Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Options
12357…51

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    By that logic why hold a referendum on any matter ? As for expense it can easily be held on the same day as an election. Having said that, I can see why the normalise sodomy marriage and adoption agenda brigade are desperate to avoid a democratic referendum at all costs.

    "By that logic"? Do you have an example of the State seeking to hold a referendum on a matter that is due to be heard by the courts? I can't think of any. Nor should they, as it could be seen as interfering with the judicial process.

    The matter of the constitutionality of the State's ban on same sex marriage is before the Courts, and due to be heard by the Supreme Court, hopefully soon. It would be improper, to say the least, for the Government to arrange a referendum before that judgement is delivered. If for no other reason than the lack of a judgement means that the Government would be operating in the dark when drafting the wording of the proposed change.

    And as I asked you before, why should someone ask 4 million people for permission to marry? Are you going to go knocking on everyone's door asking for Sinead's hand in marriage when you want to get married?


  • Options
    #123
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    Why should it be based on yours ? What about all the people who don't follow your beliefs ? Why no referendum ?

    Wonderfulname's beliefs don't deny civil and human rights to people, so they don't lose anything if they don't follow his beliefs. In the context of the discussion, allowing same sex marriage doesn't impinge on your rights. You can still get married to whomever you choose, or choose not to marry at all. You can still believe that same sex couples will subject to the judgement of God.
    Monty. wrote: »
    Why should a state be involve in marriage ceremonies of any type ? Civil partnerships could offer all the same legal rights. Why no referendum ?

    That's certainly a possibility, but marriage existed before the Bible was written, so why should marriage solely be the purview of the Christian religion?


  • Options
    #124
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty. wrote: »
    Again you're left having to resort to ad hominem.

    Actually I was left asking questions for clarification, questions you ignored.
    Monty. wrote: »
    I particularly enjoy the opportunity to remind everyone what the sophistry of Satan combined with the lust of Sodomy. This is a Christian forum, and the topic is "gay" "marriage". Satan and Sodomy are particularly relevant, and I refuse to condone the sin of sodomy by dressing it up in any other cosy term.

    Surely that applies for all sin though? You refuse to condone all sin, not just the sin of homosexual acts? Right?

    As I asked you before do you accept that non-Christians have the right to carry out actions that are considered sins by Christians, such as pre-marital sexual relations?

    Do you consider all sin to be abnormal? Or just homosexuality? For example do you consider pre-marital sex to be abnormal, and do you believe this should be tolerated by society?


  • Options
    #125
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    ISAW wrote: »
    care to list these "legitimate factors" and define them?

    I don't intend repeating myself again. If you want to see the factors, read my earlier posts. I will say, though, that the best reason for not having a referendum yet is given by NuMarvel here.

    I don't see why we're having this side argument though. I was responding to Monty's post:
    Monty. wrote: »
    You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
    Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?

    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.

    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, 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. 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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    OK, I stand corrected. Cheerfully withdrawn.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, but that's the thing. Laws against murder or theft don't trace their bases to Mosaic Law. The commandments in Mosaic Law or the Mitzvot don't have their origin in the Bible. For the most part they're lifted from older mythologies and older ones in turn. Most of the "laws" found in Exodus can be found verbatim in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the code of Hammurabi and the code of Ur-Nammu, books that are thousands of years older than the Bible. A prohibition contained in any religious text should be examined critically to determine its merit as a basis for law in a modern society. 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?

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    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. 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?

    ISAW wrote: »
    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)

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

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, I acknowledged that I thought you were heading down a different road. Point cheerfully withdrawn. Again.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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 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.

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

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

    The way I see it a fictional judge a long time ago got it right:
    Aaron Satie wrote:
    With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we're all damaged by it.


  • Options
    #126
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    ISAW wrote: »


    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.

    LOL.

    Apart from your continued flogging of the dead "Stalin was an atheist, atheism is evil" horse, I'd love to see you give an example of this.

    I think it's far more likely that you're using this, yet again, as a ploy to sidetrack and fudge the issue as you usually do.


  • Options
    #128
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    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.


    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, opinion polls may not accurately reflect the eventual outcome of a referendum but I think that they are a good indicator of the way the vote will go. Yes gay marriage is different to civil partnership which is why the poll here asked about gay marriage and gay adoption with those options receiving 73% and 60% support respectively.

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

    No I'm not seriously suggesting this. I'm saying that Monty's suggestion that the government is avoiding a referendum because it won't pass is just as ludicrous as my suggestion that they're avoiding because it will pass (based on opinion polls).

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, and people had been living under those laws ever before there was a 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.
    ISAW wrote: »
    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.


    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. Until about 1970, the consensus on the Pentateuch was that it was not written by Moses (since there is little, if any substantive evidence to suggest Moses existed at all). 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.


    Meyers, Carol B (2005). Exodus. Cambridge University Press.

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

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

    Van Seters, John (1998). The Pentateuch In Steven L. McKenzie, Matt Patrick Graham. The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues. Westminster John Knox Press.

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

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

    Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Introduction to reading the Pentateuch. Eisenbrauns.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    Homage to you, Great God, the Lord of the double Ma’at (Truth)! You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have come to you, my Lord,
    I have brought myself here to behold your beauties.
    I know you, and I know your name,
    And I know the names of the two and forty gods,
    Who live with you in the Hall of the Two Truths, 1
    Who imprison the sinners, and feed upon their blood,
    On the day when the lives of men are judged in the presence of Osiris. 2
    In truth, you are “The Twin Sisters with Two Eyes,” 3 and “The Daughters of the Two Truths.”
    In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Maat to you,
    And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
    I have committed no evil upon men.
    I have not oppressed the members of my family.
    I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
    I have had no knowledge of useless men.
    I have brought about no evil.
    I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
    I have not brought my name forward to be praised.     You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have not oppressed servants.
    I have not scorned any god.     You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have not defrauded the poor of their property. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not done what the gods abominate. You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
    I have not caused pain.
    I have caused no man to hunger.
    I have made no one weep.
    I have not killed.     “(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder”
    I have not given the order to kill. “(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder” (but smarter)
    I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
    I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.     “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not fornicated.
    I have not polluted myself.
    I have not diminished the bushel when I’ve sold it.     “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not added to or stolen land. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not encroached on the land of others. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not driven cattle from their pastures. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not captured the birds of the preserves of the gods. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not caught fish with bait made of like fish.
    I have not held back the water when it should flow.
    I have not diverted the running water in a canal.
    I have not put out a fire when it should burn.
    I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods.
    I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods.
    I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple, 4
    I am pure.
    I am pure.
    I am pure.
    I am pure.
    My purity is the purity the great Bennu (heron) in Heracleopolis. 5
    Behold, I am the nose of the God of Breath, 6 who gives life to the people,
    On the day of completing the Eye of Ra 7 in Heliopolis, 8
    On the last day of the second month of winter,
    In the presence of the pharaoh of this land.
    I have seen the the Eye of Horus when it was full in Heliopolis!
    Therefore, let no evil befall me in this land
    In this Hall of the Two Truths,
    Because I know the names of all the gods within it,
    And all the followers of the great God.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Care to list how many laws in Exodus and how all of these appear in the BOTD?

    See the red highlights above.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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?

    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. 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).

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

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

    ISAW wrote: »
    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"?

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

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


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

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


    ISAW wrote: »
    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?

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

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    I respect that, I was just asking out of interest.

    ISAW wrote: »
    As I have stated Senator Norris a well known homosexual has opposed "gay marriage".

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    Other than that as I have pointed out homosexuality is not "normal" in the social/statistical sense.

    Also irrelevant.

    ISAW wrote: »
    Encouraging homosexual acts and changing the definition of "family" or "marriage" do not work for the good of society in the churches view.

    Based on what evidence?

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

    Secondly, nobody is changing the definition of family or marriage since gender is not mentioned in the constitution.
    Article 41
    1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    The only way that you could make the argument that legalising gay marriage will damage society by encouraging homosexual acts is if homosexuality were a choice, which it isn't.

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

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    So what? The church is entitled to view any issue in whatever way they please. That entitlement does not extend to telling people that they should view it in the same way. 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.

    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.

    ISAW wrote: »
    But as I have stated the law can accommodate partnerships whether sexual or not.

    Yes but civil partnership is not marriage.

    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    Oh, so we're back to Godwinning the thread again are we?


  • Options
    #129
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    LOL.

    Apart from your continued flogging of the dead "Stalin was an atheist, atheism is evil" horse, I'd love to see you give an example of this.

    LOL apart from the aquaduct etc. what did the Romans really do for us.

    Well apart from the atheistic regime of stalin whch killed 3--50 million

    We have

    1. godless atheistic communist china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    2. Godless atheist ancient and Middle age and pre modern china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    3. Pol pot's Cambodia the policies of which included destroying the family and resulted in the deaths of thousands of priests and millions of citizens.


    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    “Down with religion and long live atheism;
    the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    As stated by Fasgnadh:
    Have a read through the agenda of the Parliaments of World Religion,
    and tell me which political parties have such a wide social agenda..
    the First International Women's Rights conference in Chicago in 1848
    and WAKE UP!
    I think it's far more likely that you're using this, yet again, as a ploy to sidetrack and fudge the issue as you usually do.

    Says ciaran quoting the last three lines of my message
    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.

    Which are a direct reply as to the church position as opposed to others who tried to destroy the family e.g Pol Pot who had a particular policy on that.

    But Ciaran quotes only the last three lines of my post and ignored the preceding 78 lines!
    And then has the gall to accuse moi of fudging? :)


  • Options
    #130
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.


  • Options
    #131
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    LOL apart from the aquaduct etc. what did the Romans really do for us.

    Well apart from the atheistic regime of stalin whch killed 3--50 million

    We have

    1. godless atheistic communist china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    2. Godless atheist ancient and Middle age and pre modern china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    3. Pol pot's Cambodia the policies of which included destroying the family and resulted in the deaths of thousands of priests and millions of citizens.

    Er, I think he was asking for examples of where atheist communists changed the definition of marriage and this resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

    Despite initial promising liberalization under Lenin, most communist countries, including the USSR, Cuba and China, persecuted homosexuals, viewing such couples as unnatural and bad for society. These laws and attitudes existed for most of the Communist era, only recently being repealed, 2000 in Vietnam (indirectly through co-habitting laws) 1997 in China, 1979 in Cuba, 1969 in East German.

    So you know, something Communists and hard line Christians have in common I guess :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    ISAW wrote: »
    LOL apart from the aquaduct etc. what did the Romans really do for us.

    Well apart from the atheistic regime of stalin whch killed 3--50 million

    We have

    1. godless atheistic communist china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    2. Godless atheist ancient and Middle age and pre modern china ~ similar numbers tens of millions

    3. Pol pot's Cambodia the policies of which included destroying the family and resulted in the deaths of thousands of priests and millions of citizens.


    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    “Down with religion and long live atheism;
    the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    As stated by Fasgnadh:




    Says ciaran quoting the last three lines of my message


    Which are a direct reply as to the church position as opposed to others who tried to destroy the family e.g Pol Pot who had a particular policy on that.

    But Ciaran quotes only the last three lines of my post and ignored the preceding 78 lines!
    And then has the gall to accuse moi of fudging? :)

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

    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.

    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.

    Outside of that I've no interest in debating the topic with you as you have no interest in taking on board what is put to you.

