David Quinn and Gay Marriage

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You kinda answered your own question there, costs. Well at least that's one reason expense. It is quite costly to hold a referendum, particularlyif you're only going to hold one.

No it isn't! The government plan a referendum on Childrens' right and are having a Presidential election anyway.

Secondly, the passing of a referendum would require a change in legislation and the introduction of a new piece of legislation to accompany a referendum is unlikely given the current state of the government. Amendments to parental leave, for example, have been pushed back to 2013 because of the government's "heavy legislative agenda."

I don't understand. You are saying something like gay marriage or adoption should be is important enough to change the constitution but such issues are not important enough to demand legislation which is inferior in principle to the constitution? Bizarre!

Thirdly, while Labour has a stated desire to overhaul the constitution by means of convention, Fine Gael, being the larger party is probably going to dictate the nature and progress of constitutional reform. Their election manifesto makes it quite clear that Fine Gael have a mind to hold several referenda to reform the constitution including judicial pay, TD numbers and the abolition of the Seanad. However, they have also stated that:

"This referendum will not address the articles dealing with rights/social policy as we want the focus to stay on political reform."

Fine Gael have already stated an intention to fix the political issues first, before moving on to social policy issues, so it is pretty clear why there isn't an agenda on the cards.

So what? Childrens rights is also a social issue. Why can't they have the social issues on one day and the political reform issues on another? all they need do is announce a few dates. But now you are arguing about whether the referendum on gay marriage should be later rather than sooner and not about whether a referendun in principle should happen at all. I fail to understand. do you believe this question should be dealt with in a referendum, Tá / Níl?

None of this speaks to my original point, however, which is it is irrelevant in a legal context what prohibitions the bible contain since we don't base our laws on it.

Which is another point to which ~I would respond.
In fact we do base our jurisprudence on religion.

In fact in most courts people swear on the Bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence
is the theory and philosophy of law.

One of the four main philosophies of jurisprudence is natural law. While it is not exclusive to believe in God natural law can be interpreted in a religious manner.

There can be little doubt that St Paul's words imply some conception analogous to the 'natural law' in Cicero, a law written in men's hearts, recognized by man's reason, a law distinct from the positive law of any State, or from what St Paul recognized as the revealed law of God. It is in this sense that St Paul's words are taken by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries like St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine, and there seems no reason to doubt the correctness of their interpretation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-40

In fact the entire basis of Western Law the Codex of the Emperor Justinian is entirely steeped in religious belief and in uniting the Church and State. Not that this only existed in antiquity ( actually - lest I be corrected on the example - Early middle Ages to be more precise) in fact many countries today e.g. Muslim countries and countries like the UK for example incorporate religion the Bible, Koran etc. into their constitution and laws.

Barrington wrote: »

Sorry, but who are you to say what society or everyone wants?

I am just putting the point. That is the way the law is. It isn't my opinion it is the law of the land. I will accept that if a majority of people want to change the law to bring in civil partnerships then so be it. But I happen to agree with Senator Norris who objects to "Gay Marriage" because "Marriage" to him as a Church of Ireland member is viewed a sacrament between a Man and a Woman. If gay people want to derive rights they can form civil partnerships.

Nor is this limited to gays. If a farmer sells his farm at one end of the valley and moves in with another farmer at the other end of the valley who is not related to him in any way and they live together for say twenty years in a non sexual relationship and the second farmer subsequently dies then the first farmer could also derive new non marital rights under law e.g. the right to remain living in the house.

These can be dealt with by legislation and don't require gay or any other rights to marriage.

When we move on to "family" we introduce another tier to the discussion - children.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, I don't agree with Monty's initial assertion that the government is avoiding the issue at all costs because I think there are legitmate factors in such a referendum not being held asap.

care to list these "legitimate factors" and define them?

Once again I agree. However, my point is that a change in the constitution will require new legislation and possible changes to existing legislation as a result.

No it wont. Let us take the "reform agenda" for example. Changes to the constitution in the past allowed for legislation to alter the nature and scope of Seanad Panels. the constitution allows for this legislation say for example to put all universities into one single panel. The change to the constitution has already been made but no legislation ever drafted to make such reforms.

Abolishing the Seanad altogether however would require several major constitutional changes.

Given the government's current excuse of heavy legislative agenda, I don't see this happening quickly.

But as you have stated it is an "excuse". For example political reform does not have to require huge constitutional reform.

No, not necessarily first, but at some point.

Again successive governments over decades have had the constitutional ability to reform the Senate for example without any constitutional changes but didn't do it.

Yes but the fact, that so-called natural law codes are contained in the bible doesn't mean that a) they originated there nor b) that the other moral prescriptions contained in the Bible are natural laws.

This is a genetic fallacy. The origin genesis and cause of something are not the same thing.
If for example galileo was the first person to write that the Earth moved it didn't suddenly begin moving when he stated those words but was always moving. That fact does not nullify Galileo's contribution to scientific literature does it? Even if
a) The movement of the earth ddidn't begin when galileo first wrote about it
and
b) That other prescriptive scientific elements referred to by Galileo are not Laws of Physics.

Quite simply, Monty has previously made reference to both Satan, sodomy and Sodom and Gomorrah in his arguments against gay marriage. I am arguing that we don't, nor should we base our laws on the Mosaic commandments found in the Bible. What do you think?

I think if custom and historic writings in the Mosaic Law influenced the development of society culminating in a current Law against Murder or theft then that is a worthwhile thing which can trace its base to Mosaic Law.

There is no law that I can find requiring anyone to swear on the Bible (although I'm willing to be corrected). The traditional use of the Bible doesn't make it "enshrined" in any law.

In Ireland Anyone professing to believe in the Bible is required to swear on the Bible when an oath is required unless they find swearing religiously offensive.

As for the US- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5567187.ece

OK, I don't think I was specific enough in my last post. When referring to the natural law argument I mean this:

Natural-law argument

But that is a different argument for the existence of God nothing to do with natural law being a basis for the law of the land today which is what we were discussing.

Quite clearly there may be secular natural law as well as that for believers but you have also been quite clear in your reference to written law i.e. what i have called "positive law"
and the problems associated with relying on positiver law alone.

I'm not disputing that there are certain moral codes that could be considered natural laws, a prohibition against murder for example. I don't see any evidence that requires this to be externally imposed by a deity though. These are merely human conventions developed as a consequence of living as a society.

That is your opinion. I would differ but the point isnt about the origin or cause of natural law but about natural law as an overarching guide to the spirit of modern law as opposed to positive law i.e. the written word taken literally ( which ironically is what many atheists accuse Bible thumpers of doing)

The idea that natural laws exist because God intended them that way is an is-ought problem, a naturalistic fallacy.

It is also a red herring and a straw man since I didn't claim god did it only that nature whether god or something spiritual or something universal has a unwritten overarching input on our laws and the spirit of our laws.

As well as that I don't see any basis for arguing against homosexuality using natural law.

Where did i do that. I may have argued it is not normal and i mean "normal" in the mathematical sense i.e. what most of the population do.

I accept that you may not be arguing down this line and if so I apologise in advance.

I'm not but I do think we should make laws for the masses and not be hung up on making special cases of every minor group awarding them rights. For example travellers rightsd to their own language or unionists right to Ulster Scots both of which are English.

...
sorry Ill continue the rest later I hope.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Just going to pop in again to correct your assumption:


Society disagrees quite strongly with your opinions, and the level of disagreement is growing year on year, you can hold them if you want but don't pretend you're in the majority in doing so.

It is the law of the land. Opinion polls have no basis in law. If there is a Referendum and most people vote to change the constitution then it will change. Until such a vote is made no opinion poll has any binding authority in law. It would be like an EU group saying that most people in Ireland want the Lisbon Treaty so therefore it is our law. But the fact is it isn't our law until a constitutional Referendum ( should that be necessary) says such a law is acceptable.

But Your point begs another question, can the majority deny the minority basic rights entirely because such rights make them uncomfortable, or because they disagree on no real grounds?

Yes they can and in fact they did for example with women's right to vote votes and slavery. those things were wrong by todays standards but I don't argue that society is any more "progressed" whether we have slavery or even have laws. the point is the law said slavery was acceptable so what made it unacceptable. People at the time believed it to be "wrong" but "wrong" according to what? Obviously not to either the law since the law said it was acceptable nor to the majority since the majority in some cases may well have been slaves or people who could not vote.

And the "majority rule" is a red herring which may be used by those who believe they have a shot at a majority decision and can have a tyrrany of the voting majority.


A Republic is a democracy regulated by law so some laws do indeed mitigate against the tyranny of the majority. but if they do so they do so by appealing to a natural law which over-rules what most people might want.

Monty.: Why should the law be based on your belief system?
Actually it is the well known gay Senator Norris' belief system as well!

What about all the people who don't follow it? What about all the people who have civil marriages, not church ones, they are not married in they eyes of the lord no?

Apparently not. marriage as a sacrament is not entered into by them. civil partnership s are. There is a theological argument that a sacramental Marriage may exist however even in the absence of a legal civil marriage.

Why do you care about the definition of civil marriage when it is a separate entity to religious marriage?

The point has been made that is is a legal arrangement and not a sacrament of marriage at all.

But the answer is quite simple. Atheistic regimes were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and far outstripped any deaths caused by Christian regimes.
A Christian might care about growing atheistic movements just as they were about naziism or communist dictators or Islamofascists which are and have different philosophical beliefs.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I If you want to see the factors, read my earlier posts

Which ones?

I don't see why we're having this side argument though.

Monty claims that the government is avoiding a referendum "at all costs". He is making an implicit suggestion that the government is doing this out of a fear that the electorate will vote it down.

Is he?
It seem quite simple that if something is unconstitutional then you either change the constitution or accept that people don't want it changed in which case it remains unconstitutional.

so either the constitution need to be changed to accommodate "gay families/marriage/ etc." or it doesn't. whether or not anyone is scared of putting such a choice to the people is a different issue as to whether such laws can be introduced without the issue eing put to the people.

I would think however that the "scaremongers" who asked people not to vote for Lisbon and who said we would be allowing the EU to dictate at least parts of the Irish finance system, and whom we were told were totally wrong turned out not to be not so wrong so any government telling the people to trust them on social issues would not be held in much trust by the people anyway so a no vote is now more likely. The loder social conservatives who didnt want divorce or dont want abortion wuld also have a stronger voice since the rebellious youths who are now twenty and thirthsomethings who wanted to be different and new and "progressive" might well now realise they were sold a pup by the "celtic tiger" myth.

Now, wonderfulname has pointed out here that the opinion polls indicate that such a referendum would pass with relative ease and that the numbers in favour of gay marriage are increasing.

So what? that is just more of the same myth stuff. Opinion polls and the opinion of a referendum are two different things. Although Ill accept a larger proportion of the population might accept civil partnership as compared to say 20 years ago. But as I have pointed out gay marriage is different to civil partnership as is the right for homosexuals to adopt.

So, as I have said already I was pointing out to Monty that the reason a referendum is not yet being held is not because there is a view in the government that it won't pass.

Your point being they they were to busy with more urgent and important things in their view.

In fact, if the excuses of heavy legislative agenda turn out just to be excuses, it suggests that the government are stalling because it will pass which is the opposite intent that Monty suggested.

LOL! The government don't want to hold a referendum to introduce their policies because it might pass?

Yes, point taken, and thanks btw, I wasn't previously aware of the genetic fallacy. The fact that moral prohibitions against murder or theft don't actually originate with the bible doesn't mean that some countries haven't still used the bible as a basis for introducing such laws.

Indeed as St Paul stated sin existed before anyone wrote down laws about it.

Yes, but that's the thing. Laws against murder or theft don't trace their bases to Mosaic Law.

One could then say they trace it to pre literate moral law. ~ i.e. natural law

The commandments in Mosaic Law or the Mitzvot don't have their origin in the Bible.

Again they do! They may not be because of the Bible or caused by the Bible since the idea of right and wrong predates anyone writing down anything but some of the earliest Western Laws are in the Bible.

For the most part they're lifted from older mythologies and older ones in turn.

No they aren't! One cant reconstruct the Bible from fragments of earlier writings like one can reconstruct the New testament from disparate fragments of thousands of writings in the following two or three centuries by people not in the Bible.

In fact, as I have ioftern pointed out here in relation to historigraphy, one can't even reconstruct the History of Alexander the Great or anything from Socrates from primary writings which were around at the time of Alexander the Great or socrates because what we have of the histories of Alexander are send hand accounts of original writings from three centuries later and apparently Socrates himself never wrote anything all!

So the idea that that one can prove the Bible is an amalgam of earlier writings is itself a myth.

Most of the "laws" found in Exodus can be found verbatim in The Egyptian Book of the Dead,

Early versions of the Book of the Dead can be traced to about 1700 BC.
Older Middle Eastern Artefacts such as the Ebla tablets from Syria if anything provide archeological support for Biblical writings rather than dismiss them.

But the Book of the Dead is a book about funeral rites.

Care to list how many laws in Exodus and how all of these appear in the BOTD?
By the way Leviticus is the law book in terms of amounts of law.

the code of Hammurabi and the code of Ur-Nammu, books that are thousands of years older than the Bible.

So what?
Just because people wroite other things before they wrote the Bible does not mean the Bible was some sort of a plagerism conspiracy by Hebrews does it?
Or are you saying they didn't intentionally copy form before they just sub consiously did it?

that is a very unsound thesis given
1. You can't reconstruct the whole Bible from disparate wiritings.
2. It didn't happen with other books.

A prohibition contained in any religious text should be examined critically to determine its merit as a basis for law in a modern society.

So if an ancient writing says "adults should not have sex with pre pubecent kids" you think that such an act isn't always against nature and it might be okay for adults to behave like this in a "modern context"? That child abuse in your view might well be "progressive"?

I suppose my point is that just because something is prohibited or condemned in the Bible does not automatically imply that it should be illegal. Do you agree?

Yes. If an ancient writing says "adults should not have sex with pre pubecent kids it is against nature " do you agree?

Can you provide a statutory reference for this? You did claim that it was "enshrined in law", so I'd like to see the relevant statute that requires this.

Again you are with the positive law. Natural law does not have to be written down. there are inherent problems with positive law in this regard. As I have already pointed out e.g. let us say there is a no law against a particular obscene act. Just because it is not specifically prohibited does not mean it isn't obscene does it?

Yes, I misunderstood your intent originally. However, if there is a set of natural laws which may be used for the basis of legislation, then how are we to evaluate such laws.

That is a different issue. We may discover things about nature. Such an activity may well be worthy or important. But it does not negate the idea that "laws of nature" exist.

Specifically, within the context of gay marriage, what do you think is the natural law to cover this and what effect does this have on how we should legislate?

I do not usually give my personal opinion. I point out what the arguments are and what received wisdom exists on the issue. Otherwise as you have seen above people come in with "who do you think you are telling people how to think and saying you know what is good for us?" type discussions.

As I have stated Senator Norris a well known homosexual has opposed "gay marriage".
Other than that as I have pointed out homosexuality is not "normal" in the social/statistical sense.
The Church does not oppose homosexuality however. nor it is it always opposed to legislation to provide for inheritance or other rights for people other than family members.

Would be an interesting thread on it's own though (the origin of natural law I mean).

It isnt a scientific question though. It is metaphysical and probably uuverifiable.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was kinda thinking out loud. I was saying that if natural law informs how we craft our legislation then whether or not homosexuality contravenes any natural law is something to consider and I don't see that it does.

Again the church view would be homosexuality doesnt homosexual acts do.
But before you answer that the church would also say that heterosexual acts can also work against nature. As can non sexual acts.

BTW, as for the normal argument, there are a lot of human behaviours and attributes that are not normal statistically speaking. Homosexuality has an observed incidence of between 2 and 20% depending on the methodology employed. Left-handedness has an incidence of 10%. So on average, left-handedness is just as abnormal as homosexuality. However, normality in a statistical sense does not imply defect, nor should it be a basis for discriminatory legislation.

Indeed and less than a tenth of one percent of Clergy would be Child abusers of pre pubecent kids and the proportion in non clergy is highr but the clergy proportion is continually hyped in the anti Catholic media. The point is taken however legislation is encouraged by the Church with promotes what they view as being good for society and discouraged if it works against the good for society. Encouraging homosexual acts and changing the definition of "family" or "marriage" do not work for the good of society in the churches view.

The Church view is valid (i.e. well supported and says what is on the tin) and well thought out.

I respectfully disagree. Firstly, I think that we should make laws for everyone, not just the masses.

And if the laws says certain minorities should not be allowed to behave in certain ways or not be supported for so doing then that is the law?

AS I have stated I do not support tyrrany of the majority.

Secondly, with specific reference to this issue I don't see why two people should not be permitted to enter into a legal contract (which is what marriage is basically) on the basis of their gender/sexual orientation.

No! the point is that two people can enter into any legal contract they want. But the church views "marriage" as a sacrament i.e. more than just a legal contract. The roman church in particular view it as a lifetime commitment and something one can only enter into once with a single living partner.

But as I have stated the law can accommodate partnerships whether sexual or not.

the church would view changing the nature of marriage or the family and not being good for society.
Atheistic communists and others tried it and it resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions among other bad outcomes.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, and as NuMarvel pointed out, whether gay marriage is constitutional or not is still a pending matter. The only reason why it has been deemed unconstitutional to date is because of catholic culture informing judicial opinion and not because the constitution explicitly regards marriage as one man and one woman.

Nice how you hold the judicary in contempt. In fact in spite of your contempt of them it is the courts job to decide if the law is constitutional. It isn't you job. whether or not you think the court is wrong and biased.

Yes, opinion polls may not accurately reflect the eventual outcome of a referendum

I agree . Nuff said on that then.

Yes, and people had been living under those laws ever before there was a Bible.

And again so what? The fact that sin existed before laws were written does not negate the fact that they were written.
Also you can say all Biblical laws were written wlsewhere since the "elsewhere" book would then have been part of the Bible.

Both somebody living in Sumer in 2000BC and someone living in Nazareth in 10BC would have been executed for the crime of murder. However the person in Sumer would have been executed on the basis of the Code of Ur-Nammu and the person in Nazareth on the basis of Exodus.

And I would argue as Jesus did from natural law that people are punished because what they do is wrong and not because a law is written which says they can't do it! Obviously
something does not just suddenly become wrong just because a law is written making it punishable.

I'm not making a claim about the entire bible just about the Pentateuch and the source of the laws in the Bibleand in fact that is what the scholarly consensus is on several books in the OT.

What "scholarly consensus" is ther that all the laws in the OT can be traced to being copied from earlier works?

Until about 1970, the consensus on the Pentateuch was that it was not written by Moses

Red herring and Straw man! I didn't ask who wrote it i asked for evidence for your claim it was all copies from earlier laws from disparate civilizations.

(since there is little, if any substantive evidence to suggest Moses existed at all).

And there is substantive evidence for Socrates or Alexander the Great?

Written evidence like there is of Moses in the Bible?

The sources for the Pentateuch were considered to be the Yawhist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly sources. Then in the 70s archaeological and other evidence began to suggest that both the Elohist and Priestly sources were variations or revisions of the Yawhist source. The Yawhist source draws much of its primeval history including Mesopotamian sources.

You are claiming the laws of the OT are all copied from earlier Mesopotamian laws and that this is conceded by scholars? Which scholars?

Meyers, Carol B (2005). Exodus. Cambridge University Press.[/URL]

Far from "consensus" Myers specifically on page 26 in relation to Middle Eastern liturature says the diversity of interpretation by scholars is "mind boggling"

Myers by the way in this reference refers only to Exodus and not the other four books. Leviticus as i have stated is the book of laws.

Johnstone, William D (2003). Exodus. In James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson. Eerdmans Bible Commentary. Eerdmans.

again this source is specific to Exodus.

While Johnstones Theseis is that earlier versions of Exodus existed i have not argued against that.
He does not however go so far as to say they are copiued from other civilizations!
In fact the does the opposite as can be see from his Bibliography on page 100 where he draws attention to the idea of an earlier Persian version of Exodus
"The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 1-24 in the Persian Period and the Preservation of Jewish identity in the diaspora pp.99-114 in Studies in Theology and Religion 5, assen. Van Gorcum (2003)

i.e. rather than copying another culture this revision was preserving Jewish tradition.



Van Seters, John (1992). Prologue to History: The Yawhist as Historian in Genesis. Westminster John Knox Press.


Van Seters’s doctoral dissertation challenged the consensus view about these foreign rulers of Egypt in the mid-second millennium BCE on a number of points. On the matter of their origins, they were not Hurrians from northern Syria and Anatolia, they did not invade Egypt with chariots and horses and their capital city of Avaris was not to be located in the vicinity of Tanis. Instead, these foreigners came from southern Palestine, migrating into the eastern Delta during a period of political decentralization in the Second Intermediate period and eventually established the capital of their kingdom, Avaris, at Tell ed-Dab‘a. All of this was later confirmed by archaeological excavations at Tell ed-Dab‘a and at Tell el-Maskhuta in the Wadi Tumilat, one of the overland routes of entry into Egypt from Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Van_Seters

Far from being a "consensus" again!

Most student handbooks on Pentateuchal studies are committed to a particular methodological approach or school of thought and largely ignore alternative theories of the Bible’s compositional history. Van Seters’ introduction, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (1999) attempts to summarize the complex state of Pentateuchal research at the end of the 20th century and to locate his own method of Pentateuchal criticism, which is socio-historical and literary, within this scholarly context.

A dating of the Yahwistic source in the Pentateuch as later than Deuteronomy also has serious implications for the history of law in the Pentateuch, because it means dating the so-called Covenant Code of Exodus 21-23 later than Deuteronomy instead of earlier and suggests a major revision in the development of Hebrew law. Van Seters attempts just such a reevaluation of legal history among the biblical codes in A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code(2003).

In particular he departs from consensus!

Van Seters, in The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (2006), in his most radical work to date, seeks to completely demolish any such notion of ancient editors, which was introduced into classical and biblical studies in the late 18th century.

Van Seters, John (2004). The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group.

argues that a proto-Pentateuchal author created a comprehensive history from Genesis to Numbers that was written as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy to 2 Kings) in the exilic period and later expanded by a Priestly writer to make it the foundational document of the Jerusalem temple community

DOES NOT argue these proto Pentateuchal authors were not "Hebrews" but were from dispirate cultures and/or copying laws from such cultures and compiling them as far as i can see.

Dealt with above

Davies, G.I (1998). "Introduction to the Pentateuch". In John Barton. Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press.

Again Davis on page 29 specifically in relation to the question "what is law" refers to natural law as opposed to letter of the law in the sense that

the making of a law is basically not a literary process at all but part of the life of a community"

And goes on the interpret the origin of "Middle Eastern" Law as being ( he refers to a alt 1966:86) Israelite/Cananite in origin. Hardly from a non Jewish Mesopotamian copyist?

Yes the Book of the Dead is about funeral rites. In Chapter 125 the deceased must go before 42 judges and show that they have lived a good life.

And you are saying the bible is just a copy of this and other stories and scholars have a consensus on that? I fail to see that scholars do and the ones you supply in fact either contradict the consensus or propose it is a revision of an earlier JEWISH version.

I'm not saying that it was all intentional plagiarism nor was it entirely subconscious. Like most things in life it's not that simple. Some scholars have suggested that authors of the Bible like the Jawhist source retold earlier mythological tales while reinterpreting parts to suit his own theological agenda.

I don't think the Church would have a problem in acknowledging that might well be true.
The point they would make is that various societies including godless ones would have some but an imperfect insight in to natural moral law.

For the most part I don't think that the influences of earlier mythological traditions on the bible are in any way as sinister as that. For the most part, the incorporation of earlier tales such as the incorporation of large parts of Enuma Elish into the Genesis creation myth serves to act as a transition between one mythological tradition and another. It's a way of relating your understanding of God and the world to a group with different beliefs in a way that is familiar to them. Sometimes, though it can be used to demonise the followers of a particular religion in order to promote your own. For example the revision of Ba'al Zebul (The Lord on High) to Beelzebub (The Lord of the Flies).

The incorporation of preexisting symbolism isn't a disproof of divine influence.

Once again, I'm not saying that all of the Bible is a copy from an earlier tradition

Well it appeared to me that is what you were claiming.

Since you are not claiming that and we can both accept that the Bible isnt a cop[y of earliuer laws but includes symboly incorporated from earlier then there isn't an issue about it. The bible and the law in it isn't copied and doesn't originate in non Jewish cultures from which we can show it was copied.

but with specific reference to the topic we're discussing then the Pentateuch which contains the laws in the Bible is derived from a number of different sources including earlier mythological traditions.

What do you mean by "is derived from"
1. They copied it
2. they used some symbols from earlier stories of non Jewish traditions to represent the Devil and other elements in Jewish tradition.

Are you trying to create some kind of weird hybrid logical fallacy here, a mix of ad hominem, poisoning the well and strawman?

Could you please point out where I have made an error in logic as you claim?

To answer your question, though, NO, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that just because an ancient religious text says that something is immoral or prohibited, doesn't make it so.

Indeed Jesus pointed out that following the letter of the law over the spirit of the law is problematic. Which is the problem with positive law and "what law says I cant do that"?

I take it, for example that you eat shellfish and black pudding and bacon and that you don't think that people who work on the sabbath or are astrologers should be killed.

Members of my family have a shellfish allergy so - not so fast! And the astrologers well I confess sometimes I harbour bad thoughts about them.

I'm saying that a moral issue should be rationally evaluated and discussed.

I agree. Not rammed through into law because of a claim that minorities should have rights.

I agree that paedophilia is immoral but not because any ancient writing says so.

Exactly! It isn't about the writing at all. It is about it being wrong! Even if a writing says it is wrong it is not wrong because the law says so. it was wrong even before they wrote that law down!
I think you have the concept now.

That's not answering my question. Please show me the piece of legislation which requires you to swear an oath on the bible.

Ooops! No you don't! You are back to "wher is the law written which says something is true/false"

Look you just accepted that something may be right or wrong without the law having to be written saying so so ill leave it at that.

What has that got to do with the price of tea? So there may be some homosexuals who are not in favour of gay marriage. That has no bearing on whether gay marriage should be legalised or not.

The point is that homosexual is a legislator! And people cant claim he is anti gay because he is gay!
The other point is he has stated "marriage" is not "civil partnership"
He said that a gay man said it. A gay man who makes the law.

First of all, no one is encouraging anything. The argument that legalising something will automatically encourage it is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy.

I disagree. do you really believe that if the drink drive limit was removed people would not drink and drive more then usual?

Secondly, nobody is changing the definition of family or marriage since gender is not mentioned in the constitution.

Article 42 on the family refers to "marriage" "women" and "mothers". Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the issue.

The Church view has no merit whatsoever. It is not supported by the research on parenting, nor on any of the other claims it makes.

In your opinion. In fact the Church gives more parenting courses and has more research done on families then any other agency. It is ongoing.

So what? The church is entitled to view any issue in whatever way they please.

Indeed a valid view based on best practice and on research and on what families find is the best modus operandi for them?

That entitlement does not extend to telling people that they should view it in the same way.

Oh but it does have such authority.

44.5 Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs,

Marriage predates the existence of the church and the church has no right or entitlement to say that anyone should view marriage in the way they do. Marriage is a socio-legal contract and not the purview of the church.

Where it is a sacrament it is.

As I have said, from a legal point of view, the current situation says that these two people can get married and these two can't because of their sexual orientation.

Correct. they can have a civil partnership. they cant have a Marriage because they would derive the family rights referred to in the article about that.

Yes but civil partnership is not marriage.

That is what the church has stated yes.

CiaranMT wrote: »

So was it Stalin or Lenin that was evil? I'm confused now. You're always on about Stalin.

Nope . I'm on about atheistic regimes. Godless regimes without moral traditions. they try to re invent their own morality and it results in wholesale death. What great atheist societies existed which contributed anything to human history?

But being serious for a moment, yes, quite clearly you are fudging. Quite what Pol Pot or Lenin or atheism have to do with the granting of equal rights to our fellow citizens I don't know.

a family is commonly understood to be a man and a woman who are married and have children. they don't have to be married but people believe such a lifetime commitment to a single adult partner is for the good of society. Swingers, sex clubs and cottagers like communists and atheistic regimes have contributed little to society in spite of their claims to being "free thinkers". Most of these Hellfire Club type alternatives have not lasted and contributed decadence debauchery and wholesale destruction of the socities in which they existed. while there is a duty to tolerate their beliefs there is no requirement to grant them rights to flaunt this on the mainstream.

I picked that out because it is a tiresome ploy which you resort in more than likely every debate I've read in which you've been involved.

That isn't true at all! You are just making it up. You realise of course a single counter example will disprove it?

I will however admit that people do come to debates and make remarks about the church and how it isn't fit to be a moral authority. As it happens we are discussing such an issue i.e. natural Law. Active Anti Christian people tend to turn out to be atheists.
Are you an atheist?

Wicknight points out exactly why your daft reference to Big Bad Communist Atheism is irrelevant.

Atheistic regimes like those of communist dictatorships tried to replace Natural Law with their own godless philosophy. One aspect of Natural Law is the non secular Natural Law accepted by the church. If you dont think that is relevant to this discussion then tough luck and goodbye to you.