Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

old hippy

ninja900 wrote: »

I'd disagree with the 'cannot hurt anyone' when the aim of certain people is to disrupt online discourse with which they do not agree.

Of course the likes of this individual and similar proponents of fear & hatred can cause upset - but there's more sensible people here than not and together we can expose the nonsense that he espouses. Think about it, he's so obssessed - it's almost unhealthy. Out there, in the real world, unsupervised and without an outlet to vent his confusion.... who knows?

And they call us "mentally ill" :D

Nodin

ninja900 wrote: »

I'd disagree with the 'cannot hurt anyone' when the aim of certain people is to disrupt online discourse with which they do not agree.

He should take it up with this lad...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/04/orlando-cruz-boxer-announce-gay

Hotblack Desiato

Griffith was wracked with remorse, saying: "I kill a man and most people forgive me. However, I love a man and many say this is unforgivable and this makes me an evil person."

How f--ked up is that?

philologos

For the record I don't think there is a cure. From a Christian perspective there is an internal battle with sin until Christ returns. There was an interesting article in an evangelical Christian paper I was reading about a pastor who describes his struggles with same-sex attraction and how he lives as a Christian in the midst of it. On the face of it ut looks like any battle I or any other Christian has with other temptations:
http://e-n.org.uk/6028-A-battle-I-face.htm

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The term "christian", despite general usage until fairly recently, is not a synonym for "kind" or "decent" or any other attribute that everyone would agree is admirable. As Jimi correctly points out, the aim of the religion is to glorify what the religion says about itself -- that's what "christian" really means.

I still don't get the logic of your objection robindch, as kind and decent can't really have any objective meaning to a moral subjectivist.

I don't think we do half enough listening on boards.ie, by the by I'm pretty guilty of it too but it could be valuable to learn something of the perspectives of others rather than fobbong them off.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

I still don't get the logic of your objection robindch, as kind and decent can't really have any objective meaning to a moral subjectivist

The logic of the objection is pretty clear, regardless of whether you're morally objective or subjective.

• You can be Christian without being kind or decent
• You can be kind and decent without being Christian
• ∴ Using Christian as a synonym for kind and decent is fallacious. ∎

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

kind and decent can't really have any objective meaning to a moral subjectivist.

I don't think we do half enough listening on boards.ie

Clearly not given you have had many people line up and tell you time and time again why concepts like kindness, decency, good, bad, moral and immoral do not need an imaginary god to root them in objectivity before they become useful or important to us.

I have lost count of how many times you have had this explained to you, yet here you are touting the same mantra again.

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

For the record I don't think there is a cure

That's because there is no disease.

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

The logic of the objection is pretty clear, regardless of whether you're morally objective or subjective.

• You can be Christian without being kind or decent
• You can be kind and decent without being Christian
• ∴ Using Christian as a synonym for kind and decent is fallacious. ∎

What objective meaning does kind or decent have to a moral subjectivist though?

I get the argument but it's lacking without an objective standard. For the record the Bible says that Christians are meant to communicate the truth with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15 - 16). Christians as people fail to do this from time to time, but that is our standard.

What's the objective basis? Well - an objective God an objective Lord and an objective judge that you and I will both meet.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I still don't get the logic of your objection robindch, as kind and decent can't really have any objective meaning to a moral subjectivist.

28064212 has already shown how using "christian" as a synonym for "decent" is a fallacy. And Jimi has implied the meaning that I use myself, which is that "christian" means somebody who believes and implements their own interpretation of christianity -- much the same relativist position that you hold yourself.

Also, it's got nothing to do with "moral subjectivity" which is a trivially absurd philosophical position that I do not hold, nor does any atheist I know hold -- in fairness, I, and no doubt just about everybody else, has pointed this out to you on many, many occasions and I'm rather fascinated that you still don't seem to remember it

28064212

philologos wrote: »

What objective meaning does kind or decent have to a moral subjectivist though?

Why does it have to be objective? Nowhere in the initial statement was objective mentioned. Whether it's relatively kind and decent or objectively kind or decent is totally irrelevant. "Christian" is not, and never will be, a synonym for kind and decent. You seem to be failing to understand the actual statement, and to be intent on driving it down a side-road that has no relevance

philologos wrote: »

What's the objective basis? Well - an objective God an objective Lord and an objective judge that you and I will both meet.

In your opinion

ButtimersLaw

efb wrote: »

The question I would ask is why they do not welcome it?

I think people should be allowed help to accept who they are.

I don't think its up to me to allow anyone to be anything, and no one needs my permission to be who they are, or to be who they are not (whatever that might be) .

While each of us is, of course, at liberty to question anything we want to question, my point was not about asking questions.

If one is a true libertarian, that means sometimes we have to accept things in others which we may not like.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

What objective meaning does kind or decent have to a moral subjectivist though?

I've seen you make this point several times before, philologos, and I still don't understand it. While most people here would probably agree that morality is subjective and based on the individual rather than something instilled in us, it is not SO subjective that there are huge differences between one person and another, nor what the general consensus between the majority would be.

Morality comes from our environment, our upbringing, our parents, society and our own capability to feel empathy and guilt, so the majority of people tend to have pretty much the same morals (at least for the important things).

Believing that morality is subjective does not, and never will mean that something can't be classed as being "right or wrong" going by what the general standards of morality based on the aforementioned factors would classify them as.

coffee_cake

Arguing against subjective morality while having your own subjective version of morality based on your own subjective interpretation of someone else's interpretation of morality
awesome

OldNotWIse

Stark wrote: »

You really don't know what you're talking about.

I really dont know what they're talking about... :mad:

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

What objective meaning does kind or decent have to a moral subjectivist though?

See what I mean? You just do not listen. You ask questions that you literally do not want to read the answers to and if people press answers on you too well you usually just run away and hide until the next thread comes along.

You have had this explained to you innumerable times but you waltz into every new thread acting like it is the first time you said it and you think it is some kind of knock down argument/Question.

You think by attaching lofty labels to human behaviour like "morality" means they magically need some kind of objective explanation. They do not. They never have.

We are a social species. We have to find the best ways to live together for that reason. There are no objective right or wrong answers but we draw on all our data and experience to argue for the best ones we can find. The ones we find that we think are useful we label "Good" "Kind" and so on. The opposite we label "Evil" "Wrong" and so forth.

There are labels. Nothing more. Good and evil do not need to exist for this, and no objective standard or god has to be imagined in order to open reasonable and useful discourse on the subjects.

So you can hide behind your mantra that this position is "lacking" all you want. The fact remains however that the only thing is "lacks" is something you have not evidenced exists... or is even required. You just assume and declare both, and run for the hills when challenged on those points.

ButtimersLaw

philologos wrote: »

What objective meaning does kind or decent have to a moral subjectivist though?

I get the argument but it's lacking without an objective standard. For the record the Bible says that Christians are meant to communicate the truth with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15 - 16). Christians as people fail to do this from time to time, but that is our standard.

.

The bible says many things, that it's ok for us to enslave others, that you should be stoned for working on the sabbath, and that a farmer who grows different crops side by side should be put to death and so and so on.

I have reached an age in life that when I see someone quoting the bible as if that were the last word, and because something is in the bible then there can be no argument against it, I now realise they do that because they have no other arguments.

Dogma is not argument, and to put it forward as an argument usually shows the weakness of the case.

old hippy

MagicMarker wrote: »

That's because there is no disease.

What about the delusions brought on by religious mania, whereupon the sufferer spews forth large chunks of barely palatable dogma and hearing becomes very select?

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

What about the delusions brought on by religious mania, whereupon the sufferer spews forth large chunks of barely palatable dogma and hearing becomes very select?

The Duke of Edinburgh's mother, Princess Alice, had such delusions and spewed forth so much nonsense (she insisted, among other things, she was actually married to Jesus which came as a bit of a shock to Prince Andrew of Greece) that her family had her locked up - don't think her hearing was selective however as she was profoundly deaf from birth.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Duke of Edinburgh's mother, Princess Alice [...] insisted [...] she was actually married to Jesus [...]

As indeed, is every catholic nun on the planet:

http://anunslife.org/2008/11/20/why-do-nuns-wear-a-wedding-ring/
http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/wecsk/convent_bridechrist.htm

...which makes Jesus the biggest bigamist on the planet, albeit a dead one.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

As indeed, is every catholic nun on the planet:

http://anunslife.org/2008/11/20/why-do-nuns-wear-a-wedding-ring/
http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/wecsk/convent_bridechrist.htm

...which makes Jesus the biggest bigamist on the planet, albeit a dead one.

By all accounts, including her own letters, Princess Alice ( a convert to Greek Orthodox from COE) was being quite literal in her assertion. No symbolic marriage for her, she would prepare herself before bed for Jesus' nightly visit - sadly the records don't detail what 'preparing herself' entailed.

To be fair to Alice, her religious beliefs also compelled her to bankrupt herself feeding people in Athens during the Nazi occupation of Greece and to hide a Jewish family in her home. In recognition of this she is buried in Jerusalem.

jill_valentine

Princess Alice was a hell of a lady. Mad as a brush, but mad in that awesome kind of way we don't really do anymore.

coffee_cake

Alice? Alice? Who the f*ck is Alice?

nozzferrahhtoo

bluewolf wrote: »

Alice? Alice? Who the f*ck is Alice?

Shes the Original "Girl Next Door".

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To be fair to Alice, her religious beliefs also compelled her to bankrupt herself feeding people in Athens during the Nazi occupation of Greece and to hide a Jewish family in her home. In recognition of this she is buried in Jerusalem.

No less than she deserves -- good on her.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No symbolic marriage for her, she would prepare herself before bed for Jesus' nightly visit - sadly the records don't detail what 'preparing herself' entailed.

The second coming, one assumes.

Tim Robbins

Interesting letter IT today

Sir, – Loud disapproval from church spokesmen often greets any suggestion that same sex couples have a right to more than civil partnership, ie to the same legal entitlements and respect enjoyed by male-female couples. But such critics by no means speak for all church people.

As a Church of Ireland pro-gay group, Changing Attitude Ireland supports the extension of civil marriage to same sex couples. We proclaim that if a church truly believes in equality then it should not introduce caveats to lessen that equality. Behind the denial to a gay or lesbian couple of the right to avail of civil marriage is the belief that their relationship is inferior to a heterosexual one. This we believe to be a cultural assumption rather than a divine instruction. We suggest that in the foreseeable future objectors to same sex civil marriage will be seen in the same light as those who until fairly recently opposed mixed marriage and mixed-race marriage.

As regards religious marriage, the Church of Ireland has overcome past objections to divorce and now offers remarriage in church. Having accepted both remarriage and contraception for its heterosexual members, the Church of Ireland appears now to be attempting to pull up the moral drawbridge before its gay and lesbian members.

We call on our church to embrace civil equality for all and also to forego the fundamentalist biblicist arguments that led us astray in the past. – Yours, etc,

Canon CHARLES KENNY,

Secretary,

Changing Attitude Ireland,

Waring Street,

Belfast.

How does it reconcile this with Corinthians?

philologos

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

The bible says many things, that it's ok for us to enslave others, that you should be stoned for working on the sabbath, and that a farmer who grows different crops side by side should be put to death and so and so on.

I have reached an age in life that when I see someone quoting the bible as if that were the last word, and because something is in the bible then there can be no argument against it, I now realise they do that because they have no other arguments.

Dogma is not argument, and to put it forward as an argument usually shows the weakness of the case.

I'm happy to walk through any passage in the Bible with you if you provide chapter and verse. You might want to OK it with Dades and robindch. But if you're willing to listen to what I say and show the same respect as I'll show you. That's fine by me.

It's the last word in respect to how I should live as a Christian. It's the model I aspire to in any conversation with others. If for one reason or another I can't treat you with the gentleness and respect you deserve (1 Peter 3:15 - 16). I'll stop.

robindch: do you claim that morality is mind independent? Or us it something we decide? Do we decide what we want to be good and what we want to be evil? If so you're a subjectivist on morality. It doesn't make good logical sense.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

But if you're willing to listen to what I say and show the same respect as I'll show you. That's fine by me.

Says the guy who never listens to anyone else, asks the same questions over and over that have been answered to you innumerable times before, and who runs away every time when the debate gets too hard for him.

If I had an irony meter left from my time conversing with you, it would explode all over again.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't make good logical sense.

Neither do you in all fairness

NuMarvel

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting letter IT today

I was really pleasantly surprised by that letter.

When I was reading it, I assumed the writer would go on to draw a distinction between civil marriage and religious ceremonies, and I expected him to say he fully supported civil marriage equality, but that religious organisations should be allowed to marry in the fashion they wished, within the confines of their own belief. And I would have been fine with that. To have anyone in a Christian church call for full marriage equality would have been great.

But for him to then go on and call for religious marriage equality was a breath of fresh air.