Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all?
Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,843 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 07:56 PM
AC: "1 Corinthians 14:35 "If women want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"


1 Timothy 2:12 " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."


I always wondered what women who cited the bible to justify their hatred of gays thought about these passages? Jesus is silent on the issue. It all comes from Paul. I wonder what MS and M+M and the others say about these passages, which get cited much less frequently.

Let's be honest, even though the overall Christian message is one of great beauty and joy, there's some right old nonsense masquerading as the Word of God. I've never been able to understand why people can't accept that some of it isn't relevant any more. The book's 2000 yrs old, for goodness sake. It's aged very well, but nothing should stay the same for ever. After all, isn't that why they needed to write a New Testament in the first place?

Even Dick Clarke went grey eventually.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 05:01 PM
Moonbat: I think I can help you out here. IT really does seem to think that without God there is no ethics. When I first saw him post that I thought he was making some sort of self-depreciating joke - but, no, he was apparently serious. He really is serious when he claims that you are contradicting yourself by both being a materialist and holding an ethical position.

I asked him once to try to explain why, in a purely materialist universe, there would be no moral values. He was unable to even parse the meaning of the sentence asking him the question.

Jeff: Please don't misrepresent my point. Of course there are moral values in a purely materialistic universe as long as there are conscious and self reflective minds to ascribe value. However, since they are ascribed they are not intrinsic and hence not objective. You can hold any ethical position you want -- and I'm sure it makes you feel good and allows you to survive as long as you get enough people to agree with you. But you have no firm basis for deciding that anyone else's values are wrong.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: "QUOTE (Jeffrey @ Jun 2 2006, 05:01 PM)
Moonbat: I think I can help you out here. IT really does seem to think that without God there is no ethics. When I first saw him post that I thought he was making some sort of self-depreciating joke - but, no, he was apparently serious. He really is serious when he claims that you are contradicting yourself by both being a materialist and holding an ethical position.

I asked him once to try to explain why, in a purely materialist universe, there would be no moral values. He was unable to even parse the meaning of the sentence asking him the question.


Jeff: Please don't misrepresent my point. Of course there are moral values in a purely materialistic universe as long as there are conscious and self reflective minds to ascribe value. However, since they are ascribed they are not intrinsic and hence not objective. You can hold any ethical position you want -- and I'm sure it makes you feel good and allows you to survive as long as you get enough people to agree with you. But you have no firm basis for deciding that anyone else's values are wrong. "


Fine, I will clarify my comment to "why, in a purely materialist universe, there were no *objective* moral values, capable of truth or falsity." When philosophers debate morals it is generally assumed they are debating whether any moral system is *true". It is a given fact that people have moral opinions and state them - the question is whether any of them are objectively true or false, or whether instead they are just arbitrary cultural beliefs, expressions of personal emotion or what have you.

The rest of my statement stands. I still thought you were making a self-ridiculing joke when you first said this. Also, you are not making a "point". A "point" requires reasons and evidence and stuff like that. You just baldly state your view without any reasons. As I reminded Moonbat, last time I asked you to justify your position, you admitted you were unable to even imagine that the universe might be merely materialistic, much less explain why in such a universe no moral statement was true. Perhaps you can do better this time.

Also, I'd love to see MS defend Paul on women's rights. This should be fun to watch. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 07:56 PM
to justify their hatred of gays thought about these passages

If your ignorant dumbass says that Christians "hate gays" one more time, I will drop to your lying, deceiving, nescient, and pathetic level to launch personal insults, that although might not be true, are just as accurate as this statement you (and others) keep saying over and over. If you are allowed to generalize, insults, and spew deceit in order to make your point, so am I.

Oops, looks like I already did.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

ivorythumper
Jun 2 2006, 08:09 PM
Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 05:01 PM
Moonbat:  I think I can help you out here.  IT really does seem to think that without God there is no ethics.  When I first saw him post that I thought he was making some sort of self-depreciating joke - but, no, he was apparently serious.  He really is serious when he claims that you are contradicting yourself by both being a materialist and holding an ethical position. 

    I asked him once to try to explain why, in a purely materialist universe, there would be no moral values.  He was unable to even parse the meaning of the sentence asking him the question.

Jeff: Please don't misrepresent my point. Of course there are moral values in a purely materialistic universe as long as there are conscious and self reflective minds to ascribe value. However, since they are ascribed they are not intrinsic and hence not objective. You can hold any ethical position you want -- and I'm sure it makes you feel good and allows you to survive as long as you get enough people to agree with you. But you have no firm basis for deciding that anyone else's values are wrong.

That, (and tell me if I'm wrong to assume), I also saw in your post that since Moonbat and others try to refute certain arguments, that we make, by going down to the bare bones and atomic level....so did you. Talking about ethics and morals, you went straight down to where materialistic/secular ethics come from in a paradigm without religion - chemical and biological reactions that are *ultimately* pointless and are in an *absolute* state of futility.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 05:30 PM

    The rest of my statement stands.  I still thought you were making a self-ridiculing joke when you first said this.  Also, you are not making a "point".  A "point" requires reasons and evidence and stuff like that.  You just baldly state your view without any reasons. As I reminded Moonbat, last time I asked you to justify your position, you admitted you were unable to even imagine that the universe might be merely materialistic, much less explain why in such a universe no moral statement was true.    Perhaps you can do better this time.


You are confounding quite a few things here, Jeff. Perhaps you have a lot on your mind and are just not thinking carefully. A "point" is simply a position. You are equivocating between two different meanings of "point". That you do not even realize this, or if you do and do so intentionally, makes intelligent conversation with you boorish.

It has never been a question of my lack of imagination. If you want to engage me in flights of fantasy, I can go along for the ride. If you want me to make your arguments for you, I have no interest in doing your work for you but will entertain your considerations.



Quote:
 

    Also, I'd love to see MS defend Paul on women's rights.  This should be fun to watch.    :)

So ask her. Why are you addressing this to me?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Jun 2 2006, 03:56 PM
I always wondered what women who cited the bible to justify their hatred of gays thought about these passages?  Jesus is silent on the issue.  It all comes from Paul.  I wonder what MS and M+M and the others say about these passages, which get cited much less frequently.

It all comes to Paul and in particular the rubber stamp of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (d.170 CE).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
AlbertaCrude
Jun 2 2006, 08:57 PM
It all comes to Paul and in particular the rubber stamp of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (d.170 CE).

Damned Frenchmen! :devil:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
IT,
Quote:
 
It is simply that homosexuality should not be granted the equivalent status as marriage and the state has no interest in regulating it on the same level as marriage since by its very nature a homosexual relationship is incapable of engendering children within its confines.


So are many heterosexual marriages yet they are granted status by the State.

Your statement would make sense IF we were not talking about the United States of America--which was founded upon the ideals of individual liberty and happiness.

The United States of America doesn't care a pittance (sorry to be so blunt, but by the same token it's a good thing it doesn't) that you are Christian, Muslim, Quaker or Aetheist.

It is written into the constitution of the United States of America that the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed. It is also written that the government will steer clear of religious doctrine.

All arguments against gay marriage are religious. (And the few that aren't don't hold water. The above is a good example.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Ivory, if I may answer as well...

Bernard said

Quote:
 
So are many heterosexual marriages yet they are granted status by the State.


Homosexual relationships are 100% incapable of engendering children. Heterosexual couples usually are able, have the option, and negligibly are unable to. It would be pointless to eliminate heterosexual marriage because a few couples can't engender children, yet not allowing homosexual marriages *in this line of thought* is 100% reasonable.

Quote:
 
Your statement would make sense IF we were not talking about the United States of America--which was founded upon the ideals of individual liberty and happiness.


Your point? Do you not know about laws? Do we run free? Don't be obtuse.

Quote:
 
The United States of America doesn't care a pittance (sorry to be so blunt) that you are Christian, Muslim, Quaker or Aetheist.


Ironically, the only people bringing religion into this argument are you and moonbat.

Quote:
 
It is written into the constitution of the United States of America that the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed.


So what? See my second point.

Quote:
 
It is also written that the government will steer clear of religious doctrine.


So what? See my third point.

Quote:
 
All arguments against gay marriage are religious.


Haha, now you're just being silly. Stick around Bernard...it's a rare site to see any of us that support traditional marriage, bring religion in as talking points.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
It would be pointless to eliminate heterosexual marriage because a few couples can't engender children


So who's arguing that we abolish heterosexual marriage for heavens sake?

Quote:
 
..., yet not allowing homosexual marriages *in this line of thought* is 100% reasonable.


The argument is that you allow heterosexual marriage "in this line of thought" for those who cannot have children. Obviously the ability to have children is NOT an overriding factor when it comes to state sanctioned marriage between two people. Need I remind you that homosexuals (those that have stated so) comprise rought 2% to ?? of the population? Probably far less than the number of baren heterosexual couples.

Quote:
 
Your statement would make sense IF we were not talking about the United States of America--which was founded upon the ideals of individual liberty and happiness.

--Your point? Do you not know about laws? Do we run free? Don't be obtuse.


I don't think there is anything obtuse in reminding people of the ideals upon which our nation was founded.

Quote:
 
The United States of America doesn't care a pittance (sorry to be so blunt) that you are Christian, Muslim, Quaker or Aetheist.

--Ironically, the only people bringing religion into this argument are you and moonbat.


Is that a joke?

Quote:
 
It is written into the constitution of the United States of America that the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed.

--So what? See my second point.


So what? !? Apprently you are more un-American than I thought.

Quote:
 
It is also written that the government will steer clear of religious doctrine.

--So what? See my third point.


Apparently it all means very little to you. I'm sorry.

Quote:
 
All arguments against gay marriage are religious.

Haha, now you're just being silly. Stick around Bernard...it's a rare site to see any of us that support traditional marriage, bring religion in as talking points.


Get real. :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Bernard
Jun 3 2006, 12:04 AM
IT,
Quote:
 
It is simply that homosexuality should not be granted the equivalent status as marriage and the state has no interest in regulating it on the same level as marriage since by its very nature a homosexual relationship is incapable of engendering children within its confines.


So are many heterosexual marriages yet they are granted status by the State.

Your statement would make sense IF we were not talking about the United States of America--which was founded upon the ideals of individual liberty and happiness.

The United States of America doesn't care a pittance (sorry to be so blunt, but by the same token it's a good thing it doesn't) that you are Christian, Muslim, Quaker or Aetheist.

It is written into the constitution of the United States of America that the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed. It is also written that the government will steer clear of religious doctrine.

All arguments against gay marriage are religious. (And the few that aren't don't hold water. The above is a good example.)

Bernard: Basic biology teaches us that by its very nature a heterosexual relationship is potentially capable of engendering children within its confines. Whether or not the two parties are fertile, or decide to conceive, is not at issue. There is no way that a homosexual couple can conceive without some third party donation of egg or sperm. This is not a religious argument, and you can rail all you want but it still won't be a religious argument. Simply averring that it doesn't hold water is not demonstration that it does not.

You are also free to pursue happiness as you wish. No one is depriving that of you. If you need the state's sanction of calling your homosexual relationship a "marriage" to make you truly happy, that seem pretty pathetic, and society does not have a compelling reason to change the laws and rename things in order to make you happy. Sorry to be so blunt.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
phykell
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 3 2006, 08:14 AM
You are also free to pursue happiness as you wish. No one is depriving that of you. If you need the state's sanction of calling your homosexual relationship a "marriage" to make you truly happy, that seem pretty pathetic, and society does not have a compelling reason to change the laws and rename things in order to make you happy. Sorry to be so blunt.

Marriage is about a commitment between two people. It's about declaring your love and commitment to another person in the presence of your loved ones. It's about being part of a society that respects the individual's right to choose, love and to commit to another person.

I don't believe the issue of gay marriage is about the state recognising the commitment between two individuals of the same gender, I believe it's about society respecting it. The state is incidental, it's society which must accept gay marriage and state sanctioned gay marriage is a huge step towards that goal.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. - Ghandhi

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Remember, bones heal and chicks dig scars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jun 2 2006, 11:10 AM
You know, I might be going out on a bit of a limb here, but that Paul bloke sounds a little like some of the nutters who harangue me when I try to walk through the park on my way to the liquor store. Did they have sandwich boards back in biblical times? REPENT! REPENT!

I wonder if he got much action? It sure doesn't sound like it.

Oddly enough, it was precisely by reading the gospels and the letters of that nutter, the apostle Paul - not just specific verses that seem to be speaking to this issue, but the totality of their immediate context and overall Christian teachings - that brought me to my current position of supporting the ability for gays to be married.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You miss my point entirely. It is not that God said so or the bible said so. My arguments have been exclusively biological and sociological. Don't confuse me with others who argue along different lines.


If you're going to jump to someone's defense then you cannot complain when i attack that defense. I realise you think in a different way, and so the whole defective question becomes somewhat irrelevent for you.

Quote:
 

It is simply that homosexuality should not be granted the equivalent status as marriage and the state has no interest in regulating it on the same level as marriage since by its very nature a homosexual relationship is incapable of engendering children within its confines. All other rights and responsibilities can be accommodated under some sort of registered domestic corporation. Do not confuse the language of matrimony and marriage (which imply complementary sexuality and therefore the procreative potential) for the sake of some political agenda.


Which would be fine if i thought marriage should be dependent on children but since i don't, it becomes irrelevent. The language was 'confused' long ago, marriage is no longer what it used to be; one can marry without religious sentiments, one can marry with no intention of having children or even with no ability to have children. Marriage is simply a ceremony that binds a couple together in social ties and in law. Definitions adapt to reflect popular usage, as far as i can see people don't think of marriage defined on children so it seems you've already lost that war.

Quote:
 

As for the rest of your "ethics", on your own terms it seems that it can be nothing more that only some accommodation for your delicate scruples. You are nothing but a complex of biochemical forces that for some reason has consciousness. So what?


"So what?" I feel that's so what. And you feel, and we all feel, and we can all suffer, so what? Understanding nature does not enable me to say "yea it hurts but so what" i still say "ouch!". What differences does it makes what i'm made of?

Quote:
 

You want to play your little utilitarian game of "lessen pain and increase pleasure", but that it only some accommodation since you are too weak to dominate.


What?

Quote:
 

There is no value other that what you ascribe, and whatever you can get other people to agree with you about.


That's not entirely true, pain and suffering are not ascribed they are experienced. One does not need to ascribe them negativity they are that by definition. Who is going disagree with me whilst retaining a coherent definition of what the word "suffering" is supposed to mean?

Quote:
 

Hopefully you'll get enough people to agree that your precious little bundle of biochemical forces will not be snuffed out by some more powerful bundle of biochemical forces. But even if it were, so what? That material will return to the nitrogen cycle and shift into some other chemical state. It may or may not be in the state's interest to keep you around and to try to implement some form of "order" (as ironic as that term really is) so that the bundles of biochemical activity who are more dominent can stay in existence and indulge their own pleasure and avoid pain.


But i don't behave in an ethical way merely to survive (at the conscious level). The state's interest? What are you talking about now? Dominence what is the relevence of dominence here?

Quote:
 

And this is all sold to you under some emotional propaganda as "justice" or "equality" or "fairness" -- none of which have any objective meaning.


I don't believe/accept/like in the concept of justice, i object to an idea tied up to concepts of "eye for eye", i do like the idea of "fairness" and "equality" because i think they mean less pain and suffering.

Quote:
 

Face it, Moonbat, there is no meaning in life other than the existence of life itself.


The concept of meaning is seperate and itself needs discussion. There is no meaning in life other than..., suggests there is meaning in life, but it not completely clear to me what you mean.

I find certain things meaningfull - they matter to me, they inspire me, i take some satisfaction from them.

Quote:
 

But your "life" is only a complex of biochemical reactions that have no meaning other that what you choose to give them.


For a start i would move those quotation marks:

Your life is "only" a complex of biochemical reactions...

Secondly those biochemical reactions give rise to conscious experience, and through conscious experience i grasp at the universe, i can listen to Mozart and stare at the patterns made by particle chambers, i can look at a picture of a miniscule dark patch of the sky in a magnification that shows a multitude of galaxies of size beyond comprehension, I can penetrate the very nature of reality through an exploration of applied mathematics, i can sit on cliff in the streaming sunshine staring at a view that takes my breath away, i can read the experiences of a thousand other minds as they have meandered their way through existence, I can exult in the might of storm, and run with arms out stretched through lashing rain, I can ponder the connections between all of reality including my own history as part of star, i can explore the complexity of evolution, and marvel at the diversity of life as it explores every available niche.

My concepts of meaning stems from the nature of experience, that is unaffected by revelations of inner workings, infact it is enhanced as knowledge of inner workings merely provide more to marvel at, more to be amazed by.

Quote:
 

And even this "flesh and bone" argument is insufficent. That flesh and bone is only massive amounts of space knitted together by the energy of sub atomic particles in a particular state of existence.


Well indeed, but the material makes no difference, the "only" makes no difference, no revelation about cells or molecules space or quarks changes what we experience. Irrespective of the causal link between underlying physics and conscious experience my vantage point fixes the conscious experience. Ultimately it is that experience that feeds both my concepts of ethics and my concepts of meaning.

Quote:
 

No reason to privilege that other than for the sake of trying to find some foundation for human dignity. But even dignity is not real -- it is only the product of our biochemical processes and does not exist apart from a common agreement that it is so.


In order to talk about ethics we are forced to introduce words that describe our response to the world, which is fine. That's ok, i don't mind that at all you just can't mix our response with the reality we are responding to. I have a 'reason' for treating human beings differently to say a table, a human being is aware. If you mean as a theist you have a reason because you know you are going to get rewarded or punished in an afterlife, then your 'ethics' becomes purely self-serving, and that's not what i mean when i use the word.

In terms of a foundation for human dignity. Well people do not like being in an undignified situation. By allowing people to maintain their concept of dignity you increase their quality of life.

Quote:
 

So your appeals to objectivity can only be maintained on the level of physics -- what is measureable.


I appeal to objectivity when it's obviously needed, if you think you are describing reality without context to a set of values then that means not sneaking in value judgements like "defective". In the context of a debate you can't both claim something as a universal description and then sneak in stuff that is inherently disputed.

Or if you deny something is really a value judgement if you think it's really an objective description, and it just so happens that most people stick a value judgement on top then ok but you better have a coherent definition that does not include value judgements.

Human beings can be described in terms of objective terms, height width, even experiences like "stigma" because they can be measured, i can survey or i can _in principle_ find out the kind of neural patterns that result when people experience stigma and measure those. Medical research often asks patients to rate their symptoms on a numerical scale, the medics can then talk about that data in an objective sense. Person to person there is no doubt a reasonable degree of subjectivity but averaged out a picture that can only be described as objective emerges. Drug trials are not exercises in subjectivity neither are they physics.

Quote:
 

Everything else that you have written is subjectvity masquerading as objectivity.


If you think i've presented something as an objective that is really something subjective ok, we can talk about that we can explore whether it is, maybe it is maybe it's just an annoying trick of language. Further clearly there are places where subjective and objective begin to waver in their identities, maybe those aren't even particularly good words to be using in the first place ok. We could explore all that but none of it seems to make the slightest bit of difference to my argument with 89th.

There are blatently obvious occasions where someone is saying something that is really about their response to a situation and not about the situation itself, and yet are specifically claiming this is not the case. One or the other is fine, but you can't have both, you cannot simultaneously deny that you are making a value judgment and then make it anyway.

Quote:
 

There is no objective reason that anyone should be accorded "rights" or "liberties" -- it is only a utilitarian value that is the remnant of a Hellenic/Judeo/Christian value once God was removed from the equation.


Rights and liberties equates to a higher quality of life, less suffering, etc. Since i seek to reduce suffering they make sense.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Jun 3 2006, 04:14 AM

Bernard: Basic biology teaches us that by its very nature a heterosexual relationship is potentially capable of engendering children within its confines. Whether or not the two parties are fertile, or decide to conceive, is not at issue. There is no way that a homosexual couple can conceive without some third party donation of egg or sperm. This is not a religious argument, and you can rail all you want but it still won't be a religious argument.

Almost all of the outspoken opponents of gay marriage appear to be religious. Religion is not irrelevant to this debate.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Jun 3 2006, 07:11 AM
John D'Oh
Jun 2 2006, 11:10 AM
You know, I might be going out on a bit of a limb here, but that Paul bloke sounds a little like some of the nutters who harangue me when I try to walk through the park on my way to the liquor store. Did they have sandwich boards back in biblical times? REPENT! REPENT!

I wonder if he got much action? It sure doesn't sound like it.

Oddly enough, it was precisely by reading the gospels and the letters of that nutter, the apostle Paul - not just specific verses that seem to be speaking to this issue, but the totality of their immediate context and overall Christian teachings - that brought me to my current position of supporting the ability for gays to be married.

So you're saying that it's the message, and not necessarily the words which are important. The message stays largely unaltered, specific phrases are rendered obsolete by social change and history. This is kind of what I was trying to articulate in my usual roundabout way.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kind of. The words are still important, but need to be understood in true context.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Dwain: "that brought me to my current position of supporting the ability for gays to be married. "

Does this mean you now support gay marriage? Or did I miss a "not" in there?
If so, this would be a radical change from your view a year ago. Why did it happen?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Bernard
Jun 2 2006, 11:52 PM
So who's arguing that we abolish heterosexual marriage for heavens sake?



Actually I would. All this fuss about what is and what is not *marriage* in the 21st century has rendered it's significance obsolete.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jun 3 2006, 04:33 AM
ivorythumper
Jun 3 2006, 04:14 AM

Bernard:  Basic biology teaches us that by its very nature a heterosexual relationship is potentially capable of engendering children within its confines. Whether or not the two parties are fertile, or decide to conceive, is not at issue.  There is no way that a homosexual couple can conceive without some third party donation of egg or sperm.  This is not a religious argument, and you can rail all you want but it still won't be a religious argument.

Almost all of the outspoken opponents of gay marriage appear to be religious. Religion is not irrelevant to this debate.

Even broadly speaking religion is still not relevant to the debate. The metaphorical and symbolic structures encoded in religion are derived from primal human experiences -- sexuality, birth, life and death suffering and pleasure, fertility, food and water, dwelling, agriculture, society, etc. It is the primal human experiences that I find so uncompelling about the current debate, and so compelling about religion. So as much as you want to insist that it is a religious question -- perhaps because that gives you an easy target -- I don't think you are correct. And since I am not making the argument on the grounds of religion it is foolish to insist that those are the grounds on which it must be discussed.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 3 2006, 11:06 AM
Bernard
Jun 2 2006, 11:52 PM
So who's arguing that we abolish heterosexual marriage for heavens sake?



Actually I would. All this fuss about what is and what is not *marriage* in the 21st century has rendered it's significance obsolete.

I very much agree
"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 3 2006, 08:06 AM
Bernard
Jun 2 2006, 11:52 PM
So who's arguing that we abolish heterosexual marriage for heavens sake?



Actually I would. All this fuss about what is and what is not *marriage* in the 21st century has rendered it's significance obsolete.

And how would Mrs Crude respond if you told her that marriage is an antiquated institution and you don't consider yourself married to her? :hide:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Almost all of the outspoken opponents of gay marriage appear to be religious.


What and that makes you think there's a link? I suppose the next thing you'll be saying is that there's a connection between the anti-evolution movement and religion.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 3 2006, 11:00 AM
Quote:
 

Almost all of the outspoken opponents of gay marriage appear to be religious.


What and that makes you think there's a link? I suppose the next thing you'll be saying is that there's a connection between the anti-evolution movement and religion.

Or a connection between despotic totalitarianism and atheism!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply