Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[crispybits]

And that inconsistency from a religion that regards the bible as God's word make it less hypocritical?

[thegreekdog]

And that inconsistency from a religion that regards the bible as God's word make it less hypocritical?

There is not a good analogy, so I'll make a bad one...

Let's say there was an actual written UK Constitution. If the UK Constitution was written 2,000 years ago and was silent or ambiguous on the subject of gay marriage, but other parts of the UK Constitution could be interpreted to be against gay marriage and the government of the UK for 2,000 years was against gay marriage, would it still be hypocritical?

[crispybits]

I wasnt aware the bible was silent or ambiguous. Is there a biblical case for gay marriage specifically to counter the "man shall not lay with man" and sodom and gomorrah stuff? (genuine question - I'd be very interested to hear how the bible supports gay marriage)

[thegreekdog]

I wasnt aware the bible was silent or ambiguous. Is there a biblical case for gay marriage specifically to counter the "man shall not lay with man" and sodom and gomorrah stuff? (genuine question - I'd be very interested to hear how the bible supports gay marriage)

From a New Testament perspective, Jesus was more concerned about "loving thy neighbor" than whether someone was gay, whether someone was a prostitute, whether someone was a slave, etc. Does the New Testament trump the old testament? Does loving others like one should love God trump anything else? Ambiguity abounds in the Bible.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wasnt aware the bible was silent or ambiguous. Is there a biblical case for gay marriage specifically to counter the "man shall not lay with man" and sodom and gomorrah stuff? (genuine question - I'd be very interested to hear how the bible supports gay marriage)

From a New Testament perspective, Jesus was more concerned about "loving thy neighbor" than whether someone was gay, whether someone was a prostitute, whether someone was a slave, etc. Does the New Testament trump the old testament? Does loving others like one should love God trump anything else? Ambiguity abounds in the Bible.

Do not contradictions or shall we say, 'conflicting accounts', abound in the Bible?

(1) If so, then can we conclude that the work is hypocritical?


(2) Also, if the Bible (NT) says, "love thy neighbor and chill out about the whole being gay thing," but a particular person selectively follows portions of the OT which contradict this particular teaching from the NT, then is this person being a hypocrite? Is the book hypocritical? Or is it something else?

[thegreekdog]

I wasnt aware the bible was silent or ambiguous. Is there a biblical case for gay marriage specifically to counter the "man shall not lay with man" and sodom and gomorrah stuff? (genuine question - I'd be very interested to hear how the bible supports gay marriage)

From a New Testament perspective, Jesus was more concerned about "loving thy neighbor" than whether someone was gay, whether someone was a prostitute, whether someone was a slave, etc. Does the New Testament trump the old testament? Does loving others like one should love God trump anything else? Ambiguity abounds in the Bible.

Do not contradictions or shall we say, 'conflicting accounts', abound in the Bible?

(1) If so, then can we conclude that the work is hypocritical?


(2) Also, if the Bible (NT) says, "love thy neighbor and chill out about the whole being gay thing," but a particular person selectively follows portions of the OT which contradict this particular teaching from the NT, then is this person being a hypocrite? Is the book hypocritical? Or is it something else?

(1) Depends if you believe it was written by one person or multiple people. But otherwise, yeah, probably hypocritical. My response would be "So what?"

(2) Probably the person is being hypocritical slash has their own agenda. My response would also be "So what?"

I'll caveat all this by noting that I'm playing devil's advocate here. We could pick another issue with which I agree with the Catholic Church (but I can't think of one influencing secular law).

I guess the "So what?" response comes from the idea that political discourse, whether or not influence by religion, must not be hypocritical. Since political discource is almost always hypocritical, even in small ways, who cares if political discource influenced by religion is hypocritical?

The discussion here comes from the idea that the Catholic Church should not be imposing its own morals on others through secular government law. My response is okay, that's great, but laws are, for the most part, moral determinations made by representatives and approved, tacitly or otherwise, by citizens. So why is it more bad for laws to be made with morality imposed by religion than morality imposed by something else? Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

[crispybits]

Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Firstly, not all political discourse is hypocritical. That's an astonishing statement. Politicians are by and large hypocritical in order to gain and maintain power, and the political system forces a level of hypocrisy on people because no one candidate will have the same spectrum of opinion on every issue as you, but if you sat down with any average Joe in the street and went through in depth their thoughts on political issues, and then gave them a chance to vote in an informed way on each and every one of those issues, they would vote with their beliefs.

Secondly, I would maybe not have found the thread, but I would still argue what I believe to be true. If it was the NRA saying guns make America safer I would, and have, voiced my opposition to that. By my opposition comes down to their position being untenable more than any hypocrisy on their part.

The motivation is all important when discussing controversial moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. If some people have looked at the facts, and reasoned about the various issues involved, and weighed the evidence to come up with their position on the matter then I may still disagree with them but we are both arguing for the same thing, the real world consequences and benefits and disadvantages of a particular law change. If someone is saying "my magic book says no" then they are shutting down rational debate and in effect being the noisy toddler stamping their foot and saying that it must be the way they want it or else they'll scweam and scweam and scweam. There is no way to reason against that, but it's a position of false authority and it shouldn't get even the quietest voice when making real world decisions affecting real people's real lives.

If he wants everyone to live the catholic way, then as I said his mission as the bible and the church stand is pretty clear. Convert us or kill us. This middle of the road path of trying to enforce catholic values on non-catholics is not only a cop-out, but it's against the philosophy he is meant to be promoting. If he raised points based on secular evidence and objective reality then I would debate with him, if he raises points on the basis of biblical teachings and subjective faith then I can't do that, but that doesn't mean he automatically wins, and it doesn't make him any less the hypocrite for trying it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wasnt aware the bible was silent or ambiguous. Is there a biblical case for gay marriage specifically to counter the "man shall not lay with man" and sodom and gomorrah stuff? (genuine question - I'd be very interested to hear how the bible supports gay marriage)

From a New Testament perspective, Jesus was more concerned about "loving thy neighbor" than whether someone was gay, whether someone was a prostitute, whether someone was a slave, etc. Does the New Testament trump the old testament? Does loving others like one should love God trump anything else? Ambiguity abounds in the Bible.

Do not contradictions or shall we say, 'conflicting accounts', abound in the Bible?

(1) If so, then can we conclude that the work is hypocritical?


(2) Also, if the Bible (NT) says, "love thy neighbor and chill out about the whole being gay thing," but a particular person selectively follows portions of the OT which contradict this particular teaching from the NT, then is this person being a hypocrite? Is the book hypocritical? Or is it something else?

(1) Depends if you believe it was written by one person or multiple people. But otherwise, yeah, probably hypocritical. My response would be "So what?"

(2) Probably the person is being hypocritical slash has their own agenda. My response would also be "So what?"

I'll caveat all this by noting that I'm playing devil's advocate here. We could pick another issue with which I agree with the Catholic Church (but I can't think of one influencing secular law).

I guess the "So what?" response comes from the idea that political discourse, whether or not influence by religion, must not be hypocritical. Since political discource is almost always hypocritical, even in small ways, who cares if political discource influenced by religion is hypocritical?

The discussion here comes from the idea that the Catholic Church should not be imposing its own morals on others through secular government law. My response is okay, that's great, but laws are, for the most part, moral determinations made by representatives and approved, tacitly or otherwise, by citizens. So why is it more bad for laws to be made with morality imposed by religion than morality imposed by something else? Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Hey, as long as we're on the same boat about it being hypocritical, I'm satisfied.

Regarding crispybits' position, you undermine its importance well enough...

"So why is it more bad for laws to be made with morality imposed by religion than morality imposed by something else?

Great question, and I'm not sure. It doesn't make much of difference--except in how the law is crafted, which is a completely different issue. I'd argue that the legislature of a national government over 300+ million people constitutes as one kind of imposition of morality (through the state). Although voters offer their feedback to politicians to some degree, and there is some kind of 'background knowledge' which serves as the underlying framework of our morals in general, I find that the national government fails in reflecting people's preferences for laws, and that some laws and legal political actions which most people support shouldn't occur anyway.

But again we're getting off-topic.

[stahrgazer]

Here ya go, crispy:

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testam ... osexuality

An argument presented by many pro-homosexual writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, along with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relations. It is also asserted that this allows sanction of such, as long as it is consistent with love, though that is left to be defined rather subjectively.[6][7][8] Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic (principal of interpretation) behind it, as he concedes that, "Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." and that "Paul wouldn't accept a [loving] homosexual] relationship for a minute." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love", to "choose for ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.[9][10]

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics involved with this strategy.

Consistent with the principal of Galatians 3:19, Jesus silence is understood as being expected due to the extreme unlikelihood that homosexual relations would have been a prevalent problem among the Jews whom Jesus came to first minister to,[11] nor would incest have been, and that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws,[12] and highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage. (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21) Robert A. J. Gagnon asks, "shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality and incest [than marriage] on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects?"[13]

It is also pointed out that determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even cannibalism.

Similarly, it is argued that while love must be the motive, that by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins. And which seems to be goal of writers such as Walter Wink, who denies that that there any absolute sexual precepts universally valid in every time and place.[14][15]

It is also seen that rather than allowing love to serve as such a subjective basis for morality, the commandment sometimes invoked to support homosexual relations, "thou shalt shall love thy neighbor as thyself", (Lv. 19:18) is placed after and before laws which detail how we are basically to do so, and which unequivocally forbids and penalizes homosexual relations.

It is also seen that while Jesus did not specify every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expressions. In the Gospel of Mark 7:20-23, Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that come out of the heart including fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery.

In all His teaching, rather than abrogating moral law, Jesus is shown to intensify such, such as instituting stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment. [16][17][18] In so doing, He specified the male and female martial union as being what constitutes the "what" of "what God therefore God hath joined together". (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).

Hilborn states that Jesus "condemnations of porneia or 'sexual immorality' in Matt 15:19 and Mark 7:21 would almost definitely have been meant, and been taken, to include homoerotic sexual activity. Certainly, as Michael Saltlow has shown, such activity was typically condemned by the rabbis of the time whenever they considered it. Having said this, at least following the exile, there is very little evidence of, or extant comment on, such activity among Jewish men - so Jesus' not mentioning it in specific terms is hardly surprising. [19]

Gagnon also states,

It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.[20]

[thegreekdog]

Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Firstly, not all political discourse is hypocritical. That's an astonishing statement. Politicians are by and large hypocritical in order to gain and maintain power, and the political system forces a level of hypocrisy on people because no one candidate will have the same spectrum of opinion on every issue as you, but if you sat down with any average Joe in the street and went through in depth their thoughts on political issues, and then gave them a chance to vote in an informed way on each and every one of those issues, they would vote with their beliefs.

Secondly, I would maybe not have found the thread, but I would still argue what I believe to be true. If it was the NRA saying guns make America safer I would, and have, voiced my opposition to that. By my opposition comes down to their position being untenable more than any hypocrisy on their part.

The motivation is all important when discussing controversial moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. If some people have looked at the facts, and reasoned about the various issues involved, and weighed the evidence to come up with their position on the matter then I may still disagree with them but we are both arguing for the same thing, the real world consequences and benefits and disadvantages of a particular law change. If someone is saying "my magic book says no" then they are shutting down rational debate and in effect being the noisy toddler stamping their foot and saying that it must be the way they want it or else they'll scweam and scweam and scweam. There is no way to reason against that, but it's a position of false authority and it shouldn't get even the quietest voice when making real world decisions affecting real people's real lives.

If he wants everyone to live the catholic way, then as I said his mission as the bible and the church stand is pretty clear. Convert us or kill us. This middle of the road path of trying to enforce catholic values on non-catholics is not only a cop-out, but it's against the philosophy he is meant to be promoting. If he raised points based on secular evidence and objective reality then I would debate with him, if he raises points on the basis of biblical teachings and subjective faith then I can't do that, but that doesn't mean he automatically wins, and it doesn't make him any less the hypocrite for trying it.

I can't really disagree with any of that except with the last paragraph. I'll reiterate (sort of) what I typed before. Most laws are based upon some moral value. Welfare laws, social security laws, Medicare/Medicaid laws, military appropriations, etc. (which is not to mention any criminal laws). While you could make the argument that there are rational reasons for having those laws, they are still primarily based on a moral decision made by the voters or the government. Let's take two of them: welfare and military appropriations. With welfare, the voters/government have made a moral decision that it is more important to help people financially than it is for taxpayers to keep their own money. With the military, the voters/government have a moral decision that it is more important to go to war with another country/group than to not go to war or continue diplomacy.

Now, you're going to say there is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage and that the bishop's position is based entirely upon an outdated, unclear document and an irrational religion (many here would say "irrational religion" is redundant, but let's stay civil). Welfare laws and war declarations, unlike gay marriage, have rational reasons. My response to that is twofold: (1) What is or is not rational doesn't change, so why wasn't gay marriage legal prior to the 21st century (which is easy enough to answer); and (2) What is the rational reason for legalizing gay marriage.

[Symmetry]

Here ya go, crispy:

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testam ... osexuality

An argument presented by many pro-homosexual writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, along with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relations. It is also asserted that this allows sanction of such, as long as it is consistent with love, though that is left to be defined rather subjectively.[6][7][8] Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic (principal of interpretation) behind it, as he concedes that, "Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." and that "Paul wouldn't accept a [loving] homosexual] relationship for a minute." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love", to "choose for ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.[9][10]

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics involved with this strategy.

Consistent with the principal of Galatians 3:19, Jesus silence is understood as being expected due to the extreme unlikelihood that homosexual relations would have been a prevalent problem among the Jews whom Jesus came to first minister to,[11] nor would incest have been, and that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws,[12] and highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage. (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21) Robert A. J. Gagnon asks, "shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality and incest [than marriage] on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects?"[13]

It is also pointed out that determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even cannibalism.

Similarly, it is argued that while love must be the motive, that by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins. And which seems to be goal of writers such as Walter Wink, who denies that that there any absolute sexual precepts universally valid in every time and place.[14][15]

It is also seen that rather than allowing love to serve as such a subjective basis for morality, the commandment sometimes invoked to support homosexual relations, "thou shalt shall love thy neighbor as thyself", (Lv. 19:18) is placed after and before laws which detail how we are basically to do so, and which unequivocally forbids and penalizes homosexual relations.

It is also seen that while Jesus did not specify every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expressions. In the Gospel of Mark 7:20-23, Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that come out of the heart including fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery.

In all His teaching, rather than abrogating moral law, Jesus is shown to intensify such, such as instituting stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment. [16][17][18] In so doing, He specified the male and female martial union as being what constitutes the "what" of "what God therefore God hath joined together". (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).

Hilborn states that Jesus "condemnations of porneia or 'sexual immorality' in Matt 15:19 and Mark 7:21 would almost definitely have been meant, and been taken, to include homoerotic sexual activity. Certainly, as Michael Saltlow has shown, such activity was typically condemned by the rabbis of the time whenever they considered it. Having said this, at least following the exile, there is very little evidence of, or extant comment on, such activity among Jewish men - so Jesus' not mentioning it in specific terms is hardly surprising. [19]

Gagnon also states,

It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.[20]

Some dodgy theology you have going on there, to be fair. If you accept Paul as an equal authority to Jesus, or indeed, as you seem to be doing, a higher authority, then perhaps that pans out. Citing other theologians interpretation of Paul's interpretation of what the apostles record Jesus as saying seems like you're getting pretty far removed from the original second hand texts of the gospels, which at least have the benefit of providing multiple takes on his teachings.

I'm also pretty sure that Jesus didn't write Genesis.

[Symmetry]

Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Firstly, not all political discourse is hypocritical. That's an astonishing statement. Politicians are by and large hypocritical in order to gain and maintain power, and the political system forces a level of hypocrisy on people because no one candidate will have the same spectrum of opinion on every issue as you, but if you sat down with any average Joe in the street and went through in depth their thoughts on political issues, and then gave them a chance to vote in an informed way on each and every one of those issues, they would vote with their beliefs.

Secondly, I would maybe not have found the thread, but I would still argue what I believe to be true. If it was the NRA saying guns make America safer I would, and have, voiced my opposition to that. By my opposition comes down to their position being untenable more than any hypocrisy on their part.

The motivation is all important when discussing controversial moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. If some people have looked at the facts, and reasoned about the various issues involved, and weighed the evidence to come up with their position on the matter then I may still disagree with them but we are both arguing for the same thing, the real world consequences and benefits and disadvantages of a particular law change. If someone is saying "my magic book says no" then they are shutting down rational debate and in effect being the noisy toddler stamping their foot and saying that it must be the way they want it or else they'll scweam and scweam and scweam. There is no way to reason against that, but it's a position of false authority and it shouldn't get even the quietest voice when making real world decisions affecting real people's real lives.

If he wants everyone to live the catholic way, then as I said his mission as the bible and the church stand is pretty clear. Convert us or kill us. This middle of the road path of trying to enforce catholic values on non-catholics is not only a cop-out, but it's against the philosophy he is meant to be promoting. If he raised points based on secular evidence and objective reality then I would debate with him, if he raises points on the basis of biblical teachings and subjective faith then I can't do that, but that doesn't mean he automatically wins, and it doesn't make him any less the hypocrite for trying it.

I can't really disagree with any of that except with the last paragraph. I'll reiterate (sort of) what I typed before. Most laws are based upon some moral value. Welfare laws, social security laws, Medicare/Medicaid laws, military appropriations, etc. (which is not to mention any criminal laws). While you could make the argument that there are rational reasons for having those laws, they are still primarily based on a moral decision made by the voters or the government. Let's take two of them: welfare and military appropriations. With welfare, the voters/government have made a moral decision that it is more important to help people financially than it is for taxpayers to keep their own money. With the military, the voters/government have a moral decision that it is more important to go to war with another country/group than to not go to war or continue diplomacy.

Now, you're going to say there is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage and that the bishop's position is based entirely upon an outdated, unclear document and an irrational religion (many here would say "irrational religion" is redundant, but let's stay civil). Welfare laws and war declarations, unlike gay marriage, have rational reasons. My response to that is twofold: (1) What is or is not rational doesn't change, so why wasn't gay marriage legal prior to the 21st century (which is easy enough to answer); and (2) What is the rational reason for legalizing gay marriage.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on the the argument that what is rational doesn't change front. There are plenty of rational decisions made every day on the basis that other people are irrational. And, of course, things that are rational or irrational are not necessarily morally right or wrong.

I'd also disagree that there's no rational reason for gay marriage. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that there's no rational reason for marriage of any kind, then I'd just call you a cynic.

[thegreekdog]

Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Firstly, not all political discourse is hypocritical. That's an astonishing statement. Politicians are by and large hypocritical in order to gain and maintain power, and the political system forces a level of hypocrisy on people because no one candidate will have the same spectrum of opinion on every issue as you, but if you sat down with any average Joe in the street and went through in depth their thoughts on political issues, and then gave them a chance to vote in an informed way on each and every one of those issues, they would vote with their beliefs.

Secondly, I would maybe not have found the thread, but I would still argue what I believe to be true. If it was the NRA saying guns make America safer I would, and have, voiced my opposition to that. By my opposition comes down to their position being untenable more than any hypocrisy on their part.

The motivation is all important when discussing controversial moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. If some people have looked at the facts, and reasoned about the various issues involved, and weighed the evidence to come up with their position on the matter then I may still disagree with them but we are both arguing for the same thing, the real world consequences and benefits and disadvantages of a particular law change. If someone is saying "my magic book says no" then they are shutting down rational debate and in effect being the noisy toddler stamping their foot and saying that it must be the way they want it or else they'll scweam and scweam and scweam. There is no way to reason against that, but it's a position of false authority and it shouldn't get even the quietest voice when making real world decisions affecting real people's real lives.

If he wants everyone to live the catholic way, then as I said his mission as the bible and the church stand is pretty clear. Convert us or kill us. This middle of the road path of trying to enforce catholic values on non-catholics is not only a cop-out, but it's against the philosophy he is meant to be promoting. If he raised points based on secular evidence and objective reality then I would debate with him, if he raises points on the basis of biblical teachings and subjective faith then I can't do that, but that doesn't mean he automatically wins, and it doesn't make him any less the hypocrite for trying it.

I can't really disagree with any of that except with the last paragraph. I'll reiterate (sort of) what I typed before. Most laws are based upon some moral value. Welfare laws, social security laws, Medicare/Medicaid laws, military appropriations, etc. (which is not to mention any criminal laws). While you could make the argument that there are rational reasons for having those laws, they are still primarily based on a moral decision made by the voters or the government. Let's take two of them: welfare and military appropriations. With welfare, the voters/government have made a moral decision that it is more important to help people financially than it is for taxpayers to keep their own money. With the military, the voters/government have a moral decision that it is more important to go to war with another country/group than to not go to war or continue diplomacy.

Now, you're going to say there is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage and that the bishop's position is based entirely upon an outdated, unclear document and an irrational religion (many here would say "irrational religion" is redundant, but let's stay civil). Welfare laws and war declarations, unlike gay marriage, have rational reasons. My response to that is twofold: (1) What is or is not rational doesn't change, so why wasn't gay marriage legal prior to the 21st century (which is easy enough to answer); and (2) What is the rational reason for legalizing gay marriage.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on the the argument that what is rational doesn't change front. There are plenty of rational decisions made every day on the basis that other people are irrational. And, of course, things that are rational or irrational are not necessarily morally right or wrong.

I'd also disagree that there's no rational reason for gay marriage. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that there's no rational reason for marriage of any kind, then I'd just call you a cynic.

Just a point of clarification - I don't think there's a rational reason why a government dictates what is or is not marriage (so, not a cynic so much as a whacko anti-government person).

[Symmetry]

Would crispybits be making the same argument if religion was not the motivating factor behind the bishop's support or lack of support of a particular law? The extent of crispybit's argument appears to be that the bishop's motivation is lacking. My response, again, is "Who cares what his motivation is?"

Firstly, not all political discourse is hypocritical. That's an astonishing statement. Politicians are by and large hypocritical in order to gain and maintain power, and the political system forces a level of hypocrisy on people because no one candidate will have the same spectrum of opinion on every issue as you, but if you sat down with any average Joe in the street and went through in depth their thoughts on political issues, and then gave them a chance to vote in an informed way on each and every one of those issues, they would vote with their beliefs.

Secondly, I would maybe not have found the thread, but I would still argue what I believe to be true. If it was the NRA saying guns make America safer I would, and have, voiced my opposition to that. By my opposition comes down to their position being untenable more than any hypocrisy on their part.

The motivation is all important when discussing controversial moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. If some people have looked at the facts, and reasoned about the various issues involved, and weighed the evidence to come up with their position on the matter then I may still disagree with them but we are both arguing for the same thing, the real world consequences and benefits and disadvantages of a particular law change. If someone is saying "my magic book says no" then they are shutting down rational debate and in effect being the noisy toddler stamping their foot and saying that it must be the way they want it or else they'll scweam and scweam and scweam. There is no way to reason against that, but it's a position of false authority and it shouldn't get even the quietest voice when making real world decisions affecting real people's real lives.

If he wants everyone to live the catholic way, then as I said his mission as the bible and the church stand is pretty clear. Convert us or kill us. This middle of the road path of trying to enforce catholic values on non-catholics is not only a cop-out, but it's against the philosophy he is meant to be promoting. If he raised points based on secular evidence and objective reality then I would debate with him, if he raises points on the basis of biblical teachings and subjective faith then I can't do that, but that doesn't mean he automatically wins, and it doesn't make him any less the hypocrite for trying it.

I can't really disagree with any of that except with the last paragraph. I'll reiterate (sort of) what I typed before. Most laws are based upon some moral value. Welfare laws, social security laws, Medicare/Medicaid laws, military appropriations, etc. (which is not to mention any criminal laws). While you could make the argument that there are rational reasons for having those laws, they are still primarily based on a moral decision made by the voters or the government. Let's take two of them: welfare and military appropriations. With welfare, the voters/government have made a moral decision that it is more important to help people financially than it is for taxpayers to keep their own money. With the military, the voters/government have a moral decision that it is more important to go to war with another country/group than to not go to war or continue diplomacy.

Now, you're going to say there is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage and that the bishop's position is based entirely upon an outdated, unclear document and an irrational religion (many here would say "irrational religion" is redundant, but let's stay civil). Welfare laws and war declarations, unlike gay marriage, have rational reasons. My response to that is twofold: (1) What is or is not rational doesn't change, so why wasn't gay marriage legal prior to the 21st century (which is easy enough to answer); and (2) What is the rational reason for legalizing gay marriage.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on the the argument that what is rational doesn't change front. There are plenty of rational decisions made every day on the basis that other people are irrational. And, of course, things that are rational or irrational are not necessarily morally right or wrong.

I'd also disagree that there's no rational reason for gay marriage. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that there's no rational reason for marriage of any kind, then I'd just call you a cynic.

Just a point of clarification - I don't think there's a rational reason why a government dictates what is or is not marriage (so, not a cynic so much as a whacko anti-government person).

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

[thegreekdog]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position. I think I'll also have to question your understanding of the libertarian view on the issue. At least when you make an argument you should come with some knowledge of your opponent's point of view.

[Symmetry]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position.

Aye- it gets tough when your position essentially boils down to "I'm against recognizing marriage whenever gay marriage comes up as an argument".

You're a libertarian hero on that front, no arguments there.

[thegreekdog]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position.

Aye- it gets tough when your position essentially boils down to "I'm against recognizing marriage whenever gay marriage comes up as an argument".

You're a libertarian hero on that front, no arguments there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 83830.html

On the ballot in 47 states (and in litigation to get on the ballot in Michigan, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania), Johnson was the only candidate vying for the Republican nomination who supported same-sex marriage. He dropped out of the GOP primary contest late last December, and sought and won the Libertarian Party nomination.

Guess who I voted for?

I mean, if you want to make up a fake position for me so that you can make your arguments better, that's fine. Just acknowledge that it's a fake position you've made up.

[Symmetry]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position.

Aye- it gets tough when your position essentially boils down to "I'm against recognizing marriage whenever gay marriage comes up as an argument".

You're a libertarian hero on that front, no arguments there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 83830.html

On the ballot in 47 states (and in litigation to get on the ballot in Michigan, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania), Johnson was the only candidate vying for the Republican nomination who supported same-sex marriage. He dropped out of the GOP primary contest late last December, and sought and won the Libertarian Party nomination.

Guess who I voted for?

I mean, if you want to make up a fake position for me so that you can make your arguments better, that's fine. Just acknowledge that it's a fake position you've made up.

It's a position I garnered through your arguments, having discussed this with you many times. your objection to government recognizing marriage only ever comes up in discussions of recognition of gay marriage.

I'm guessing you voted for a Republican candidate (current or former).

[thegreekdog]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position.

Aye- it gets tough when your position essentially boils down to "I'm against recognizing marriage whenever gay marriage comes up as an argument".

You're a libertarian hero on that front, no arguments there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 83830.html

On the ballot in 47 states (and in litigation to get on the ballot in Michigan, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania), Johnson was the only candidate vying for the Republican nomination who supported same-sex marriage. He dropped out of the GOP primary contest late last December, and sought and won the Libertarian Party nomination.

Guess who I voted for?

I mean, if you want to make up a fake position for me so that you can make your arguments better, that's fine. Just acknowledge that it's a fake position you've made up.

It's a position I garnered through your arguments, having discussed this with you many times. your objection to government recognizing marriage only ever comes up in discussions of recognition of gay marriage.

I'm guessing you voted for a Republican candidate (current or former).

It's a position you garnered through my arguments with people who are against gay marriage. People like Phatscotty, who are supposedly libertarian but are not. Another argument to permitting gay marriage is that the government should not regulate any marriages. It seems more likely that this argument would succeed where others would fail.

In terms of arguments about gay marriage not having to do with government deregulation of all marriage, I've been pretty clear that I'm in favor of gay marriage and that prohibiting gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (in my opinion). In this thread I mentioned at least twice that I was playing devil's advocate.

In terms of voting, in the last two presidential elections and in the last four Congressional elections, I've voted for candidates that are in favor of gay marriage. All of those candidates are members of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party itself is in favor of gay marriage. In the most recent presidential election I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who was formerly the only Republican in the primary for the 2012 nomination who was in favor of gay marriage. In the last 8 years the only candidate I voted for who was not in favor of gay marriage (although, I don't know his thoughts either way), was Chris Christie, the current Republican governor of New Jersey. Anyone who voted for President Obama in either 2012 or 2008 cannot claim to have voted for a candidate who was in favor of gay marriage. I don't see you calling them bigots.

So, you were mistaken about my view on gay marriage and you were mistaken on the view of the Libertarian party on gay marriage. This seems to be par for the course for you lately, so I do not expect an apology. In fact, I'm suspecting you'll use the last few sentences to post something like "ad hominem" or "insult." Which is ironic considering that the real insult is you describing my position as bigoted without understanding my position, the position of the political party of which I'm a member or asking what my position was.

[Symmetry]

I think we've done this round before, and while you choose to post your objections to recognition of marriage exclusively with regard to gay marriage, your arguments tend to crumble in the clear light of day. I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if I saw any indication that you weren't another libertarian masking bigotry in the name of opposing a freedom that won't harm anyone.

For the second time today, I have to question your understanding of my view on a position.

Aye- it gets tough when your position essentially boils down to "I'm against recognizing marriage whenever gay marriage comes up as an argument".

You're a libertarian hero on that front, no arguments there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 83830.html

On the ballot in 47 states (and in litigation to get on the ballot in Michigan, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania), Johnson was the only candidate vying for the Republican nomination who supported same-sex marriage. He dropped out of the GOP primary contest late last December, and sought and won the Libertarian Party nomination.

Guess who I voted for?

I mean, if you want to make up a fake position for me so that you can make your arguments better, that's fine. Just acknowledge that it's a fake position you've made up.

It's a position I garnered through your arguments, having discussed this with you many times. your objection to government recognizing marriage only ever comes up in discussions of recognition of gay marriage.

I'm guessing you voted for a Republican candidate (current or former).

It's a position you garnered through my arguments with people who are against gay marriage. People like Phatscotty, who are supposedly libertarian but are not. Another argument to permitting gay marriage is that the government should not regulate any marriages. It seems more likely that this argument would succeed where others would fail.

In terms of arguments about gay marriage not having to do with government deregulation of all marriage, I've been pretty clear that I'm in favor of gay marriage and that prohibiting gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (in my opinion). In this thread I mentioned at least twice that I was playing devil's advocate.

In terms of voting, in the last two presidential elections and in the last four Congressional elections, I've voted for candidates that are in favor of gay marriage. All of those candidates are members of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party itself is in favor of gay marriage. In the most recent presidential election I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who was formerly the only Republican in the primary for the 2012 nomination who was in favor of gay marriage. In the last 8 years the only candidate I voted for who was not in favor of gay marriage (although, I don't know his thoughts either way), was Chris Christie, the current Republican governor of New Jersey. Anyone who voted for President Obama in either 2012 or 2008 cannot claim to have voted for a candidate who was in favor of gay marriage. I don't see you calling them bigots.

So, you were mistaken about my view on gay marriage and you were mistaken on the view of the Libertarian party on gay marriage. This seems to be par for the course for you lately, so I do not expect an apology. In fact, I'm suspecting you'll use the last few sentences to post something like "ad hominem" or "insult." Which is ironic considering that the real insult is you describing my position as bigoted without understanding my position, the position of the political party of which I'm a member or asking what my position was.

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

But hey, "Ad hominem" "insult".

Don't say I don't pander to you.

[thegreekdog]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

[Symmetry]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. http://www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

Hmm, I have a slight feeling that you're just being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I'm well aware of the Libertarian party and the various rejects of the Republican Party, Johnson included that it proposes. It also went for Ron Paul back in his heyday of Libertarian gaybashing.

I appreciate that you're trying to distance yourself from libertarians that ain't libertarian in the right way, and thanks for telling me you voted Johnson (it cuts the crap out of much of your "I voted sensibly" rhetoric).

I kind of think that you took offense to me long before I took offense with your positions.

[thegreekdog]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. http://www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

Hmm, I have a slight feeling that you're just being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I'm well aware of the Libertarian party and the various rejects of the Republican Party, Johnson included that it proposes. It also went for Ron Paul back in his heyday of Libertarian gaybashing.

I appreciate that you're trying to distance yourself from libertarians that ain't libertarian in the right way, and thanks for telling me you voted Johnson (it cuts the crap out of much of your "I voted sensibly" rhetoric).

I kind of think that you took offense to me long before I took offense with your positions.

Okay.

[Symmetry]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. http://www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

Hmm, I have a slight feeling that you're just being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I'm well aware of the Libertarian party and the various rejects of the Republican Party, Johnson included that it proposes. It also went for Ron Paul back in his heyday of Libertarian gaybashing.

I appreciate that you're trying to distance yourself from libertarians that ain't libertarian in the right way, and thanks for telling me you voted Johnson (it cuts the crap out of much of your "I voted sensibly" rhetoric).

I kind of think that you took offense to me long before I took offense with your positions.

Okay.

Aye- we done?

[crispybits]

Stahrgazer I'm not going to quote your post but it seems to me that the argument there (and the one TGD gave earlier) consists of a load of vague generalities pointing to something which some specifics very definitely say the opposite of. In this case I would argue that the specifics over-rule the generalities. For example, if I told you that berries are good to eat, but don't eat the nightshade ones or you'll die, would you take the general "berries are good" as being more powerful than "nightshade will kill you". In that case the specific over-rules the general, and I would argue that because specific prohibitions against gay relationships exist within the bible they over-rule the general "love thy neighbour" stuff, as is seen by the rules of common sense and setting boundaries in pretty much every case I can think of.

Now, you're going to say there is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage and that the bishop's position is based entirely upon an outdated, unclear document and an irrational religion (many here would say "irrational religion" is redundant, but let's stay civil). Welfare laws and war declarations, unlike gay marriage, have rational reasons. My response to that is twofold: (1) What is or is not rational doesn't change, so why wasn't gay marriage legal prior to the 21st century (which is easy enough to answer); and (2) What is the rational reason for legalizing gay marriage.

You're looking at this slightly backwards. You don't need a rational reason to legalise anything, you need a rational reason to prohibit it. In the absence of a rational reason to prohibit something then by default (in an ideal world) we should all be free to do it whenever we want. Even more relevant in the gay marriage debate is that there has to be a rational reason why this group of people are allowed to, but that other group of people are not. Discriminatory laws are even harder (though not impossible depending on the subject) to rationalise.