If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Llandygai]

Okay. Scars, I'll go ahead with my response to you, then get back to Celeblin in a separate post.

To summarise what I understand of your argument, here's this:

1) Banning gay marriage on the grounds that any potential benefits (e.g. reversing the anti-marriage trend) have not been proven makes no sense. In fact, denying gay marriage promotes the anti-marriage trend because gay couples have no option but to use the very alternatives that undercut marriage in the first place.

2) Legalising gay marriage protects and promotes marriage because it...
a) simultaneously reduces the number of unwed couples whilst raising the number of married couples
b) removes the needs of homosexual couples to resort to alternative relationships which ties into points 1) and 2.a), above.

3) American gay marriage can't be properly compared to the gay marriages of other countries because of societal differences

4) Since you haven't had a chance to look for links about the damages of incest, here are a few off-the-cuff ones, courtesy of the usual suspects: wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://www.lycos.com/info/incest.html
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_4_1.htm

(Yes, we both agree that incestuous relationships are terribly risky in general.No disagreement there. The zoophilia thing likewise remains uncontested. I already stated my reasons for raising those spectres.)

5) The value of marriage is centred around the concepts of stability, social maturity (and accompanying social status), and truly safe sex. These reasons make actual marriage preferable to less-complete alternatives.

6) Allowing homosexuals to be legally married will normalise the present deviance by introducing them into the mainstream; this normalisation is inevitable. Theoretically, the benefits of marriage, listed above, will also be transferred to gay married couples.

7) Why deny anyone marriage--especially those begging for it--when so many are simply dismissing it for whatever reasons?

8 ) Marriage risks effectual death if it stagnates. The change represented by gay marriage could be the very salvation of the institution. Reasons for this include:
a) The movement to use and promote marital alternatives will lose potency as people now take advantage of an option--full, legal marriage itself-- previously denied. The weakening of this driving factor will hurt opposition to marriage.
b) The "equal rights" issue with relation to unwed couples will become moot, since marital rights will once again be reserved for people who are legally married. This will automatically put unwed couples back into a more definitive category that clearly does not equal marriage.

9) How did we get off the original topic?




So.... am I getting all of that right? I really should find that out before I respond, or I'll probably just create more tangents and confusion.

[Llandygai]

[WARNING:] Minor adult content. Content is very brief, is located near the end of the post, and is intended in a professional, courteous manner.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

The big pro-gay argument that is going to arise out of Romans is that what it's saying is that for a heterosexual man to defy his nature and lay with another man is unnatural, because it's not in their phusis to sleep with men, nevermind that they're doing this act as a part of the rites of another God.

That's a take on it I hadn't actually heard before. Thanks for sharing. I guess the questions that arise, then, are "What is the 'natural' phusis' for males," and "Does mind matter more than matter, (i.e., does biological makeup outweigh perceived mental inclinations) and why?"

I think we'd have to determine whether a homosexual mindset was ever considered natural in those times, as it is today. Is that even possible, do you know?

On another note, my experience with the Bible (however limited--I've only ever read the whole thing once) indicates that most forms of worship considered "idolatrous" in Biblical times involved some form of sexual immorality or other. As I understand it, the worship of other gods is only one half of the condemnation--the immoral practices themselves are roundly condemned.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

If we're going to assume things about God's knowledge, like for instance, God realises that other species engage in homosexual acts quite naturally, so homosexuality really isn't all that against phusis.

That's a metaphysical argument that we both know is pretty shaky ground by nature, neh? wink Anyone can claim to know the mind and will of God, but it's pretty much proverbial that "proving" that they're right is... a bit difficult.

Sure, I think God is aware of all the practices of various animals. But as I mentioned to J.O.C. in an earlier post, I think humans are under entirely different expectations, especially if one subscribes to the notion that we're the children of God, created in His image. If we accept that notion, then the logic (for me at least) follows that God has a right to regulate His children in whatever ways he sees fit, without reference to whatever regulations He may place on animals.




So... why the discrepancy in the acceptance of various forms of alternative sex? Is that just it? That it's syncretic, so it doesn't make sense to begin with?

The issue with rectal sex arises primarily because men lack the traditional sexual orifice that women have. I think this is where the discussion starts to not only go way off topic, but quite possibly into violations of the T.O.A., so I'll just stop there, and suggest we find other aspects of the cultural biases to discuss.



Summarily, though, I see the points you're making, and why they'd be reason to reconsider using Biblical language to oppose homosexual practices. This gets back the the "differences in interpretation" that I mentioned earlier, where the same words can be interpreted to mean so many different things, even among a group of native speakers.



[EDIT] My work day just got unexpectedly busy, so I may not reply to anything before tomorrow, in case you or Scars cared. wink

[error-dot-tar]

Llandygai

error-dot-tar

Llandygai

All the same, animal mating in sexually reproducing animals--no matter their other sexual activities--is still a bi-gender act.

What of species in which homosexual activities actually increases fertility?

I find it somewhat amusing that you edit a word in your quote, and then go on to use the plural form of that. Irrelevant to the discussion, sure, but... funny all the same.

The only thing I edited was the inclusion of enters in order to make the quote more easily readable. The original does not have that, and the tabs do not carry over through copy-paste.

Quote:

Anyway, what about them? Are we lizards, using the morality of lizards?

Some animals eat their young. And their mates. Why don't we try that, too?

The bottom line is this: human being have morals and societal requirements/expectations that are independent of what other animal species do. Our morality isn't tied to the practices of other species.

If you're going to use the "humans aren't animals, we're better than that" card, don't try to use them as evidence for your argument regarding nature first. Either continue with your original stance or drop it. If you continue, please address my point correctly.

[CuteyHanii-sama]

The legal banning of marriage is wrong. If those pesky Christians don't want to bless their marriage whoopdi ******** do. But they cross the line stepping into the secular field. Hello separation of Church and state anyone?

[error-dot-tar]

CuteyHanii-sama

The legal banning of marriage is wrong. If those pesky Christians don't want to bless their marriage whoopdi ******** do. But they cross the line stepping into the secular field. Hello separation of Church and state anyone?

Separation of church and state doesn't apply here because of secular individuals that are against same sex marriage. If it was entirely religious, maybe.

[CuteyHanii-sama]

error-dot-tar

CuteyHanii-sama

The legal banning of marriage is wrong. If those pesky Christians don't want to bless their marriage whoopdi ******** do. But they cross the line stepping into the secular field. Hello separation of Church and state anyone?

Separation of church and state doesn't apply here because of secular individuals that are against same sex marriage. If it was entirely religious, maybe.

Gwad what ******** that are secular actual care about what we do in our bed rooms. Is their sex life that boring that they have to make it boring for the rest of us? And if someone actually wants to be monogamous *shudder* then they should have that legal freedom of marriage.

[I Am Made of Scars]

Yes, you do seem to understand what I'm trying to say pretty completely. ^^

[Llandygai]

error-dot-tar

Llandygai

Anyway, what about them? Are we lizards, using the morality of lizards?

Some animals eat their young. And their mates. Why don't we try that, too?

The bottom line is this: human being have morals and societal requirements/expectations that are independent of what other animal species do. Our morality isn't tied to the practices of other species.

If you're going to use the "humans aren't animals, we're better than that" card, don't try to use them as evidence for your argument regarding nature first. Either continue with your original stance or drop it. If you continue, please address my point correctly.

That's just it: I wasn't using them as evidence. That was a statement of irony to imply that I think the idea is silly. It does stand with my following statements.

As for addressing your point correctly, what did I miss? So a certain species of lizards appears to have no males, and, thus, is restricted to female-to-female sex, or (if I read the excerpt right) even a form of asexual reproduction. They're limited in their sexual options, and they seem to be making the most of what they have.

Again... so what? We're not lizards. Our biology is different. Our morals are different. I'm happy for the lizards. I'm discussing human conditions.




About the editing thing--I hadn't realised that, and my statement wasn't meant as any kind of attack. It was just a minor amusement. I hadn't realised that the auto-filter would edit that particular word and not its plural, so... I understand now.

CuteyHanii-sama

error-dot-tar

CuteyHanii-sama

The legal banning of marriage is wrong. If those pesky Christians don't want to bless their marriage whoopdi ******** do. But they cross the line stepping into the secular field. Hello separation of Church and state anyone?

Separation of church and state doesn't apply here because of secular individuals that are against same sex marriage. If it was entirely religious, maybe.

Gwad what ******** that are secular actual care about what we do in our bed rooms. Is their sex life that boring that they have to make it boring for the rest of us? And if someone actually wants to be monogamous *shudder* then they should have that legal freedom of marriage.

Wow. Just... wow.

You think people oppose gay marriage because their sex lives are boring? I mean, really--do you think that's a legitimate reason that people actually rely on to support their opposition? All that argument does is say, "Since I'd strike at someone for a similar reason, I'm sure they're doing the same to other people."

Sexual relations may happen primarily in bedrooms, but no man is an island. What you do in your bedroom--and who you do it with-- can have an impact beyond those four walls.

As for separation of church and state... *sigh*. The opposition to gay marriage isn't just a religious one, even if there were no non-secular support behind it. Marriage pre-dates this nation and its constitution (which never once uses the term "Separation of church and state" ), so to try to subject such an ancient institution to 21st century interpretations of 18th century laws really strikes me as arrogant and short-sighted.

The entire premise of "separation of church and state" was not an attempt to ban all things religions from any public forums. The Constitution provides that there will not be a State religion, as was the case with most Western nations of the age (e.g. The Church of England, where the head of the church is also the head of the nation, to this day).

Please, if you don't really understand the principles of "separation of church and state," don't try using it to support your argument that morality--religious or not--has no place in shaping law. Laws are just codifications of pre-existing morals. They're attempts to reach a general consensus of how to interpret the morals our society already had in place.

I Am Made of Scars

Yes, you do seem to understand what I'm trying to say pretty completely. ^^

Okay. That's good. I'll have to do it later, though, since I don't have time to give it a proper treatment at the moment. Sorry. :-/

[I Am Made of Scars]

I keep giving you my best arguments, but you never have time to write a response for me. I feel so amused. crying (but rofl on the inside)

[Llandygai]

I Am Made of Scars

I keep giving you my best arguments, but you never have time to write a response for me. I feel so amused. crying (but rofl on the inside)

Awwww. I didn't mean to make you cry. sad

wink

Eh, you said it yourself--work and such.

That and my responses take m sometimes several hours to actually generate, since I usually bother to try editing them.

Responding gets fit in between a multitude of other tasks. Don't worry, I still care. smile

I'd buy you an ice cream cone if I could, just to make up for it. The way you phrase it, you make me sound like someone's jerky boyfriend. wink

[Llandygai]

Celeblin,

Sorry--I didn't see this particular response of yours until just a moment ago.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Llandygai

The bottom line is this: human being have morals and societal requirements/expectations that are independent of what other animal species do. Our morality isn't tied to the practices of other species.

What part of phusis contains morality exactly?

Phusis generally means what is natural for the body. If we now know homosexuality is natural for the body, why does it break phusis?

It's the rub really. The condemnation in Romans talks far less morality than it does defying nature.

See, that's' the rub, really--it's the debate over whether or not homosexuality is natural. I suppose that's a debate that has gone on (and can continue to go on) ad naseum, so... is there any point of resurrecting it yet again?

As for morality being tied to phusis, I don't recall mentioning that it was. I was saying that morality governs the phusis.

Social mores tend to dictate what a given society considers "natural" in senses other than mere biology. For instance, male-female intercourse may be physically natural, but we've placed restrictions on it anyway, based on age, closeness of blood relationships, etc.

Since incest has been mentioned, I think we could agree that incest is generally regarded as "unnatural" by our culture, neh? In a related vein, I read an article in my local paper about two Middle School teachers who had sex with the same kid (at different times, mind you). This happened while the kid was just 13 and 14. Again, I think many people would consider that "unnatural," despite no dissonance with the phusis.

Homosexual tendencies have been branded as "unnatural" by society, and, in a real sense, by biology, so mores will call people out on it. That was all I was saying.



[Edit] Scar? In looking at the response I'm typing up, I notice it's reaching "treatise" lengths. Would you mind if I just posted it elsewhere, and linked you to it? I might just use my Gaia blog, or something, rather than bloat this thread with such a long response.

Dose that work for you?

[linaloki]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

It's the rub really. The condemnation in Romans talks far less morality than it does defying nature.

Not to mention the severe similarity to several pagan sexual rituals.

[linaloki]

Llandygai

See, that's' the rub, really--it's the debate over whether or not homosexuality is natural. I suppose that's a debate that has gone on (and can continue to go on) ad naseum, so... is there any point of resurrecting it yet again?

As for morality being tied to phusis, I don't recall mentioning that it was. I was saying that morality governs the phusis.

Social mores tend to dictate what a given society considers "natural" in senses other than mere biology. For instance, male-female intercourse may be physically natural, but we've placed restrictions on it anyway, based on age, closeness of blood relationships, etc.

Since incest has been mentioned, I think we could agree that incest is generally regarded as "unnatural" by our culture, neh? In a related vein, I read an article in my local paper about two Middle School teachers who had sex with the same kid (at different times, mind you). This happened while the kid was just 13 and 14. Again, I think many people would consider that "unnatural," despite no dissonance with the phusis.

Homosexual tendencies have been branded as "unnatural" by society, and, in a real sense, by biology, so mores will call people out on it. That was all I was saying.

But the question becomes, is the Bible referencing "unnatural" from a societal standpoint, or from a standpoint of actual nature? I should think it's probably not societal, since Paul seemed to be describing a society.

*/randomly jumping in the middle of an argument he's not fully up on*

Yeah, it's been freakin' forever since I've been in here...

[Llandygai]

linaloki

Celeblin Galadeneryn

It's the rub really. The condemnation in Romans talks far less morality than it does defying nature.

Not to mention the severe similarity to several pagan sexual rituals.

Indeed. But then, I think you'll find plenty of different religions in ancient times with similar fertility rites. I mean, goddesses of fertility are almost mandatory, it seems in ancient times, along with grove shrines for holding orgies to their name, neh?

linaloki

Llandygai

[Blah blah blah]...

Homosexual tendencies have been branded as "unnatural" by society, and, in a real sense, by biology, so mores will call people out on it. That was all I was saying.

But the question becomes, is the Bible referencing "unnatural" from a societal standpoint, or from a standpoint of actual nature? I should think it's probably not societal, since Paul seemed to be describing a society.

*Shrugs*

I don't know the Biblical context well enough to really say. Celeblin has certainly been enlightening, though.

That said, human beings really aren't any different now than they were then. I think whichever version of "unnatural" Paul is speaking of, it could readily apply to our modern situation. Homosexual references aside, a great deal of Romans 1 seems to have striking poignancy for our times. Every one of Paul's condemned points is something we see going on these days.