Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[KitKatMatt]

"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord"

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. "

"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"

"House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord."

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."



The list goes on. I swear, I couldn't find a single thing which would lead me to think it was ever believed by anyone, including Jesus, that it's okay for homosexuals to marry. Direct me please?

Found this though:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

[Queller]

As usual, you have it all backwards here. If you've been doing any reading on this forum at all, you'd notice that it's actually the atheists who like to hide behind the business structure to say, "You are running a business that serves the public and so you have to follow the law that says you no longer have any say in how you conduct yourself".

The problem with your claim is the "conducting yourself" and "conducting your business" are two different things regardless of how some people try to pretend they are one and the same.

 

[Queller]

When a society legitimises non-procreative sex they also legitimise sex with children who are above the age of criminal responsibility (10 in the UK);

Sorry but that doesn't follow in the slightest.

because if you can consent to committing murder you can consent to sex (the latter being a far less serious matter than the former).

Murder by definition involves the non-consent of another party. Not the same thing as consensual sex at all.

So a society should never grant recognition to sexual relationships that cannot procreate.

And marriage is inherently sexual.

So they can call their relationship whatever they like, but it should be given no recognition by either church, state or any sane member of society.

Note: this applies equally to heterosexual marriage with or between sterile people, and it also applies to the use of contraceptives. Christians need to wake up to the fact that it far more than a matter of same-sex "marriage" which is the issue here.....or in short, stop picking on the gays when you are partaking of the very same behaviour.

I will say that you are the first person I have seen who argues a procreation argument against same-sex marriage and is consistent in their beliefs when it comes to infertile heterosexual couples. Kudos to you for that at least.

 

[Queller]

"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord"

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. "

"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"

"House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord."

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."



The list goes on. I swear, I couldn't find a single thing which would lead me to think it was ever believed by anyone, including Jesus, that it's okay for homosexuals to marry. Direct me please?

Found this though:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Those are all sectarian arguments against same-sex marriage. Unfortunately the topic under discussion is secular arguments against same-sex marriage. Got any?

 

[Euler]

When a society legitimises non-procreative sex they also legitimise sex with children who are above the age of criminal responsibility (10 in the UK); because if you can consent to committing murder you can consent to sex (the latter being a far less serious matter than the former).

So a society should never grant recognition to sexual relationships that cannot procreate.

And marriage is inherently sexual.

So they can call their relationship whatever they like, but it should be given no recognition by either church, state or any sane member of society.

Note: this applies equally to heterosexual marriage with or between sterile people, and it also applies to the use of contraceptives. Christians need to wake up to the fact that it far more than a matter of same-sex "marriage" which is the issue here.....or in short, stop picking on the gays when you are partaking of the very same behaviour.

Brave New World.

 

[dazed]

Murder by definition involves the non-consent of another party. Not the same thing as consensual sex at all.

Not really. Kervokian's patients consented to having their lives terminated. Kervokian was still charged with murders.

 

[Inkfingers]

Murder by definition involves the non-consent of another party. Not the same thing as consensual sex at all.

I am clearly speaking of the perpetrator of the crime being held accountable for their actions. Nothing that I said implies that the victim consents.

If you can be held responsible for committing murder you are also able to consent to non-procreative sex, as the former (murder) is a far more serious matter than the latter (non-procreative sex).

And in this country you can be held accountable for murder at age 10. You don't receive the adult punishment but the punishment is still VERY severe (consider the Jamie Bulger killers).

So when we accept non-procreative consenting sex we must extend that to include ALL who can consent....and that must logically include children who are capable of being held responsible for murder.

Now I kind of hope that you agree that sex with children is a truly disgusting thing, but if we allow non-procreative consenting sex we MUST ALSO allow that to include children over the age of criminal responsibility - and it is only a matter of time before this comes about. The argument for lowering the age of consent is already being made in mainstream venues of media and academia.

The only defences against this are:
* raise the age of criminal responsibility to match the age of consent
or
* stop considering non-procreative sex to be legitimate

The former of these options would let a LOT of criminals off the hook

So we are left with the latter, and it MUST apply to homosexuality, sterility and contraception use equally.

I will say that you are the first person I have seen who argues a procreation argument against same-sex marriage and is consistent in their beliefs when it comes to infertile heterosexual couples. Kudos to you for that at least.

I wish that more would see the link. The matter applies equally to all and we should not single out same-sex couples.

 

[KitKatMatt]

If you can be held responsible for committing murder you are also able to consent to non-procreative sex, as the former (murder) is a far more serious matter than the latter (non-procreative sex).

Good luck with that...

 

[Inkfingers]

Good luck with that...

The arguments are already being made to lower the age of consent in society.

It is only a matter of time before these people get it reduced to age 10.

The only serious defence against that is recognising that legitimising non-procreative sex is the foundation they rest upon - take that away and their case crumbles (and it isn't "hate speech" because it is about acts and not natures).

 

[KitKatMatt]

The arguments are already being made to lower the age of consent in society.

It is only a matter of time before these people get it reduced to age 10.

The only serious defence against that is recognising that legitimising non-procreative sex is the foundation they rest upon - take that away and their case crumbles (and it isn't "hate speech" because it is about acts and not natures).

I'm just gonna keep letting you talk, because every post is like going further down the rabbit hole...

 

[Inkfingers]

I'm just gonna keep letting you talk, because every post is like going further down the rabbit hole...

Actually, it's leading out of wonderland...but clearly your purpose is to keep people there with your unsubstantiated spin.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Actually, it's leading out of wonderland...but clearly your purpose is to keep people there with your unsubstantiated spin.

I find this post hilarious considering I haven't given any input at all on your ramblings on this thread.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

quatona

I don’t want us to go in circles through the ever same routines, but I don´t know how to prevent this.

Neither do I. My complaint about people not living up to their convictions is a common one put forward by many. I hear it all the time from people complaining about governments who promise much but deliver little. Maybe no one has found a solution but you seem to use that to dismiss that we shouldn't even make it a point and try to do something. I cannot solve the worlds problems but I can do my bit. That is what Christ said, "to do unto others as you would do for yourself ". That is the Christian value I believe in and many practice by not always seeking self and helping others. But you are right it is totally off topic.

But your opinion as to whether it is your opinion or not is still your opinion. Unless you can demonstrate it to be a fact, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

I was mainly stating that what I believe or what Christians believe from what Christ expects is something they dont want to do or find hard to do. So its not really something they thought up because it goes against their natural thoughts and desires. IE they are following Gods will and not their own.

That we have adopted an opinion from someone whom we consider wiser than ourselves doesn´t change anything about it being our opinion.
On another note, who is a comparably not-wise person to judge another person smart? Jesus´ opinions appeal to you, that´s why you call them wise. If you could demonstrate how they are particularly wise, there would be at least a start for giving your opinion more credit than anybody else´s.

Well thats easy. I can use what secular society uses which is a majority view and a consensus of opinion. Jesus whether you believe in Him or not is considered a wise man by most people.

If I were to summarize this paragraph, I would - in contradiction to your introduction to it - say it is easier for you to live as a Christian.

Not really, I am made up of the same things as you. I just chose to take a punt of God. But I think its there for all of us to choose or not. Maybe you just havnt come to that cross road yet.

You are simplifying things. "Our societies" are a mixture of very different tendencies, convictions and ideals. "Our societies are geared on the self" is just selective perception. You are part of society, I am part of society. Neither of us is "geared on the self", and I know plenty of others who aren´t. So there. Don´t make sweeping generalization.
If your message is "Don´t be geared on the self" there are plenty of ways and opportunities to make yourself heard, the same ways and opportunities every other individual has to promote e.g. the message "Be geared on the self." If you have good arguments you might convince people. Every reasonable argument will make people more likely to be responsive than "I believe in God who says so."

Ive already given that argument. If we have less and give more than we prevent millions form dying. Its called sharing. But it means we have to have less, less of the excess maybe or just less period. Do unto others what you would want them to do for you.

Which void? People do have their convictions - there is no void. Just because they are different than mine doesn´t mean there´s a void in them.
The purpose of pursuing a good way of people getting along with each other is a huge task and is asking a lot from everyone every day. So this alone is enough to prevent there being a void. Society is about nothing but creating a good society, and that´s a full time job.
One thing you probably can´t fathom is the attitude of having one´s own strong convictions, yet embracing the diversity of different people and different convictions

Society is mainly about what I can have or need so that my life is better. That is the primarily motivation. You see in in consumerism and the way our economies are geared. Profits before people and we are all a part of that. But that system is starting to collapse as we have seen with the GFC. Now countries like Greece the people are suffering and the EEC asks for austerity. They want money and accountability and dont care about people having nothing. But sorry I go on again about something that many dont want to know. But I work in an industry that has to pick up the pieces so I guess I focus on it more.
Austerity doesn't work: New IMF report details the damage

No doubt. But you say that about a "free society" as if the same weren´t true about an unfree society.

An unfree society has made its choices and obviously they made the wrong ones if they are not free. So you have to choose carefully when you have the freedom because freedom allows you to have many opportunities and there is more chance of choosing the wrong things. But in saying that I am not sure if we are really as free as we think. It depends what you mean be free. We seem to be getting more and more restrictions all the time. I dont know about where you are from but Australia is being over legislated and regulated.
Australians are becoming over-regulated worrywarts: Let our young people drive - On Line Opinion - 1/9/2004

So we are back at: 'even if people know what´s best to do, they often don´t do it'. Again: This isn´t an argument for or against any conviction or whatever. It´s just an observation that affects whatever conviction, including yours. And assuming for a moment that there is a God, it is quite obviously affecting his conviction as well, since it is a problem that his believers have to.
So please stop using this argument

It doesn't even have to involve God. Sure it is just an observation but its an observation that many make even non religious people about their Governments and the system they live in. Its not doing enough for the needy they cry. We have to make that statemnet and take that stand before we can do something. We have to acknowledge that first. Then we have to ,look at our priorities. The only time where I will say that God or a moral point of view will come in is what those priorities are. Religious charities will say the needy. I as a believer will say the needy and people before making money and building some our own portfolios. Governments will take care of what they can but they work to budgets and they are driven by many factors like staying in power. But I better be careful because I'm raving again. But I also walk the walk.

Yes, what to it? Again: we agree that people have different opinions. You needn´t bring it up time and again, as though it´s something that can be blamed on anything in particular. It´s a fact.
I have spend quite some time telling you how I think we deal best with this. And your final objections are always:

I have no problem with people having different opinions. But we can influence those opinions by what we associate ourselves with. Often opinions are formed by what people see and hear in their society. As I said with freedom we have a greater responsibility. So we have to be careful about what we promote. In the end the people that are in charge of society will bring in measures that will stop people doing things that cause problems anyway. But its normally a reaction. We need to have a look at what we model ourselves on and perhaps realize that we have a habit of choosing the wrong options a lot of the time.

1. "But there will be people who will disagree" (Yes, that´s what we have to deal with. Don´t expect me to be able to abolish this fact.
Or, at least, if you want to hold it against my and in favor of your approach, please start showing me how your approach will abolish the fact that people disagree. Now that you have heard my suggestions and aren´t satisfied with them, start giving yours. Not dreams, not desired results, not a hypothetical that works from the premise that disagreements aren´t there - but a practical, workable approach that will gain the desired result of doing away with diversity. What is your suggestion?

Its not doing away with diversity. Its a bit like harnessing a herd of sheep into a paddock. You have to set the agenda not be force but guiding them. Whatever you promote on your TVs, in the media, on the streets is what will filter down to the people. I guess education is the key. But the basis should be dont unto others what you would want them to do to you.

2. "But people don´t do what´s needed even though they are convinced it is good". Yes, and this also is agreed upon - but here also you hold it against certain approaches but haven´t come up with a single practical, workable method that results in making people act up to their convictions. Believing in Gods is not and has, quite obviously, never been warranting this any more than any other conviction.

Well obviously I disagree. If there is one time I will bring God in it is here. I know that society without God can do the same sometimes. But if there is one thing that God/religion has shown they are good at acting on their belief. I am obviously speaking about the Christian God here. The salvation army is one example. They have been doing it for over 100 years and were the original ones who started all this type of thing in societies. I know there are non religious organizations as well. But the religious ones have this as their mission statemnet and creed. The governments know this because they leave it up to them to do all their dirty work. I should know I work in the industry.


But I think I will leave it at this as it is getting a bit long and it is off topic. Perhaps we can pick it up again sometime in another more suited forum. But then you may have had enough. But I do value your opinion and I enjoy the debate.

 

[Aldebaran]

If by "hiding behind the business structure" you mean "agreeing that businesses have a responsibility to abide by the business rules and regulations that apply in the area where they operate," then no, it's not just the atheists.

True. It would apply well to liberal progressives as well. But for those of us who place obeying God above obeying man, there's a conflict.

 

[Aldebaran]

Like I said, DISHONEST and COWARDLY!

Please point out where any atheist on this board has put such a claim! I have seen a number of people, atheists AND people of faith, state that those who are bigoted towards gays are nevertheless required to obey the relevant laws. But, no say in how they conduct themselves?? You're lying.

That guy who posted it in post #468. Go back and read it and you'll see that it was said. What was his name again? Doesn't matter now, does it?

 

[WindStaff]

Sounds like letting your child think and do whatever they want, the same ideology which has led to juvenile courts being larger then general courts and school shootings something like a season!

And the dubious amount of LGBT which magically tripled in just a few decades, because you know, it's natural and not a choice

 

[Belk]

Sounds like letting your child think and do whatever they want, the same ideology which has led to juvenile courts being larger then general courts and school shootings something like a season!

And the dubious amount of LGBT which magically tripled in just a few decades, because you know, it's natural and not a choice

Indeed. What ever you do, do not let your child think.

 

[Aldebaran]

Indeed. What ever you do, do not let your child think.

......."and do whatever they want". You seemed to have stopped short when you saw the part you liked. Children need discipline and guidance when they're growing up.

 

[David Brider]

......."and do whatever they want". You seemed to have stopped short when you saw the part you liked. Children need discipline and guidance when they're growing up.

But "accepting their identity if they realise they're trans*" isn't the same thing as "letting them do whatever they want," and doesn't mean denying the need for discipline and guidance.