Homosexual Marriage

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: voyager We should remember that the first religious settlers in this country were not main stream members of their church. The "founding fathers" of our country were religious extreamists. Evicted from their homes for their non-conformity. some skated the issue by calling themselves as " Unitarians", close enough to be called "religious" but did not belong to a particular church. Today we don't want homosexuals to marry. Tomorrow we will be shoving them into ovens.

Actually, in some cases they left Britain in particular because they supported the wrong ruler. Rather than supporting the monarchy the puritans supported Cromwell. Bad move considering that protectorate lost.So obviously when the monachy was restored, they in many cases jumped ship.

They backed the wrong horse.

[fogus]

It is all very medieval

Are old morals wrong? Statements do not become wrong over time, unless they delt with a certain time period. 1 + 1 = 2 will always be correct, while "Today is Wednesday" becomes out dated pretty fast. If the morals of Christianity were wrong hundreds of years ago then they are wrong today, since they dont deal with time.

[fogus]

I just dont understand why followers of religions do so in such a mindless, unquestioning ways. I am not saying that just those of Christ based religions do this, but followers of one word are so unable to cope and accept those with another. Why do we make God have such rules on our sexual choices and practices? Where does it say in the bible that God never practices sex or finds it utterly repulsive unless it is to reproduce children? I believe sex can be a pure and natural act between to consenting adults. Why wouldn’t God see it that way?

Well He doesn't see it that way. Plain to see in the Bible.

Where does it say God doesn't have sex?

DEU 4:15: Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female.
JOH 4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Where does it say that God doesn't accept sex used not to make kids (obviously not every time one has sex will they make kids, its only the prevention of having kids that is the problem):

GEN 38:9-10: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Are old morals wrong? Statements do not become wrong over time, unless they delt with a certain time period. 1 + 1 = 2 will always be correct, while "Today is Wednesday" becomes out dated pretty fast. If the morals of Christianity were wrong hundreds of years ago then they are wrong today, since they dont deal with time.

fogus, you ask if morals become wrong over time. Is slavery moral? It is interesting that you want to compare 1 + 1 = 2 as some sort of absolute. It is an invention of man. So if you wish to compare morals to it then you are simply saying that morals are an invention of man. I have no problem with that. I agree. 1 + 1 = 10 is also correct and it to is also invention of man. It is also interesting that you should bring up the days of the week. Wednesday is Woden’s day. Yet we do not worship Woden anymore. Some of the morals of Christianity are immoral by today’s standards because this is not the world of two thousand years ago. Things do change. We no longer blame sin for why awful things happen to apparently good people yet two thousand years ago that is what people used to think. We no longer live in that age. Wake up Rip Van Winkle Fogus.

Starboy

[Starboy]

I heard something interesting on the radio today. Apparently in the state of Massachusetts the legislature is looking at striking down domestic partner benefits as being required by law. They are saying that it is no longer needed. They were put in place for the gays in the first place and now that they can get married as everyone else that they should be removed. That all such laws do is encourage hetero couples to avoid getting married and yet still enjoy the benefits of marriage. Well fancy that. Giving gays the same rights under the law may actually end up strengthening the institution of marriage.

Starboy

[fogus]

1 + 1 = 10 is also correct

Who else agrees?

I believe that real math is completly consistant with reality. I believe that 1 + 1 does not equal 10. That is not consistant with reality. The similarity between math and morals is that they both have rules that we can chose to disobey. The problem is that we get into trouble eventualy when we chose to disobey. I would love to see you try to do math with 1 + 1 = 10. Math is not an invention of man! It is an observation of man. Man did not invent 1 + 1 = 2, he discovered it. Morals are not an invention of man either. Our understanding of morals come from observations, observations of God's character and his laws, which are found in the Bible.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Who else agrees? I believe that real math is completly consistant with reality. I believe that 1 + 1 does not equal 10. That is not consistant with reality. The similarity between math and morals is that they both have rules that we can chose to disobey. The problem is that we get into trouble eventualy when we chose to disobey. I would love to see you try to do math with 1 + 1 = 10. Math is not an invention of man! It is an observation of man. Man did not invent 1 + 1 = 2, he discovered it. Morals are not an invention of man either. Our understanding of morals come from observations, observations of God's character and his laws, which are found in the Bible.

You treat mathematics as it is some kind of religion. It is an invention of man. Fogus there are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

There are ......

You act as if there is one kind of mathematics. There are all kinds of mathematics. I was just reading about non-commutative geometry of all things. A geometry where if there are three possible stops to a destination and you change the order A->B->C vs. B->A->C, the first path will end up at D but the second will end up at E. And you also act as if there is one kind of morals. Fogus if you want to live in a tiny little world then so be it but realize that it is your choice. That if you choose to be an ignoramus that in no way obligates anyone else to join you. All that should concern you is that you be allowed to persist in your fantasies.

Starboy

[fogus]

Oh, I know that there are more than one answer to one math question in some cases. x = 4^1/2 shows that perfectly well. x will equal 2 and -2. That is not the same as saying that all answers to a math question are correct. If math is simply an invention then my math teacher has to right to tell me I have given her an incorrect answer. What about logic? Can I say that "all A is B" and "no A is B"? This is contradictory! Are you saying that contradictions are ok? Are you saying that my "either one or the other" logic is wrong?

[tinybear]

Back on topic, guys:

Gay Marriage Fight Shifts to California

By BEN FOX

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - The legal fight over same-sex marriage has shifted to Southern California now that a lawsuit filed by a gay couple from suburban Orange County is the only remaining challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt plan to be in U.S. District Court on Thursday as their attorney argues that the federal law, as well as California's Proposition 22, are violations of civil rights akin to slavery or denying women the right to vote.

California recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman, and the Defense of Marriage Act allows states to disregard gay marriages performed in other states and foreign countries.

Full Story: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...87.htm&sc=1110

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Oh, I know that there are more than one answer to one math question in some cases. x = 4^1/2 shows that perfectly well. x will equal 2 and -2. That is not the same as saying that all answers to a math question are correct. If math is simply an invention then my math teacher has to right to tell me I have given her an incorrect answer. What about logic? Can I say that "all A is B" and "no A is B"? This is contradictory! Are you saying that contradictions are ok? Are you saying that my "either one or the other" logic is wrong?

fogus, it was not all that long ago that Europeans were using Roman numerals to do their maths and there was no such thing as zero let alone negative numbers. In any case mathematics is a man made set of rules. Just as music is a man made set of rules as well. And just like in math, in music if you get it wrong your teacher will tell you so. But in any case if your original argument is to conflate morals with math and then claim that math is absolute therefore morals are absolute well the argument is stupid in a couple of ways. There is the conflation itself. Then there is the assumption that somehow mathematics is not an invention of man and then there is the point that you appear to not understand, that morals are also inventions of man. And that like math, new morals are being invented all the time. Old morals do go out of favor. Slavery used to be moral, treating women like chattel used to be moral and there are all sorts of things that were considered to be immoral that are now moral such as working on Sunday, taking any god's name in vain, coveting your neighbors goods. Fogus, someone has fooled you into thinking that all of the ideas contained in a two thousand year old book are still relevant today. I will tell you one thing that hasn't changed, there is still a sucker born every minute.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

I do believe I understand now.

What you are basically saying is that the sun used to revolve around the earth? Or, for that matter, the earth used to be flat and the sun rose into and fell from the sky?

The thing you seem to not understand is that the ability to name a thing is not the ability to create it.

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." -Genesis 2:19

[tinybear]

Adam must have been very busy and his vocabulary quite impressive!

[Starboy]

Mr.perfecto would be no more impressed if I were to quote a similar line from another superstition that he did not believe in and yet seems to think that such quotations would mean anything at all to those that think his superstitions are just another myth. He understands this and can not see the irony and deception of his own quotations in that it is a form of argument that even he would not find convincing. By his own standards he is deceptive.

Starboy

[fogus]

Is my "Either A or non-A, but not both A and non-A" logic wrong, Starboy?

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy Mr.perfecto would be no more impressed if I were to quote a similar line from another superstition that he did not believe in and yet seems to think that such quotations would mean anything at all to those that think his superstitions are just another myth. He understands this and can not see the irony and deception of his own quotations in that it is a form of argument that even he would not find convincing. By his own standards he is deceptive. Starboy

As long as the meaning wasn't changed, just the symbols, what basis would I have to object?

This is the very source of the disagreement we have. You believe that you can change the information the symbol is supposed to convey while refusing to change the symbol. That is deception.

[Starboy]

fogus, it is only wrong if one of the requirements of your logic is that valued statements can only be true or false. There are logics that do allow statements that are both true and false. They accomplish this by allowing the middle (non-binary). Most of the common logics exclude the middle. But fuzzy logic can allow a value that has some amount of true and false. The thing about mathematics is that most people think it encompasses the few kinds that they have studied in high school or as an undergraduate, but there is a huge variety of mathematics. Most of them have no application that we know of, and that is exactly the way the pure mathematicians like it. It kind of bums them out when it finds a use. For them pure mathematics is just for the sake of mathematics.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto As long as the meaning wasn't changed, just the symbols, what basis would I have to object?

So you would find the Incan creation story just as convincing?

This is the very source of the disagreement we have. You believe that you can change the information the symbol is supposed to convey while refusing to change the symbol. That is deception.

I don't think so. Our source of disagreement boils down to honesty. The kind of honesty that it takes to examine not only why you believe in X and not believe in Y but to apply the same critical thought that lead you to not believe in Y to X. You see any argument that you can use to claim that Islam is only a myth can also be used to claim that Christianity is only a myth. And any argument that you use to claim the Christianity must be accepted can also be used to claim that Islam must be accepted. What most theists do not realize is that when it comes to religions that they do not believe in they are also atheists. There are thousands of religions that most theists do not believe in. The atheist and theist only differ by one religion.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: mr.perfecto As long as the meaning wasn't changed, just the symbols, what basis would I have to object? So you would find the Incan creation story just as convincing?

As long as only the symbols were changed, one story would be equal to another.

Quote by: Starboy This is the very source of the disagreement we have. You believe that you can change the information the symbol is supposed to convey while refusing to change the symbol. That is deception. I don't think so. Our source of disagreement boils down to honesty. The kind of honesty that it takes to examine not only why you believe in X and not believe in Y but to apply the same critical thought that lead you to not believe in Y to X. You see any argument that you can use to claim that Islam is only a myth can also be used to claim that Christianity is only a myth. And any argument that you use to claim the Christianity must be accepted can also be used to claim that Islam must be accepted. What most theists do not realize is that when it comes to religions that they do not believe in they are also atheists. There are thousands of religions that most theists do not believe in. The atheist and theist only differ by one religion. Starboy

Nope, in correct.

I suspect the source of our disagreement does boil down to an issue of honesty. I don't insist that I'm using my own personal definitions when I state my case.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto As long as only the symbols were changed, one story would be equal to another.

That was not my question.

Nope, in correct. I suspect the source of our disagreement does boil down to an issue of honesty. I don't insist that I'm using my own personal definitions when I state my case.

Now that is funny. For almost this entire thread you have insisted that your definition of marriage be the only allowed definition even if it had nothing to do with how it was actually practiced. Your posting is beyond dishonesty and has been in the realm of hypocrisy for some time now.

Starboy

[fogus]

Okay Starboy, I think I understand what you are saying. I am to look at morals with the "both and" type logic.

Don't you see what you are saying? You are using the "either or" to prove the "both and". Because you suggest that my "either or" logic is wrong you assert that your "both and" logic is correct. You are making your argument with my logic. And you can't get around it.

If morals are a "both and" area of logic, then why can't I look at them with both the "both and" and the "either or"? If I choose to look at homosexuality with the "either or" logic, then who can tell me I'm wrong (assuming you are correct)? The very fact that you are debating suggests that you believe that you are correct and that you have some fallacy to disprove.

The more you clobber the "either or" logic the more you will find that it will clobber you. The law of excluded middle applies to reality. It has nothing to do with old logic, or new logic. Everyone’s truth must conform to reality.

1 + 1 doesn’t equal 10.