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


  • Options
    #133
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Er, I think he was asking for examples of where atheist communists changed the definition of marriage and this resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

    i already stated Pol Pot redefined the family. His regime killed millions. Destroying traditional beliefs was part of his "year zero" policy.
    Despite initial promising liberalization under Lenin, most communist countries, including the USSR, Cuba and China, persecuted homosexuals, viewing such couples as unnatural and bad for society. These laws and attitudes existed for most of the Communist era, only recently being repealed, 2000 in Vietnam (indirectly through co-habitting laws) 1997 in China, 1979 in Cuba, 1969 in East German.

    any group who wants to frame laws to suit themselves can become despots.
    The fact that communism persecuted homosexuals is argument ad Hitlerium.
    e.g. if Hitler liked a certain painting and I also like it there must be something wrong with me.
    So you know, something Communists and hard line Christians have in common I guess :rolleyes:

    so who are the "soft liners"? The vast majority of Christians i.e. Romans and Orthodox and related denominations and indeed even a rump of Anglicans Lutherans and Methodists dont approve of homosexuals being Married or openly gay relationships or flaunting in yur face homosexual ( or for that matter heterosexual) behaviour.

    And the church does not believe homosexuals should be tortured or locked up in concentrations camps. comparing the church to communist or Nazis is just plain silly.


  • Options
    #134
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.


  • Options
    #135
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    So because corrupt extremely powerful dictators killed large portions of humanity, swingers, people who like having fun etc. are extremely powerful corrupt dictators killing loads of people and destroying society? Is this what you're saying.

    For the record is FF a party who rejects "Natural Law" (whatever the oops! I used a word the mods don't like unnatural law is)? They brought this country to its knees, they must be atheist communists, right?


  • Options
    #136
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    i already stated Pol Pot redefined the family. His regime killed millions.

    Due to the redefinition of family? Or for other reasons?

    Can you explain how a redefinition of family results in the death of someone?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Destroying traditional beliefs was part of his "year zero" policy.
    It was also part of the American civil rights movement and Women's suffrage.

    Again can you explain what specifically is it about redefinition of traditional view of marriage that results in the death of someone.

    Or are you simply playing a game of association? (Hitler was a vegetarian don't you know!). Because you seem to don't like that game very much ....
    ISAW wrote: »
    The fact that communism persecuted homosexuals is argument ad Hitlerium.
    e.g. if Hitler liked a certain painting and I also like it there must be something wrong with me.

    Lol :rolleyes:

    Wicknight, stop using my own rethorical debating tactic against me, thats not fair you big meanie.
    ISAW wrote: »
    And the church does not believe homosexuals should be tortured or locked up in concentrations camps. comparing the church to communist or Nazis is just plain silly.

    Comparing the homosexual rights movement to Stalin or Pol Pop is just plain silly.


  • Options
    #137
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Due to the redefinition of family? Or for other reasons?

    Both
    Can you explain how a redefinition of family results in the death of someone?

    Yes the removal of the basic family unit from society was part and parcel of Pol Pots "Year Zero" campaign. Like the atheistic Stalinists and Maoists the he had a plan to restart civilization. this inculded removing any religious belief, those with knowledge of other civilisations and philosophies and knowledge of family and tradition etc. So it involved removing children from parents promoting illiteracy and wiping out any priests or believers in anything contrary to his plan. As a result more than one in five of the entire population was executed.


    The Nazis by the way were not anti homosexual in the beginning. The "Arian superman" image fitted well as a gay icon. In fact the leader of the secret Police was openly homosexual with many nazis. It was only after Hitler instigated the Night of the Long Knives that homosexuality became opposed.
    It was also part of the American civil rights movement and Women's suffrage.


    Whether a woman or a black man has a vote or not is a wholly different matter as to whether they are a member of a family.
    Again can you explain what specifically is it about redefinition of traditional view of marriage that results in the death of someone.

    Yes in the history of societies families have been the basic unit. An attack on the family is an attack on the basic unit of society whioch has been found by experience to be the optimal unit. Other attempts by atheistic communists, other communists, Kibbutzniks, Hippies, celebate monks etc. while they do work in some small communities are not for everyone and certainly not to be proscribed or promoted for all of society.
    Or are you simply playing a game of association? (Hitler was a vegetarian don't you know!). Because you seem to don't like that game very much ....

    Im not playing that game. It was someone else who associated the church with Nazis by saying they were both anti homosexual. As i pointed out

    1. The brought up the ad hitlerium issue
    2. Nazis were not anti homosexual.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Rohm
    In 1931, the Münchener Post, a Social Democratic newspaper, obtained and published Röhm's letters to a friend in which Röhm discussed his sexual affairs with men.
    ...
    Röhm and Hitler were so close that they addressed each other as du (the German familiar form of "you"). Röhm was the only top Nazi that Hitler addressed as such. In turn, Röhm was the only Nazi who dared address Hitler as "Adolf," rather than "mein Führer.
    Comparing the homosexual rights movement to Stalin or Pol Pop is just plain silly.


    Which is why I didn't do it.
    1. someone else brought up the comparison of Nazis and the church as being anti homosexual
    2. I pointed out that leading nazis were openly homosexual
    3. I pointed out the church never had a plicy of executing gay people
    4. I pointed out the anti family and anti people antoi personal belief brigade who killed hundreds of millions were the atheistic regimes not the believing Church


  • Options
    #138
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    ...4. I pointed out the anti family and anti people antoi personal belief brigade who killed hundreds of millions were the atheistic regimes not the believing Church

    Hmm, how about heretics then?


  • Options
    #139
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Y

    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.






    See the red highlights above.
    Which I reproduce in bold.
    By the way you offer these ten or twenty lines from the Book of the dead as evidence the Bible was cobbled together from other older traditions?
    Homage to you, Great God, the Lord of the double Ma’at (Truth)!

    You shall have no other gods before me.

    The first bit does not say the bold bit at all! Clearly Egypt was pantheist! The "only one God" monotheist idea is not part of their belief system at all and your trying to claim it is accepted academic consensus is nonscence.
    I have come to you, my Lord,
    I have brought myself here to behold your beauties.
    I know you, and I know your name,
    And I know the names of the two and forty gods,
    Who live with you in the Hall of the Two Truths,

    Direectly contradicting your "monotheist Egypt" thesis!

    Who imprison the sinners, and feed upon their blood,
    On the day when the lives of men are judged in the presence of Osiris. 2
    In truth, you are “The Twin Sisters with Two Eyes,” 3 and “The Daughters of the Two Truths.”
    In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Maat to you,
    And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
    I have committed no evil upon men.
    I have not oppressed the members of my family.
    I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
    I have had no knowledge of useless men.
    I have brought about no evil.
    I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
    I have not brought my name forward to be praised. You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have not oppressed servants.
    I have not scorned any god. You shall have no other gods before me.
    I have not defrauded the poor of their property.


    “Neither shall you steal.”


    Twenty lines so for and you cherry pick out "Thou shalt not steal".

    I don't think that is evidence that "Thou shalt not steal" was taken from the Book of the Dead. But I will accept that the idea of personal possessions was known even if it might not have been respected.

    I have not done what the gods abominate.

    You shall have no other gods before me.


    Again it does not say "you shall have no other gods"!
    I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
    I have not caused pain.
    I have caused no man to hunger.
    I have made no one weep.
    I have not killed. “(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder”
    I have not given the order to kill. “(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder”(but smarter)

    Again not proof any of this was copied! and why copy from a pantheistic source and replace it with the core issue ~monotheism?
    I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
    I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not fornicated.
    I have not polluted myself.
    I have not diminished the bushel when I’ve sold it. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not added to or stolen land. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not encroached on the land of others. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not driven cattle from their pastures. “Neither shall you steal.”
    I have not captured the birds of the preserves of the gods. “Neither shall you steal.”

    In fact the "thou shalt no steal" commandmant comes across more than anything else. Might you think ancient Egyptian people would have had a particular interest in Tomb Raiders?

    Ill skip the next nineteen lines which have no Biblical parallel references.

    The Book of the dead is just not a causal pregenator of the Bible and your handwaving arguments don't show it to be the origin of the Bible by any "academic consensus"
    I'm not saying that it was all intentional plagiarism nor was it entirely subconscious.

    Im saying it wasn't plagiarism at all nor have you shown it to be!


  • Options
    #140
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes the removal of the basic family unit from society was part and parcel of Pol Pots "Year Zero" campaign. Like the atheistic Stalinists and Maoists the he had a plan to restart civilization. this inculded removing any religious belief, those with knowledge of other civilisations and philosophies and knowledge of family and tradition etc. So it involved removing children from parents promoting illiteracy and wiping out any priests or believers in anything contrary to his plan. As a result more than one in five of the entire population was executed.
    That didn't answer my question, it just said that along with removing the family unit they also killed a lot of people.

    Again this is a Hitler was a vegetarian argument.

    Just because Pot removed the traditional notion of marriage and then killed a lot of people, it doesn't follow that removal of the traditional notion of marriage means lots of people will die, any more than being a vegetarian means genocide, or sharing a belief with communists (such as the idea that homosexuality is bad for society) means work camps.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Whether a woman or a black man has a vote or not is a wholly different matter as to whether they are a member of a family.

    So some "traditional values" are good and some are bad.

    Can you explain why being anti-homosexual is a good traditional value?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes in the history of societies families have been the basic unit. An attack on the family is an attack on the basic unit of society whioch has been found by experience to be the optimal unit.
    And not having a family unit made up of one mother and one father results in death ... how ...?

    You seem to be having significant trouble answering this question. Perhaps you just want to withdraw the original accusation.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Im not playing that game.

    You most certainly are

    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.

    "It" being the changing of the traditional nature of marriage.

    So AGAIN how did the changing of traditional nature of marriage, specifically, result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

    Or perhaps you want to just withdraw this utterly ridiculous claim. Trying to link gay marriage campaigners to the regime of Pol Pot would be insulting to them if it wasn't so mind bendingly stupid and hilarious.


  • Options
    #141
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That didn't answer my question, it just said that along with removing the family unit they also killed a lot of people.

    Again this is a Hitler was a vegetarian argument.

    No it isn't!
    I clearly outlined how the atheistic communist regimes had anti religion policy as central to their philosophy just as anti family issue are also central. Given that religion/tradition/family and were the things these despots wanted to destroy and replace with their own atheistic philosophy, it is no wonder the result was the total breakdown of society.

    The "argumelt ad Hitlerium2 was made against me! it is not me who wa making it!
    clkearly others compared Hitler to the church by saying the the nazis were anti gay just as the church are.

    I pointed out

    1. The church isnt anti gay to the extent that it wants gays executed.
    2. the nazis were not anti gay in fact a top nazis promoted the openly gay lifestyle.

    So it does not apply to me.

    so you have that one the wrong way round.
    Not alone that but I didnt make an argument like
    P : Hitler was evil
    Q: Hitler was an atheist
    Therefore
    R: atheists are evil

    I made an arument like

    P:Dictatorships were evil and slaughtered hundreds of millions
    Q:The leaders of such had policies which put the destruction of religion and family at the centre of their teachings

    R: Anti family and anti religious movements are evil
    Just because Pot removed the traditional notion of marriage and then killed a lot of people, it doesn't follow that removal of the traditional notion of marriage means lots of people will die,

    AS I have stated on some small groups e.g. Monks in a Monestary the voluntary adherence to celibacy or to communism has not destroyed society but any movement which has promoted unnatural practices for everyone or worked against the tried and tested values of society has

    1. produced nothing worthwhilw
    2. Produced decadence and death

    Where are the great atheist societies?
    Where are the great homosexual societies?
    Where are the great non family** societies?
    ** family meaning "man and woman married - one man to one woman for life and having Children"

    What did they build/produce ?
    any more than being a vegetarian means genocide, or sharing a belief with communists (such as the idea that homosexuality is bad for society) means work camps.

    The nazis did not believe homosexuality was bad for society! They only adopted that after Hitler had enough power to remove the homosexual nazis who threatened his complete domination of the Party. their homosexuality was not the problem to Hitler so much as their possible control over the Party.

    And you can not even attenpt to claim "pol Pot was a dictator who just happened to be anti- religion and anti family" no more than you can claim atheistic communists only happened to be anti religion.

    AS I have stated Lenin himself stated atheism is an inseparable part of communism.

    Clearly it isn't!
    Clearly some monks (christian and non chriatian) live by communist rules.
    Clearly in communist countries like Cuba religion is tolerated and the catholic church was not persecuted like it wa sin russia.
    Now cuba my not be great but they have a better literacy rate then the US and in spite of a trade embargo since the 1960s they have survived.
    Guess what? They are not anti religion it is not central to their system and they don't slaughter believers.
    So some "traditional values" are good and some are bad.

    Where did I say that? by the way i don't like to use terms like "good" and "evil" for obvious reasons. i prefer "natural and constitutional justice"
    Can you explain why being anti-homosexual is a good traditional value?

    I could but the church view would be that anti-homosexuality is not a good thing.
    And not having a family unit made up of one mother and one father results in death ... how ...?

    And children. How? because the anti-family and anti-religion atheists who promoted such policies did so in the only way possible ~ by removing all those who thought otherwise or who even knew any differently. It is akin to Orwells 1984 where you have no people who know any different life and you oppress the few free thinkers that emerge. If free thinking is made a crime and Big Brother watches over all then those promoting values are double plus ungood.

    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.

    "It" being the changing of the traditional nature of marriage.

    And the family ~ the basic unit of society in all sorts of societies even before the Church existed
    So AGAIN how did the changing of traditional nature of marriage, specifically, result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

    REgimes with atheist i.e. ( changing the traditional nature of belief) and anti family ( i.e. changing the nature of society) as a central part of their philosophy canr into power and implemented that philosophy.

    some regimes were communist and not antio family or not anti religion. they didnt kill so many. the anti religion anti family ones slaughtered hundreds of millions. You see in order to create a society without Jews for example one can

    1. Say every Jew is free to believe whatever they like but you would like them to believe differently ( Type 1)

    2. Bring in more and more laws repressing Jews and eventually just have them all killed and then you can move on to the other religions and to removing anyone who speaks against your anti family ideas. ( type 2)

    Now atheistic regimes were type 1. Not all of them communist and not all communists were atheistic.

    Religious societies and christianity in particular were almost exclusively type 2.
    Some nutter fringe christians and cults like Aum shira were type 1 but these all added up (christian and non~) over all of history may reach millions of deaths as opposed to hundreds of millions for atheistic regimes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. and Earlier atheistic regimes have similar proportions of deaths.
    Or perhaps you want to just withdraw this utterly ridiculous claim. Trying to link gay marriage campaigners to the regime of Pol Pot would be insulting to them if it wasn't so mind bendingly stupid and hilarious.

    I didnt do that. the church was the one which was incorrectly( given it is neither historically nor philosophically true) linked to nazis.

    I pointed out that atheistic and anti family regimes (like nazis Stalin and Pol Pot) killed people unlike the Church.
    I also pointed out that the church is not anti gay it is not in favour of removing believers or the established concept of family from society.

    and i support this in part by the gay senator who does not believe in laws for "gay marriage" because of his religion!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I could but the church view would be that anti-homosexuality is not a good thing.

    So can you explain how allowing homosexuals to marry will result in the deaths of millions of people?
    ISAW wrote: »
    because the anti-family and anti-religion atheists who promoted such policies did so in the only way possible ~ by removing all those who thought otherwise or who even knew any differently.

    So if you support homosexual marriage you must also support genocide? If you campaign to redefine marriage you must also want to kill or intern those who disagree with this?

    Can you explain why.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If free thinking is made a crime and Big Brother watches over all then those promoting values are double plus ungood.

    Can you explain how legalizing homosexual marriage makes "free thinking" a crime?
    ISAW wrote: »
    REgimes with atheist i.e. ( changing the traditional nature of belief) and anti family ( i.e. changing the nature of society) as a central part of their philosophy canr into power and implemented that philosophy.

    So any political movement that wishes to redefine marriage must also want to kill millions of people?

    You can't imagine a political movement that would just want to redefine marriage, not genocide?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I pointed out that atheistic and anti family regimes (like nazis Stalin and Pol Pot) killed people unlike the Church.

    Well leaving aside the Church has kill its fair share of people, what you actually claimed was that redefining the traditional notion of marriage will result in the deaths of millions of people.

    Your justification for this seems to be that any group that wants to do this will also want to commit genocide against those who don't agree with them.

    So gay campaigners are secretly genocidal manics akin to Stalin and Hitler.

    Good stuff ISAW. Perhaps when you get back to planet Earth you can check in with us. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #143
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So can you explain how allowing homosexuals to marry will result in the deaths of millions of people?

    Can you showed where I claimed it would?

    Mind you if everyone was homosexual there probably would be a decline in population of billions! :)

    What I pointed to was groups in the past who wanted everyone else to conform to their philosophy.

    Put it this way.
    Being a celibate priest isn't for everyone
    It is a life choice and we can respect people who take it even if we are not religious and think there should be no priests at all.
    But that does not mean a priest can come along and say "I want rights equal to a married couple and a family"
    Mind you the same priest could come along and say
    before i was a priest i was in the Army and have a best friend from that time and we saved each others lives on occasion.
    Neither of is is homosexual but I want to enter into a civil partnership with that man because we both happen to be living in the same house which I own and I don't want him to lose ownership of it should I die.

    There is no question of marriage and family and a priest shouldn't be looking for such rights.
    Unless of course he wants to stop being a priest and get married to a woman and have children.
    So if you support homosexual marriage you must also support genocide? If you campaign to redefine marriage you must also want to kill or intern those who disagree with this?

    No if you support any regime which wants to do away with tried and tested social norms in favour of introducing the same rights to minorities which apply to the social structures of the society but are not intended for those minorities then you are acting as despots did in the past.

    It is also a bit like the "Stan" character in the film The Life of Brian who wants to be a woman because it is his right as a man.
    Can you explain how legalizing homosexual marriage makes "free thinking" a crime?

    Destroying families and traditional values an "reeducating" people so the concept is expunged from society is an attack on the expression of free thinkers against such despotism.
    So any political movement that wishes to redefine marriage must also want to kill millions of people?

    Usually just the atheistic ones that want to redifine marriage and the family.
    You can't imagine a political movement that would just want to redefine marriage, not genocide?

    No. Because if they wanted rights for civil partnerships then those right could be called something else and not "marriage". If they want to redefine the traditional definition of marriage and the family then they are dismantling the society.
    Well leaving aside the Church has kill its fair share of people,

    Possibly millions in 2,000 years. Not in any way anything like the atheists 100 million a half century. That's a factor of at least 20*20*2 =800 times the rate. So if you want to leave aside something about a thousand times worse in tewrms of number of dead then Im not surprised.
    what you actually claimed was that redefining the traditional notion of marriage will result in the deaths of millions of people.

    Marriage and the family. Care to show these perfect societies which dumped the traditional notion of family and which contributed anything other than death and destruction?
    Your justification for this seems to be that any group that wants to do this will also want to commit genocide against those who don't agree with them.

    Not any group. More so the godless ones.

    1. I pointed out a gay Senator who believes in Christ does not want gay marriage.
    2. Atheistic communist regimes killed tens of millions (e.g. Stalin Mao Pol Pot) religiously tolerant communist regimes didn't (e.g. Castro)
    So gay campaigners are secretly genocidal manics akin to Stalin and Hitler.

    People ( usually atheistic) who want to establish their minority view against nature and against the will of the majority and to the detriment of society are akin to Stalin and Hitler. Care to show me the non atheistic or gay groups which took over societies by forcing changes in the law awarding them powers reserved for others and created something good for society out of that?

    Look you are a person who believe ther are some things which are absolutely true for all times in all societies. Some things that are always wrong. You believe that. So leaving the particular issue aside do you agree in principle that If some people come along and say "we want x and want people who do x to have the same rights as people who don't do X " and you X is always wrong and only done by people who like X which everyone else does not approve of then you don't think people should be allowed this do you?


  • Options
    #144
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    People ( usually atheistic) who want to establish their minority view against nature and against the will of the majority and to the detriment of society are akin to Stalin and Hitler. Care to show me the non atheistic or gay groups which took over societies by forcing changes in the law awarding them powers reserved for others and created something good for society out of that?

    Look you are a person who believe ther are some things which are absolutely true for all times in all societies. Some things that are always wrong. You believe that. So leaving the particular issue aside do you agree in principle that If some people come along and say "we want x and want people who do x to have the same rights as people who don't do X " and you X is always wrong and only done by people who like X which everyone else does not approve of then you don't think people should be allowed this do you?

    And what qualifies you to speak for the majority? Tell me, if the majority of people wanted it, would you accept that?


  • Options
    #145
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Barrington wrote: »
    And what qualifies you to speak for the majority? Tell me, if the majority of people wanted it, would you accept that?

    It isn't MY opinion. I am just doing my best to reflect what I believe believers opinions are e.g. the church opinion or the opinion of a gay Senator who is a Christian.

    And I have already commented on the tyranny of the majority. If a minority wanted to institute something which is wrong then it is wrong but it is also wrong if a majority institute it.
    A majority bringing in divorce, prostitution, slavery or free drug use does not necessarily make it morally right.

    The piunt is that while some in the Church have made mistakes they have provided guidance to society. Atheistic regimes who held no God in esteem only provided mayhem.


  • Options
    #146
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    It isn't MY opinion. I am just doing my best to reflect what I believe believers opinions are e.g. the church opinion or the opinion of a gay Senator who is a Christian.

    And I have already commented on the tyranny of the majority. If a minority wanted to institute something which is wrong then it is wrong but it is also wrong if a majority institute it.
    A majority bringing in divorce, prostitution, slavery or free drug use does not necessarily make it morally right.

    But "wrong" is subjective. You, and the majority of Christians may see homosexual marriages as being wrong, but if the majority of people overall are in support of it, and the law changes to allow gay marriages, then the majority of people would not see it as being wrong, which means it would not be wrong in the eyes of society or legality, both of which would be the main factors as to how "wrong" something is.

    You see it as being wrong because of the Bible. What if the Bible is "wrong"?


  • Options
    #147
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Can you showed where I claimed it would?

    Sure
    ISAW wrote: »
    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.

    and
    ISAW wrote: »
    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.
    ISAW wrote: »
    What I pointed to was groups in the past who wanted everyone else to conform to their philosophy.

    To what purpose did you point this out if that has nothing to do with gay rights campaigners, as you now claim?
    ISAW wrote: »
    No if you support any regime which wants to do away with tried and tested social norms in favour of introducing the same rights to minorities which apply to the social structures of the society but are not intended for those minorities then you are acting as despots did in the past.

    Can you name any gay rights organisation that supports a "regime"?

    Also who says marriage was not intended for gay people? You appreciate that Judo-Christian religions didn't invent marriage, I hope.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Destroying families and traditional values an "reeducating" people so the concept is expunged from society is an attack on the expression of free thinkers against such despotism.

    And has anyone in any of the gay rights movements operating in Ireland ever suggested forced re-education of anyone?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Usually just the atheistic ones that want to redifine marriage and the family.
    Really?

    Can you point out where in literature of Irish gay rights groups they call for forced re-education or genocide?
    ISAW wrote: »
    No. Because if they wanted rights for civil partnerships then those right could be called something else and not "marriage". If they want to redefine the traditional definition of marriage and the family then they are dismantling the society.

    and thus wish to commit genocide?

    So let me get this straight, if a gay rights group wants the legal recognition of two homosexual people to be called "marriage" they also want to commit genocide.

    Lets just let that sink in for a bit shall we ....
    ISAW wrote: »
    Possibly millions in 2,000 years. Not in any way anything like the atheists 100 million a half century. That's a factor of at least 20*20*2 =800 times the rate. So if you want to leave aside something about a thousand times worse in tewrms of number of dead then Im not surprised.

    Oh right, so if you are a Catholic you only support the murder of millions of people, not hundreds of millions of people. Thats ok then.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Marriage and the family. Care to show these perfect societies which dumped the traditional notion of family and which contributed anything other than death and destruction?

    Sure, any of the Buddist countries. The Romans also did quite well for themselves. As did the ancient Chinese.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Not any group. More so the godless ones.

    1. I pointed out a gay Senator who believes in Christ does not want gay marriage.
    2. Atheistic communist regimes killed tens of millions (e.g. Stalin Mao Pol Pot) religiously tolerant communist regimes didn't (e.g. Castro)

    Castro didn't have tens of millions of people to kill. Castro killed 100,000+ Cubans and Cuba is considered a genocide country by Genocide Watch.

    So you only care about genocide if it is not "religiously tolerance" :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    People ( usually atheistic) who want to establish their minority view against nature and against the will of the majority and to the detriment of society are akin to Stalin and Hitler.

    And how many gay rights groups wish to over throw democracy?

    Or do they secretly all want to do this?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Care to show me the non atheistic or gay groups which took over societies by forcing changes in the law awarding them powers reserved for others and created something good for society out of that?

    Care to show me an Irish gay organisation who's stated goal is to take over society by force?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Look you are a person who believe ther are some things which are absolutely true for all times in all societies. Some things that are always wrong. You believe that. So leaving the particular issue aside do you agree in principle that If some people come along and say "we want x and want people who do x to have the same rights as people who don't do X " and you X is always wrong and only done by people who like X which everyone else does not approve of then you don't think people should be allowed this do you?

    No they should not be allowed do this.

    But then you aren't just claiming that gay rights activists shouldn't be allowed have gay marriage.

    You are claiming that by wanting gay marriage they are also wanting to forcefully over throw the government and commit genocide :rolleyes:

    I do not believe that State schools should be run by religious organisations. I believe this is wrong.

    That doesn't though mean I believe that everyone who calls for this wants to invoke a modern Inquisition and turn the country into a Christian Taliban. And if I claimed this you would be the first to say it is nonsense.

    Your hysterical association game is frankly disgusting. If the only way to can argue against same sex marriage is by suggesting that those campaigning for it also wish to commit genocide, well I think that demonstrates the morally bankrupt nature of your position.


  • Options
    #148
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    ISAW, do you just make stuff up as you go along? Making claims like the Nazis were pro-gay, that David Norris is anti-gay marriage and secularism=atheism=genocide just show that you have absolutely no understanding of anything you are discussing here. I don't know why your tangential arguments are being entertained, but at any rate, just in case anybody is reading the absurd statements you are making and taking them as fact I must at the very least clarify those three:

    On: The Nazis loved d'gheys;
    The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a "degeneracy" that threatened the "disciplined masculinity" of Germany. Denounced as "antisocial parasites" and as "enemies of the state," more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.
    Claiming Nazis were pro-gay is just as appalling as claiming they were tolerant of Jews, Romani and the disabled.

    On: David Norris is a Christian and hence follows the exact same beliefs as you personally, therefore denying himself the right to marry;
    Senator John Hanafin: I support the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in his decision to rule out gay marriage because it is in conflict with the Constitution and I look forward to the civil partnership Bill. I am reminded of a story told about Sir Thomas More, whose son constantly asked him to do something about a man with whom he had a problem. Sir Thomas More asked his son whether his problem was to do with something against the law of man or the law of God. His son replied it was against the law of God and Sir Thomas More advised him to let God deal with it. However, Sir Thomas More was subsequently asked to recognise the marriage of Henry VIII and therein lies the difference. We are being asked to recognise gay marriage, something I am not prepared to do. What people do in their own homes is one thing; I may not agree with it but that is their own business—-

    Senator David Norris: How very generous of Senator Hanafin.

    An Cathaoirleach: Senator Hanafin without interruption.

    Senator John Hanafin: However, when I am asked to call it a marriage, that is something I am not prepared to do.

    Senator David Norris: Nobody cares what Senator Hanafin calls it.

    An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Norris to respect other speakers. He has already made his contributio

    Senator David Norris: I am tired of being insulted in this House and having the tissue of religion used hypocritically to put me in a second class place and I am not a second class citizen in this country and I will not be a second class citizen. That is rubbish from Senator Hanafin. On the few occasions he speaks it is to blackguard people like me.
    David Norris wrote:
    For most of my life, including most of my adult life, I was branded as a criminal by ancient and alien laws for something over which I had as little control as the colour of my skin. I was what was known in those prim days before gay liberation as a “homosexual”. At one time I was both technically a known criminal and a Member of this House at the same time, yet I have come through to this week when we shall see the passage of a Bill that will give a degree of recognition to same-sex couples. That is certainly a remarkable and radical transformation to be experienced by any human being.

    This is an historic debate and I shall do my best to understand and respect its historic nature. I will do so by dealing honestly, openly and sincerely with the truth and facts, rather than the hollow debating points employed by some who are opposed to the extension of civil rights to gay couples. Let me be clear about one thing. There is nothing visionary in the legislation, nor is there anything revolutionary about it. An historic opportunity has been missed. From being among the leaders, we are now among the laggards of Europe in this regard, falling behind not only the Netherlands and all the Scandinavian countries but even Catholic Spain which has introduced full civil marriage for same-sex couples without society falling apart. This legislation does not grant equality; it merely improves the second-class status of gay people in some practical ways.
    The man is incredibly outspoken on equal marriage rights, he is the last person in this country you could claim to be against gay marriage, I mean really, where the hell did you come up with that one?

    On: secularism=atheism=genocide;
    This one is a little less in your face, but none the less pretty damn obvious, lets start with some facts, figures and definitions;
    Secular: not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
    secular buildings
    secular attitudes to death
    Contrasted with sacred

    Atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

    Both definitions taken from the OED, do you see the difference? Secular doesn't recognise religion, atheism does not follow it. A secular state is one where the state does not endorse any one religion, leaving people to follow the beliefs of their choosing without interference from the state provided they are not breaking any laws, an atheist state promotes atheism over religion, even atheists do not want the latter.

    As for your insistence a disbelief in God results in death and destruction, polls show 23% of Swedish people to be atheist, and 53% to believe there is some class of vague spirit entity not connected with any religion, only 23% believe there is a God. France is at 33% non believers and 27% spiritual entity,

    In contrast, only about 15% of Americans have no religion, less than two percent of these are atheist or agnostic, making the others those 'spiritual entity' believers, only 7.4% of Brazilians are non-religious. You see where this is headed, lets look at murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants :D

    Sweden:1
    France:1.6
    USA:5
    Brazil: 23.8

    So atheists don't kill people then, people do, but of course given that this state is not, and will never be, an 'atheist' state, that doesn't even matter.

    I really don't know why people are biting on this and addressing the evil atheist arguments as though they are actually relevant, I mean really, does nobody find themselves laughing at the reasoning that communist dictatorships are bad because they have the characteristic of being atheist? If I were to address that concept on it's own level I would be arguing that European fascist dictatorships were bad because they were celebrated as a pro-religion alternative to communism, are we getting the point yet? The religious orientation of a brutal dictatorship is secondary to the fact that we're talking about a brutal dictatorship.


  • Options
    #149
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Barrington wrote: »
    But "wrong" is subjective.

    Not when we are specifically discussing natural law and things which are always wrong and/or things which have been found by society (whether a Christian one or not) to be the model from which to base society it isn't!
    You, and the majority of Christians may see homosexual marriages as being wrong,

    Please stop this! Stop trying to change the issue into an attack on my personal beliefs!
    It has nothing to do with that. Also, "natural lawW" as I have stated isn't reserved to Christians. the point is that no minority majority or otherwise can do something which is against nature and propose that as natural. That is the natural law argument.

    Second of all as i have shown even homosexuals do not see it as "marriage" !
    but if the majority of people overall are in support of it, and the law changes to allow gay marriages, then the majority of people would not see it as being wrong, which means it would not be wrong in the eyes of society or legality,

    So if a majority votes for child abuse or is a country allows sex between an adult and a child then it is "right" to do it there even though you know it is always wrong whether there or anywhere else?
    both of which would be the main factors as to how "wrong" something is.

    You see it as being wrong because of the Bible. What if the Bible is "wrong"?

    We dealt with that argument already. Genetic fallacy - origin isn't cause.


  • Options
    #150
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not when we are specifically discussing natural law and things which are always wrong and/or things which have been found by society (whether a Christian one or not) to be the model from which to base society it isn't!



    Please stop this! Stop trying to change the issue into an attack on my personal beliefs!
    It has nothing to do with that. Also, "natural lawW" as I have stated isn't reserved to Christians. the point is that no minority majority or otherwise can do something which is against nature and propose that as natural. That is the natural law argument.

    And yet it has already been pointed out that homosexuality can be found in nature. Many animals belonging to various species have displayed homosexual tendencies. So surely, homosexuality is natural, just not as common as heterosexuality.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Second of all as i have shown even homosexuals do not see it as "marriage" !

    Some homosexuals, not all. Unless you can show some statistics which displays that a majority of homosexuals do not see it as marriage, this point is moot.

    ISAW wrote: »
    So if a majority votes for child abuse or is a country allows sex between an adult and a child then it is "right" to do it there even though you know it is always wrong whether there or anywhere else?

    But that wouldn't happen. Think about it, 100 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for men to marry girls who were younger than what would be the age of consent now, yet homosexuality was illegal and many people killed for it. Nowadays, child abuse is considered to be one of the vilest acts a person can commit, and homosexuality is widely accepted. There's a reason. Homosexual acts between consenting adults is fine because there is no victim. There is always a victim in child abuse cases. That's why it'll never be voted in. So again, this point is moot.
    ISAW wrote: »
    We dealt with that argument already. Genetic fallacy - origin isn't cause.

    So if it has been proven that homosexuality is recognised in nature, what makes you think it is wrong? Why is it unnatural if it occurs in nature?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    Barrington wrote: »
    So if it has been proven that homosexuality is recognised in nature, what makes you think it is wrong? Why is it unnatural if it occurs in nature?

    Could be caused by pollutants!

    "While environmentalists are usually vocal about perceived threats ranging from pesticides to global warming, there is a silence when it comes to one threat already harming the water supply: hormones from birth-control pills.
    According to the National Catholic Register, EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colo., two years ago.
    When they netted 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city's sewer plant, they found 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange "intersex" fish with male and female features.
    It's "the first thing that I've seen as a scientist that really scared me," university biologist John Woodling told the Denver Post.

    Read more: Birth-control pills poison everyone? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42520#ixzz1WAcmBHVh


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement