User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 300

  1. #131
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    I've come under attack for upholding any standards of sexual ethics instead of simply letting everyone live and let live.
    Where did you get that from? That might be what Marm and you are arguing about, but I'm challenging you on a rational basis.

    So, I think trying to define the parameters of sexual ethics is entirely pertinent. You think that the line is at betrayal and trust. I think that adultery not only incorporates betrayal and trust issues between the couple, but also between the couple and society. We trust couples to uphold their vows to one another and to do no harm to one another. Simply because there is consent doesn't mean there is still not harm and betrayal to society. For example if a married couple engaged in a threesome they would still be violating their vows to one another and betraying society even if the act was consensual.
    So, let me clarify: A monogamous gay relationship, in your eyes, is harm and betrayal to society.

    My position is only that, if you believe that to be true, then you need to be able to rationally show it. That's pretty much all I have been asking you this entire time. If you can show me that that's true, then the debate would be over.

    This is the third tactic:
    Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the arguments.
    Dude... what?

    I'm asking you questions about the basis of what you believe and why, and you're accusing me of purposefully blinding myself... to what arguments, exactly?

    Did you read the quote about the bookstore?
    no, I've been away much of the weekend and only caught the tail end of this. I'll skim back and look for it and comment on it, if it's worth commenting on.

    My argument is that beneath the nice clean gay facade is a very sad and sordid reality. We as a society have simply chose to ignore that sordid reality because so many heterosexuals engage in their own sad, self-centered, sexual activity.
    Oh. So, your case is that, even if monogamous gay marriages don't look different than monogamous straight marriages, there is something nefarious about them under the surface, and that the failures of straight marriage are somehow being used to obfuscate the evils of homosexual monogamy.

    Fine. That is a position that you can choose to hold. But it's not "argument" -- an argument suggests that you've build an actual argument. Instead, all you're offering is your supposition.

    Show it to be true. That's all you have to do. So... why don't you?

    Everyone is pretty aware of the pervasiveness of non-marital sexual activity so let's just lower the standards and make it easy on everyone. You won't judge me and I won't judge you. As opposed to humbly recognizing one's own faults and submitting to accountability.
    What does "lowering the standard" have to do with monogamy?

    You're assuming that gay marriage "lowers the standard" even though it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and quacks like a duck. All I'm asking for is a little proof, you know.

    According to article I linked to earlier that Gay Christian's experience was not only that people weren't held accountable for promiscuity, but it was actually promoted within gay christian circles.
    Uh.... Sorry. I've been to MCC churches and it was no different than going to an evangelical church in terms of beliefs, commitment, purity of lifestyle, and faith... except that the couples were gay. (In fact, I found them more gracious toward the antagonistic conservatives than I have found conservatives to be of them.) And the gay couples I know are not promiscuous. Again, we are talking gay monogamy here, not gay promiscuity.

    My other problem now with the logic of this comment of yours is that, by comparing gay promiscuity to hetero promiscuity as evils, you've kind of filtered out the "gay" part. Yes, we both agree that promiscuity is wrong and the church should speak out against it. But "promiscuity" does not equal "gay." Just because promiscuity is wrong, that has nothing to do with being gay.

    By shifting this into an argument against promiscuity, you're removed it as an argument against being in a gay non-promiscuous relationship.

    Again this is because they are not interested in what is true and good, but what is acceptable.
    As far as I can tell, your case is build on innuendo. Not only are you assuming what is "true and good," but you are dragging in people who aren't actually part of the topic we are discussing. We're discussing gay monogamy/marriage, not gay promiscuity.

    Right, and that's my point. I think too often the church itself doesn't take the insidious nature of sin seriously and prefers to focus on maintaining a facade of righteousness. This is obviously not very CHrist like given that he didn't give a shit about being seen with whores.

    Moreover, the fact that church's more readily accept repentance from those that commit heterosexual adultery over gay adultery is regrettable and unfortunate.

    I'm not going to pretend that the church isn't full of hypocrites.
    I agree with you, but this is a big tangent.

    So far, I don't see any "rational basis" for your stance in terms of collecting data from observation and experience, you're just applying standards from one reading of a book you've chosen a priori to be correct, and then using that as a basis.

    I don't really care what you choose to believe, as long as you're honest about the basis of it and that it's not based on practical/rational reality but simply your personal religious values. And at that point, you're discussing implementing laws not founded in real data but simply to enact your own personal religious values. And at that point, your accusation against society for being lame and/or 'accepting instead of holding to higher standards' is not actually apropos -- society is actually acting on the basis of respect for other people's views that do not seem to cause harm or show a significant difference in outcome. That's the basis of a free non-theocratic democracy, isn't it? To only interfere if there is a detriment to society? It's actually a pretty respectful position and one of conscious choice and setting aside getting one's own preferences so that everyone can have freedom -- that's a positive, not a negative, in that light. But you seem bent on just judging it by your own personally held values.

    In the end, I can respect you more if you either just acknowledge all that or if you are actually able to ground your case in rationality and seal the deal, as I have said before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    This is the other tactic:
    Marginalize those that do make claims about a need for sexual ethics to be bizarre sex obsessed radicals.
    This is a tactic in itself, you know -- you're marginalizing the views of those who dissent from your opinion by claiming first they are marginalizing you. It's just really ironic as well as frustrating.

    Honestly, I know I'm listening what you're saying and giving it a fair shake. I wish you'd actually make an argument for your position, rather than just arguing your conclusions and labeling them as arguments of some sort. Arguments proceed out of a broad variety of data rather than starting and remaining with the conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Edit to add: If you have truth and goodness on your side why do you engage in disingenuous tactics. I can't imagine you've engaged in these online debates and really believe this is what the opposition believes.
    It goes both ways. I'm kind of shocked at the things you think gay people in committed relationships do and believe. I'm going to give yuo the benefit of a doubt (unlike what you are doing here with your opposition) and assume you're trying your best to be objective, but you're still susceptible to the same blindnesses as everyone else.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #132
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I am sitting in chair. There is a table in front of me. I am drinking tea. I am listening to Duran Duran. This is objective truth.

    The stories in the Bible are not objective truth, whether I would choose to adhere to the principles there in or not. As an adult I could in no way convince myself to jump through the outrageous loopholes of logic and hypocrisy and craziness in that book to believe it other than to say that Jesus was a nice guy.

    On a possibly unrelated note, I've noticed how rabid religious behavior is always attributed to SJs, but two of the people I've met who were completely incapable of believing in any mythology even as children, even as children they recognized how improbable it all was...are SJs.

    So never fear, I'm not going to attribute this to your MBTI type. I just don't understand what makes some people capable of believing things which are completely preposterous and easily disproven, and are contadicted even within the pages of the same text.
    Well, yeah Peguy and I are both INFs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    If you were thoughtful enough to read Leviticus in context you'd have a serious problem with eating shellfish and shaving your face, too. Since you've decided that being gay is so much more offensive than having bacon for breakfast, I mistakenly presumed you were one of those people who took the Bible literally, but even if you don't, the level of hypocrisy here with you vigilantly decrying one thing in Leviticus but not another is surely enough.
    I believe that with the coming of Christ the Mosaic Covenant was lifted. Christians now indwelled with the holy spirit were granted broader liberties. It's comparable to a parent restricting the use of knives of a young child, but then enabling them to use those knives when they are mature. These weren't just dumb pointless rules. So some previous restrictions in leviticus were lifted, but the heart and essence of leviticus which is to to love God and one another remains. Thus, the restrictions that could be circumvented were only the ones that could be done with a righteous heart. You can eat shellfish and have a righteous heart, but you can't sacrifice your child to molech with a righteous heart. I believe homosexual relations fall in the latter category.

    Moreover, Paul who knew the Old testament better than anyone describes homosexual acts as unnatural, a result of God's wrath and the absence of his grace.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #133
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Well, yeah Peguy and I are both INFs.
    Oh. I thought you used to claim to be a T.

    Should I just assume you're arguing from internal values, then, rather than hard data?

    I believe that with the coming of Christ the Mosaic Covenant was lifted. Christians now indwelled with the holy spirit were granted broader liberties. It's comparable to a parent restricting the use of knives of a young child, but then enabling them to use those knives when they are mature. These weren't just dumb pointless rules. So some previous restrictions in leviticus were lifted, but the heart and essence of leviticus which is to to love God and one another remains. Thus, the restrictions that could be circumvented were only the ones that could be done with a righteous heart. You can eat shellfish and have a righteous heart, but you can't sacrifice your child to molech with a righteous heart. I believe homosexual relations fall in the latter category.
    I also believe that good water doesn't come from a bad well. (Jesus said that as well.)

    That's an experiential thing.

    When I see parents regardless of their gender who are long-term capable of loving and raising strong healthy kids, and when I see people in committed relationships regardless of gender (which is pretty fluid anyway, considering all the intersexed permutations that are not necessarily rare), well, the reality is that lip service to a faith and to following God is one thing, and active behavior and change that occurs via the Spirit is another. You can either intellectualize your position and then impose on people who fail to meet your checklist, or you can actually engage people and hear the heart and spirit in them and observe the sacrifices they make.

    Good water doesn't come from a bad well, and people are recognized by God by their hearts and not by legalistic criteria that might or might not be correct.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #134
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Two people loving each other is always good.

    But, I don't want to live in a society where people refuse to contemplate and decide what it means to love each other. Instead, out of selfish interest to avoid examination of their own lives simply believing that everyone is free to define love for themselves.

    Would you judge a doctor who divorced his wife shortly after supporting him through med school because he fell in love with a nurse?
    The bible clearly says he cannot get divorced so he couldn't do that, however I don't see the issue here, the good book has him well covered: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives", so you see, he just needs to add her to his harem.

  5. #135
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Several quick points in response to Jennifer:

    1. We fundamentally disagree abut what the gay rights movement is about. You think it's about monogamy and love and I think it's really more generally about acceptance of an alternative lifestyle.

    2. You mistake where the burden of proof lies. You are advocating for change and it's your burden to show that it is good and truthful. I'm not seeking an implementation of new laws, you are. Moreover, Your personal experience is not anymore compelling than the experience of previous practicing homosexuals I have referred to. If those cancel each other out it is you that have come up short not I.

    3. I've never spoken explicitly about gays in committed relationships. I've merely pointed out that those relationships are irrelevant to the broader agenda and monogamy is not the sole determining factor of a healthy sexual relationship.

    4. Society is not merely respecting other views in allowing sane-sex marriage. It is completely overhauling a view of marriage that has been maintained for millennia.

    5. We fundamentally disagree on the nature of rational argumentation. My position is that all conclusions, scientific or otherwise, are based on unprovable presumptions. So you can't simply dismiss my religious arguments as merely being my own personal beliefs. There is no objective reason to prefer observation and experience over any other basis of belief. I've written extensively about this in other threads.

    Moreover, if you are referring to rational basis from a constitutional basis this is an extremely low standard and anti-same-sex-marriage statutes certainly meet it. This low standard is applied because there is no fundamental right to gay marriage that is deeply rooted in history. The various states from the inception of the US to the current day have enacted countless morality statutes which have all been assumed to be rational. To now decry a morality statute as irrational would be absurd.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Oh. I thought you used to claim to be a T.

    Should I just assume you're arguing from internal values, then, rather than hard data?
    No, I've always been INFP and never really questioned it.

    See my above comment about the superiority of hard data being an illusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I also believe that good water doesn't come from a bad well. (Jesus said that as well.)

    That's an experiential thing.

    When I see parents regardless of their gender who are long-term capable of loving and raising strong healthy kids, and when I see people in committed relationships regardless of gender (which is pretty fluid anyway, considering all the intersexed permutations that are not necessarily rare), well, the reality is that lip service to a faith and to following God is one thing, and active behavior and change that occurs via the Spirit is another. You can either intellectualize your position and then impose on people who fail to meet your checklist, or you can actually engage people and hear the heart and spirit in them and observe the sacrifices they make.

    Good water doesn't come from a bad well, and people are recognized by God by their hearts and not by legalistic criteria that might or might not be correct.
    You're creating a false dichotomy between integrity to scriptures and relational love. True legalism isn't simply adherence to the law, it's adherence to the law with the absence of love and love without truth is no love at all.

    God doesn't recognize good hearts rather he transforms repentant hearts and conforms them to his will.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    The bible clearly says he cannot get divorced so he couldn't do that, however I don't see the issue here, the good book has him well covered: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives", so you see, he just needs to add her to his harem.
    I don't know where you got that quote, but it's not from the bible. That claim may be based on several instances where harems are described, but you won't find any verses approving of them. In fact it's pretty clear they have a bad result. Your argument is called a prescriptive/descriptive error.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #136
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    I don't know where you got that quote, but it's not from the bible.
    It's paraphrasing of a bunch of passages to give your scenario a perfect answer. He still cannot get divorced though.

    2 Sam 5:13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

    1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray

    2 Chron 11:18 Rehoboam married Mahalath, who was the daughter of David's son Jerimoth and of Abihail, the daughter of Jesse's son Eliab. 19 She bore him sons: Jeush, Shemariah and Zaham. 20 Then he married Maacah daughter of Absalom, who bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza and Shelomith. 21 Rehoboam loved Maacah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines, twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.

    If you don't want to take those passages as meaningful why pick and chose and focus so hard on others?

  7. #137
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    It's not that they are not meaningful, it's that nothing in those texts confers anything resembling a "right."

    Even the reference to Solomon in Kings states that his wives led him away.

    So I do find it meaningful. I find it sends a message that it's a piss poor idea to take multiple wives.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #138
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Jennifer

    Let me go a bit deeper into this demand for hard data.

    This is a result of a presumption developed in the enlightenment that social endeavors should be guided by utility rather than a search for truth, beauty and goodness. That utility actually becomes meaning. Thus we have the rise of the social sciences and the demise of theology and history.

    I fundamentally reject this presumption. Rushdoony (and believe me I don't always agree with him but he was dead on here) wrote that this focus on utility as meaning results in a radical externalism and superficiality where salvation lies not in truth, but in methodology. Thus, the hope of man is in social legislation, money, politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, this humanism necessarily requires an exclusion of Christians who proclaim that Jesus is "the truth" and "the way."

    So I'm not going to play your game and try to dig up social data that supports my claim. It's irrelevant and the idea of quantifying social harms and sexual ethics is flawed. Please don't pretend that your view on government action respects all views. It's not true as it is the blatant upholding of humanism over all other ideals.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #139
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Welp, here we go... the current keeps rising, as predicted.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/201...ymarriage37962
    Ummm ... Has anybody noticed that `singles' are becoming the new niggas, indentured servants, and underclass in the apartheid system which places `marrieds' in the roll of `Officers' and singles in the role of `enlisteds' ... to use the language of the aparteid system (mis)used by the U.S. military?

    What `rights' and `privileges' should single citizens of the U.S. be denied which marrieds should be allowed, granted, or provided?

    What's wrong with implementing policies and practices in which a citizen is a citizen is a citizen ... and `marriage', from a civil perspective, is deprecated to a business partnership thus allowing `couples' and `partners' co-enacting Folie à deux duets to have religious/spiritual ceremonies and rituals to promote the illusion/hallucination/fantasy of being married qua `married', whatever that means to each of them.

    If the separation of church and state is to be made more real then Federal, State, County/Parish, and city/town/village governments should get the fuck out of the religious side of `marriage' by ONLY accepting business partnerships to which business law applies.
    If this were done all the special case exceptions -- laden with religious' dogmatic do's and don'ts -- would shake themselves out over the course of a generation or two.

    Chance of this happening?
    The same as the chances of religion being decoupled from (im)poletics and/or the chance of church ACTUALLY being separated from STATE.
    Don't EVEN get me started on how blatently `Faith based initiatives' violates the Constitutional imperative to separate church and state ... and not a God Damned hypocrite who has taken an oath to protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic has lifted a pinky to take a case up to the Supreme court to have it tried before `God' and everyone.

    All this fluff aside, given Ambrose Beirce's definition of `marriage', it should have been rendered unconstitutional with that amendment to the U.S. constitution which rendered slavery illegal:
    MARRIAGE, n.
    The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.

  10. #140
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    I believe that with the coming of Christ the Mosaic Covenant was lifted. Christians now indwelled with the holy spirit were granted broader liberties. It's comparable to a parent restricting the use of knives of a young child, but then enabling them to use those knives when they are mature. These weren't just dumb pointless rules. So some previous restrictions in leviticus were lifted, but the heart and essence of leviticus which is to to love God and one another remains. Thus, the restrictions that could be circumvented were only the ones that could be done with a righteous heart. You can eat shellfish and have a righteous heart, but you can't sacrifice your child to molech with a righteous heart. I believe homosexual relations fall in the latter category.

    Moreover, Paul who knew the Old testament better than anyone describes homosexual acts as unnatural, a result of God's wrath and the absence of his grace.
    Well, that'd be fine, if the Bible didn't advocate absolutely horrendous things I don't think you could ever justify even back then in the old testament (for example, the solution to gays is genocide, that a rape victim who is betrothed gets killed with her attacker, one who is not engaged must marry her attacker (Deuteronomy 22: 23-28)). What you have to do, additionally, is provide reasoning WHY you can ignore rules about beard-trimming, shellfish, rape or genocide but still go ahead and thing homosexuality is evil. You have to make a logical distinction independent of the Bible for WHY homosexuality is bad and beard trimming isn't aside from "I think it can't be done with a good heart". Why? If it creeps you out, disgusts you, or you just personally don't like it, but that's all you got, sorry, then you just don't like gay folks.

    Even the New Testament is flawed. First of all, Jesus notes Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB) and "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) so you need to start killing your neighbors when they work on Sunday. He also says "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB), so rebellious kids should die, and "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)", so slavery seems pretty alright in Jesus's book. Do you support those passages?

    See, to me, I don't mind people believing in the Bible, but they ALL pick and choose passages, and you need a solid reason. You haven't given a solid reason that working on Sunday or trimming a beard doesn't warrant death or punishment but homosexuality does except "homosexuality can't be done with a pure heart", which boils down to: gays are automatically bad people doing bad things, for no other reason than I think so. Which goes back to a whole sort of "I just don't like 'em" sounding attitude.

    On the other hand, this is all largely irrelevant. The young overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage and most opposition comes from seniors. As the old die the numbers will go up and up. It'll happen in our lifetimes, and I'll bet even strong Christians, who have used that book to justify a lot of bad stuff, are going to come around in the next 50 years or so. People will look back on not allow gay marriage as another stupid, antiquated and unfair idea like we look at segregation today.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

Similar Threads

  1. Same-sex Marriage, do you support it?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 608
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 02:49 PM
  2. Obama Administration Support for Same-Sex Marriage
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 09:23 PM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO