
That is a mis-characterization of the Catholic church. She is not trying to deny anyone of the rights to marriage. She is trying to preserve what marriage has ALWAYS been: union between MAN and WOMAN. This has existed like this more more than 4000 years, and even outside of the bounds of Judaeo-Christian societies. Remote villages in Africa, India, and East Asia, that have never heard of God or Jesus, have all believed in a marriage between man and woman.
This is in accordance with the natural law.
I'll ask you simply, what is your definition of marriage?
A church, I think, has a right to define marriage in any way it chooses. Many Christian churches define it as one man and one woman. Some prohibit divorce (although annulment allows Catholics to do an end run around that). Jews define marriage as between one man and one woman. Some Islamic traditions allow multiple wives--I believe 4 is a common number. Mormons used to allow men unlimited wives; they had to prohibit polygamy to gain statehood, so here is a good example of a church that adapted its marriage practices to conform to civil law in this case, prohibiting polygamy. But, if I understand it correctly, if a Mormon couple divorces, the man can remarry in the church, while the wife cannot--a policy that has its roots in plural marriage for men only.
Civil marriage can and should be informed by religious traditions. In our society, with its European roots, that's historically been a man and a woman. Now it's a couple who seek to make a life-long commitment, combine their resources (although I know married couples with totally separate finances, which I can't entirely fathom), be sexually faithful to each other, support each other and raise a family if they choose.
That long-term commitment between two people to commit to love and support and confide in each other and accompany each other through life is how I define marriage.
But the civil commitment of mutual support makes both people responsible, for example, for taxes. Two neighbors just went though a protracted divorce because the wife, who typically earned a whopping $500K a year as a realtor and broker, owed $300K in taxes she couldn't pay. The husband, who came into the marriage with a house he owned, had mortgaged the house after they married to pay off her $300K credit card debt--apparently she burned through money about as fast as she could make it; he made about $40K a year as a freelance photographer. His position was that he owned the house and that, during their marriage, he mortgaged HIS house to pay her debt. But they had mortgaged the house as a married couple, and under the law, her income and her liabilities were both part his. Since the liabilities exceeded their combined income, he ended up having to sell his house, where he'd remained after she moved out, to pay off their marital debt. During the 3 years they battled over this issue--which seemed pretty clear to me; he was going to have to sell his house to pay off the tax debt and hope he could also get enough to pay off the remaining mortgage as well--the tax debt mounted by about $130 per day in interest.
So marriage has both civil and religious dimensions. People should be able to choose any partner they want under civil law, but only one partner.
And churches should be able to decide for themselves what constitutes marriage among their congregation--if Catholics and evangelicals don't want to acknowledge gay marriages as true under their faith, they shouldn't have to. But they should not dictate what constitutes marriage under civil law.
Why only one partner?
So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?Waco1947 said:Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .fadskier said:Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.Waco1947 said:Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.fadskier said:Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?Waco1947 said:"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.bearassnekkid said:Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?Waco1947 said:
Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.
On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?
Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.
And, like usual, you present no evidence.
and again, where are your references for this?
Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
quash said:Florda_mike said:quash said:Florda_mike said:
Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......
People are the problem here on earth
What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people
Not real sure that's God's solution though?
Well he did try it once.
But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.
Much of what you hear from environmentalists is that people are the problem
Isn't their obvious solution the elimination of the problem?
No.
There are thousands of solutions. That is not one.
Do you have a rational objection to improving our environment?
Idk
I haven't seen the environment interfering in my daily life
How does the environment affect you?
How has it effected your life negatively?
Florda_mike said:quash said:Florda_mike said:quash said:Florda_mike said:
Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......
People are the problem here on earth
What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people
Not real sure that's God's solution though?
Well he did try it once.
But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.
Much of what you hear from environmentalists is that people are the problem
Isn't their obvious solution the elimination of the problem?
No.
There are thousands of solutions. That is not one.
Do you have a rational objection to improving our environment?
Idk
I haven't seen the environment interfering in my daily life
How does the environment affect you?
How has it effected your life negatively?
Asthma for one. I pay taxes to pay for Super Fund clean up and Medicare to other environmentally caused illnesses. So do you.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
^^^ This is a great solution for our overpopulation problem the left says we have too!
Jinx 2 said:
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Why should they be allowed to marry? Could these rights not be conferred with a "friendship contract"? My brother and I shared a bank account for a small business that we ran. We didn't have to get married for this.
Married couples provide a benefit to society. They have children. They educate children. They raise those children in a home to become productive members of society. When they are old enough, they go off find a mate and repeat the process.
Your definition included a "sexual commitment" component. "Sex" is defined by sexual intercourse. What two people of the same sex do is NOT sex. It's a sexual act.
I assume that you love your daughters. Why should you not be allowed to marry one of them?
Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Why should they be allowed to marry? Could these rights not be conferred with a "friendship contract"? My brother and I shared a bank account for a small business that we ran. We didn't have to get married for this.
Married couples provide a benefit to society. They have children. They educate children. They raise those children in a home to become productive members of society. When they are old enough, they go off find a mate and repeat the process.
Your definition included a "sexual commitment" component. "Sex" is defined by sexual intercourse. What two people of the same sex do is NOT sex. It's a sexual act.
I assume that you love your daughters. Why should you not be allowed to marry one of them?
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes. But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Why should they be allowed to marry? Could these rights not be conferred with a "friendship contract"? My brother and I shared a bank account for a small business that we ran. We didn't have to get married for this.
Married couples provide a benefit to society. They have children. They educate children. They raise those children in a home to become productive members of society. When they are old enough, they go off find a mate and repeat the process.
Your definition included a "sexual commitment" component. "Sex" is defined by sexual intercourse. What two people of the same sex do is NOT sex. It's a sexual act.
I assume that you love your daughters. Why should you not be allowed to marry one of them?
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes. But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
You missed the part he mentioned about raising the kids after you have them
Florda_mike said:quash said:Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Why should they be allowed to marry? Could these rights not be conferred with a "friendship contract"? My brother and I shared a bank account for a small business that we ran. We didn't have to get married for this.
Married couples provide a benefit to society. They have children. They educate children. They raise those children in a home to become productive members of society. When they are old enough, they go off find a mate and repeat the process.
Your definition included a "sexual commitment" component. "Sex" is defined by sexual intercourse. What two people of the same sex do is NOT sex. It's a sexual act.
I assume that you love your daughters. Why should you not be allowed to marry one of them?
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes. But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
You missed the part he mentioned about raising the kids after you have them
You missed where I addressed that: staying together for extended family purposes
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes.
I apologize for my limited definition of marriage. I did not mean to be ambiguous about extended family.
I define marriage as the life-long commitment between man and woman for the procreation and education of children.
quash said:
But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
The Catholic church states that the couple must be open to children. Also the couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage.
Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.Sam Lowry said:There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.
Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).
Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).
Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.
Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.
My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.
Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.
"Open to life" means that, everytime the couple has sex, the woman must be prepared to become pregnant. In this day and time, it's barbarism to require that from women. Which is why most Catholic women disregard it.Coke Bear said:quash said:
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes.
I apologize for my limited definition of marriage. I did not mean to be ambiguous about extended family.
I define marriage as the life-long commitment between man and woman for the procreation and education of children.quash said:
But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
The Catholic church states that the couple must be open to children. Also the couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage.
In the last line of this post, you conflate gay marriage and incest. No one should be allowed to marry one of their children, regardless of sexual orientation. That's a taboo so deeply ingrained I wonder if it's hard-wired; the thought makes me shudder.Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Why should they be allowed to marry? Could these rights not be conferred with a "friendship contract"? My brother and I shared a bank account for a small business that we ran. We didn't have to get married for this.
Married couples provide a benefit to society. They have children. They educate children. They raise those children in a home to become productive members of society. When they are old enough, they go off find a mate and repeat the process.
Your definition included a "sexual commitment" component. "Sex" is defined by sexual intercourse. What two people of the same sex do is NOT sex. It's a sexual act.
I assume that you love your daughters. Why should you not be allowed to marry one of them?
Gay married couples have children, educate children and raise children in a home to become productive members of society. I know several couples who are raising adopted children, some of other races. I'm frankly creeped out by "donor dads," and I think surrogacy is a form of body slavery combined with a business transaction that should be illegal. There are some things one person should not be able to use another person's body to do. I oppose both the rental and sale of body parts and fluids. The fact that surrogacy, donor eggs, donor sperm, etc. are legal is evidence at how totally subjective our laws regarding what's permissable and what's not relating to human life is. I'm sometimes baffled at how the same people who think some horrible event like a mass shooting or a stillborn baby is God's will, because, well, everything is--don't reach the same conclusion when a man is sterile or a woman barren: That perhaps it wasn't God's plan for that person to have children.
My guess is that gay people would argue that what they do IS sex. I'm not gay. And I don't think what they do is any of my business, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes. The idea that you or anyone else should prohibit them from marriage because you don't think what they do qualifies as sex under the religious strictures you think govern marriage makes me question what makes you feel qualified to make that judgment on their behalf.
Doesn't she? It's one of the consequences of having sex. Look up "biology"Jinx 2 said:"Open to life" means that, everytime the couple has sex, the woman must be prepared to become pregnant. In this day and time, it's barbarism to require that from women. Which is why most Catholic women disregard it.Coke Bear said:quash said:
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes.
I apologize for my limited definition of marriage. I did not mean to be ambiguous about extended family.
I define marriage as the life-long commitment between man and woman for the procreation and education of children.quash said:
But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
The Catholic church states that the couple must be open to children. Also the couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage.
I did tell my daughters never to have sex with anyone with whom they would not want to raise a child, because it's certainly a possible outcome. That was an excellent way to rule out a lot of guys; the expressions on their faces were priceless. It was also meant to convey my belief that sex is serious, not casual, and should involve a commitment.fadskier said:Doesn't she? It's one of the consequences of having sex. Look up "biology"Jinx 2 said:"Open to life" means that, everytime the couple has sex, the woman must be prepared to become pregnant. In this day and time, it's barbarism to require that from women. Which is why most Catholic women disregard it.Coke Bear said:quash said:
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes.
I apologize for my limited definition of marriage. I did not mean to be ambiguous about extended family.
I define marriage as the life-long commitment between man and woman for the procreation and education of children.quash said:
But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
The Catholic church states that the couple must be open to children. Also the couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage.
But we have had reliable birth control for more than 50 years. In this day and time, telling a woman using one of those methods to time pregnancies or, if she chooses, forgo childbearing altogether, isnt' moral.
Jinx 2 said:
"Open to life" means that, everytime the couple has sex, the woman must be prepared to become pregnant. In this day and time, it's barbarism to require that from women. Which is why most Catholic women disregard it.
This is false again. A woman is only capable of getting pregnant about 5 days of each month. They don't have to be "prepared to become pregnant" unless they engage in sex during her fertile period. The remainder of the month is "game-on!"
It's not barbarism, it's science. If Catholic women disregard this, then it's because they don't fully understand the teaching and/or the Church did poor job explaining it.
You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.Jinx 2 said:Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.Sam Lowry said:There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.
Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).
Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).
Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.
Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.
My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.
Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.
There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?
Coke Bear said:quash said:
Your definition ends marriage when the couple no longer makes babies. I assume you'd be ok with them staying together for extended family purposes.
I apologize for my limited definition of marriage. I did not mean to be ambiguous about extended family.
I define marriage as the life-long commitment between man and woman for the procreation and education of children.quash said:
But what about couples who, voluntarily or not, will never procreate?
The Catholic church states that the couple must be open to children. Also the couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage.
That's fine for Catholics and irrelevant to the rest of us who marry somewhere else. And no basis for govt decisions.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Jinx 2 said:
But we have had reliable birth control for more than 50 years. In this day and time, telling a woman using one of those methods to time pregnancies or, if she chooses, forgo childbearing altogether, isnt' moral.
Moral? How about asking teenage girls to take the birth control pill to clear acne, relieve cramps, regularize their periods? The pill is a steroid. The pill is a known carcinogen. Prolonged use has been known to cause breast cancer and other health issues like infertility. Doctors metaphorically shove these pills down the throats of women with little regard to finding the true cause of their symptoms, which can often be remedied with another solution.
Secondarily, Natural Family Planning taught by the Catholic church has a higher percent of "birth control" than any other pill, device, shot, etc. NFP works with the woman's body to obtain pregnancy.
Finally couples that practice NFP have the some of the lowest divorce rates than other segment in society.
Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
But we have had reliable birth control for more than 50 years. In this day and time, telling a woman using one of those methods to time pregnancies or, if she chooses, forgo childbearing altogether, isnt' moral.
Moral? How about asking teenage girls to take the birth control pill to clear acne, relieve cramps, regularize their periods? The pill is a steroid. The pill is a known carcinogen. Prolonged use has been known to cause breast cancer and other health issues like infertility. Doctors metaphorically shove these pills down the throats of women with little regard to finding the true cause of their symptoms, which can often be remedied with another solution.
Secondarily, Natural Family Planning taught by the Catholic church has a higher percent of "birth control" than any other pill, device, shot, etc. NFP works with the woman's body to obtain pregnancy.
Finally couples that practice NFP have the some of the lowest divorce rates than other segment in society.
Which pill is a known carcinogen? There's more than one.
And estrogen is a steroid. So is testosterone, and adrenaline...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Women's cycles vary. Some women have predictable cycles; others never do. If the five-day window you mention were totally predictable for all women, we would have very few "unplanned" pregnancies. The fact is, some women have irregular cycles, and their fertile periods are very hard to predict. Some women ovulate more than one egg; I had a work colleague whose first pregnancy was fraternal triplets--2 girls and a boy who was crushed to death in the womb. She spent half that pregnancy in bed, and was informed that all of her pregnancies were likely to be multiple and dangerous. She got her tubes tied. Your one-size-fits-all scenario may fit religious guidelines, but not real women.Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
"Open to life" means that, everytime the couple has sex, the woman must be prepared to become pregnant. In this day and time, it's barbarism to require that from women. Which is why most Catholic women disregard it.
This is false again. A woman is only capable of getting pregnant about 5 days of each month. They don't have to be "prepared to become pregnant" unless they engage in sex during her fertile period. The remainder of the month is "game-on!"
It's not barbarism, it's science. If Catholic women disregard this, then it's because they don't fully understand the teaching and/or the Church did poor job explaining it.
The Guttmacher Institute says that "Couple who do not use any method of contraception have approximately an 85% chance of experiencing a pregnancy in a given year." https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states
Avoiding a woman's fertile period also requires discipline from both couples. Women have not always been able to force that disicpline upon their husbands. Jewish law enforced a version of that discipline, but the period of time during which a woman is "unclean" and thus not available for sex is much longer, and hard to figure out. If you really want your eyes to cross, read this: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-laws-of-niddah/
Drug companies have produced some methods of birth control--both devices and pills--that weren't good for women--the Dalkon shield rendered thousands of women, including one of my work colleagues in the 1980s, sterile, and resulted in a huge class action lawsuit, and the early pills cause some women to have heart attacks because the hormone dose was so high.Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
But we have had reliable birth control for more than 50 years. In this day and time, telling a woman using one of those methods to time pregnancies or, if she chooses, forgo childbearing altogether, isnt' moral.
Moral? How about asking teenage girls to take the birth control pill to clear acne, relieve cramps, regularize their periods? The pill is a steroid. The pill is a known carcinogen. Prolonged use has been known to cause breast cancer and other health issues like infertility. Doctors metaphorically shove these pills down the throats of women with little regard to finding the true cause of their symptoms, which can often be remedied with another solution.
Secondarily, Natural Family Planning taught by the Catholic church has a higher percent of "birth control" than any other pill, device, shot, etc. NFP works with the woman's body to obtain pregnancy.
Finally couples that practice NFP have the some of the lowest divorce rates than other segment in society.
But we're 50 years in, and there are plenty of safe pills and devices out there. My rule of thumb on any device or pill is: don't use or take it unless it has a long track record, the longer the better. Anything short of 10 years, and you're part of the experimental group. Women now also use some forms of conception for convenience; among college female soccer players, taking a form of pill where you have no period during soccer season is a common strategy.
Pregnancy also has risks, and damages women's bodies in ways we don't talk about enough. Women suffer urinary incontinence, tears between the vagina and urethra, tears between the vagina and the anus, and other issues, and can result in serious complications. We are doing a poorer, rather than a better job dealing with those complications in this country: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/22/572298802/nearly-dying-in-childbirth-why-preventable-complications-are-growing-in-u-s
I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.Jinx 2 said:Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.Sam Lowry said:There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.
Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).
Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).
Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.
Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.
My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.
Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.
There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?
I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.
bearassnekkid said:I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:Jinx 2 said:Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.bearassnekkid said:Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.Jinx 2 said:You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.bearassnekkid said:Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.Jinx 2 said:Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?bearassnekkid said:Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.Jinx 2 said:bearassnekkid said:Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.Jinx 2 said:You think humans are 'designed.'Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.
First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.Jinx 2 said:
Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.
Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.
As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.
I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.
There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.
If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.
The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.
Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.
I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).
I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.
My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.
If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.
"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.
I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.
The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.
Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.
Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.
If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.
Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.
Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.
"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."
Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.
.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."
I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.
.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."
Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.
.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."
How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.
.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.
Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.
.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."
You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.
.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.
I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.
.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.
Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."
- I couldn't help but comment on a couple of remarks. My remarks are by bullet points in italics.
"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."
Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.
- There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."
How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet.
- Many people of religious faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise seem to believe that there is no need to be good stewards of what we have on this planet. They rather believe that god gave us dominion over it and we can do whatever want without regard, because he's in control and everything happens according to his plan. Many espouse apocalyptic views that negate the need to care for the future.
I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET.
- I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.
Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.
- Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?
Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?Jinx 2 said:I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.Jinx 2 said:Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.Sam Lowry said:There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.
Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).
Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).
Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.
Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.
My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.
Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.
There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?
I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.
I've answered your question: our legal system is set up for marriages of 2 people.Sam Lowry said:Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?Jinx 2 said:I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.Jinx 2 said:Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.Sam Lowry said:There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?Jinx 2 said:What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?Sam Lowry said:Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.Jinx 2 said:Because that's entrenched in civil law.Sam Lowry said:
Why only one partner?
People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.
Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.
Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?
A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.
That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?
In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.
Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?
Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.
Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).
Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).
Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.
Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.
My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.
Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.
There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?
I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.
I'll celebrate my 37th anniversary next week, and I honestly can't imagine a group marriage working. A marriage between two people is very hard work, and many people don't manage to sustain one of those.
And my "view" doesn't have to be "correct." Especially according to church doctrine.
If all people are equal under the law, that includes gay people. My "view" has nothing to do with it.
If we have a legal system that allows two people to marry, and if we now recognize that gay people aren't deviants or perverts or sinners and aren't "choosing a lifestyle," denying them the privilege of marrying the spouse of their choice makes no sense.
We haven't done that before because our laws were dominated by a conservative religious view--this is where "views" come into the picture--of gay people as sinners whose impulses are shameful, rather than as people who have same-sex attraction who, although they are a minority, are a common variation that has remained constant throughout recorded history.
Thank you for this--although I also think the meaning is what we as individuals assign to it. The idea that life only has meaning if you are religious is both odd and insulting.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:Jinx 2 said:Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.bearassnekkid said:Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.Jinx 2 said:You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.bearassnekkid said:Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.Jinx 2 said:Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?bearassnekkid said:Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.Jinx 2 said:bearassnekkid said:Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.Jinx 2 said:You think humans are 'designed.'Coke Bear said:Jinx 2 said:
Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.
First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.Jinx 2 said:
Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.
Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.
As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.
I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.
There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.
If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.
The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.
Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.
I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).
I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.
My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.
If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.
"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.
I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.
The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.
Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.
Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.
If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.
Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.
Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.
"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."
Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.
.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."
I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.
.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."
Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.
.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."
How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.
.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.
Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.
.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."
You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.
.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.
I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.
.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.
Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."
- I couldn't help but comment on a couple of remarks. My remarks are by bullet points in italics.
"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."
Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.
- There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."
How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet.
- Many people of religious faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise seem to believe that there is no need to be good stewards of what we have on this planet. They rather believe that god gave us dominion over it and we can do whatever want without regard, because he's in control and everything happens according to his plan. Many espouse apocalyptic views that negate the need to care for the future.
I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET.
- I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.
Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.
- Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?
There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.
And for this--and I think the answer is that we don't. But we are doing it.
Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?