Papacy applauds LGBT progress

[tulc]

in pagan ancient Rome, the Father would have the right to leave his child outside to die if he suspected for any reason that the child was not his or if there was any defect found in the child

so.... just because the State says you can do something, it does not mean that there is a true intrinsic God given right

....uhmmm...ok so divorce, doing yard work on Saturday, wearing mixed fabrics or eating pork rinds also shouldn't be rights here in America? See part of the problem here is you want to be able to decide what rights two American adults can or can't have. Doesn't that make them second class citizens to you?
tulc(is sipping the last cup of coffee for the day)

 

[Rhamiel]

nope, not second class citizens

like I said before, homosexuals have every right that a heterosexual has
no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex

you listed a lot of nonsense stuff and you bolded you

we live in a democracy don't we? hmmm lets have the people vote on it and see what the people want

 

[judechild]

....uhmmm...ok so divorce, doing yard work on Saturday, wearing mixed fabrics or eating pork rinds also shouldn't be rights here in America? See part of the problem here is you want to be able to decide what rights two American adults can or can't have. Doesn't that make them second class citizens to you?:

That makes very little sense, since you're talking about a definition. If the definition of marriage is, ontologically, between a man and a woman, then it's no more 'second-class creating'' of homosexuals than it is to say that three people don't constitute a marriage. To understand this, we have to look at the concept of a definition.

First: all definitions are ''limiting''. Imagine all being, completely undifferentiated; in this state it's impossible to make sense of it. In order to understrasnd being, it's necessary to mentally separate one part from another - in other words, to form limits on the monadic reality that is being itself by recognizing that this part of being is a pencil, that part is a car. The same thjing happens in metaphysical and ethical concepts: people make choices, that is a fact. But in order to make sense of their meaning,we have to mentally separate justice from injustice, develop ideas of virtue, etc.

Marriage is a thing; that is, it has a definition; that means that it is limited liker a pencil, a car, or the idea of justice is. As such, there are things that are, and things that aren't marriage. The traditional definition of marriage is based on objective principles relating to sexuality (since it's clear that sexuality has a specific reason for its existence) which make it possible to say ''because this couple (homosexual or heterosexual) cannot consummate, it cannot be a marriage.'' The redefinition (''marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults"), on other other hand, is based on nothing - it's only justification can be ''the state says that two men can constitute a marriage, while three wemen cannot.''

That is because the re-definition of marriage is extremely irrational - there is simply no way to justify limitations of the definition. The re-definition has found it necessary to overturn the Principle of Consummation in every place where it has taken effect (because homosexual couples cannot consummate, and so it can't be that consummation is necessary for the legal completion of the union). The divorce of marriage from its objective moorings only makes it arbitrary and dependent on the temper of the state - not more-inclusive and certainly not more rational. The irrational nature of the re-definition is best displayed by its inability to consistently answer the question: How would the re-definition exclude non-sexual friendships between two people from the definition of marriage?"

It is not the creation of a second-class citizenry to say that, because marriage is a thing, some things are not marriage; that's just the way a definition works.

 

[tulc]

nope, not second class citizens

like I said before, homosexuals have every right that a heterosexual has
no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex

you listed a lot of nonsense stuff and you bolded you

we live in a democracy don't we? hmmm lets have the people vote on it and see what the people want

...you want to put your rights to a vote also?
tulc(doesn't think that sounds like a good idea)

 

[tulc]

That makes very little sense, since you're talking about a definition. If the definition of marriage is, ontologically, between a man and a woman, then it's no more 'second-class creating'' of homosexuals than it is to say that three people don't constitute a marriage. To understand this, we have to look at the concept of a definition.

Interesting, according to the Bible 3 people do constitute a marriage.

First: all definitions are ''limiting''. Imagine all being, completely undifferentiated; in this state it's impossible to make sense of it. In order to understrasnd being, it's necessary to mentally separate one part from another - in other words, to form limits on the monadic reality that is being itself by recognizing that this part of being is a pencil, that part is a car. The same thjing happens in metaphysical and ethical concepts: people make choices, that is a fact. But in order to make sense of their meaning,we have to mentally separate justice from injustice, develop ideas of virtue, etc.

Marriage is a thing; that is, it has a definition; that means that it is limited liker a pencil, a car, or the idea of justice is. As such, there are things that are, and things that aren't marriage. The traditional definition of marriage is based on objective principles relating to sexuality (since it's clear that sexuality has a specific reason for its existence) which make it possible to say ''because this couple (homosexual or heterosexual) cannot consummate, it cannot be a marriage.'' The redefinition (''marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults"), on other other hand, is based on nothing - it's only justification can be ''the state says that two men can constitute a marriage, while three wemen cannot.''

That is because the re-definition of marriage is extremely irrational - there is simply no way to justify limitations of the definition. The re-definition has found it necessary to overturn the Principle of Consummation in every place where it has taken effect (because homosexual couples cannot consummate, and so it can't be that consummation is necessary for the legal completion of the union). The divorce of marriage from its objective moorings only makes it arbitrary and dependent on the temper of the state - not more-inclusive and certainly not more rational. The irrational nature of the re-definition is best displayed by its inability to consistently answer the question: How would the re-definition exclude non-sexual friendships between two people from the definition of marriage?"

It is not the creation of a second-class citizenry to say that, because marriage is a thing, some things are not marriage; that's just the way a definition works.

hmmm...so (if I'm reading the above right) marriage never changes, in all cultures and in all societies marriage has only ever been 1 man and 1 wife....except well the Bible doesn't say that does it? So the Book that all Christians are supposed to believe in, what's considered a marriage has changed quite a bit over the years. Here's the problem I've having here: marriage should be about two adults joining together with the one they love. And they shouldn't have to have other peoples permission to do so. You don't like the idea? That's your problem I'm just not sure you not liking something is justification for other people to not have the right you have: you get to marry the person you love and they can't.
tulc(is enjoying the recent snow here in Chicago!)

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I think bodies like the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church also need to now examine what happens when a legally married homosexual / couple wants to join a church that officially does not recognize that marriage. On the moral side, it is fairly simple to ask that they live a chaste life. However, how do we handle the issues that are now part of a legal marriage?

 

[Archivist]

That makes very little sense, since you're talking about a definition. If the definition of marriage is, ontologically, between a man and a woman, then it's no more 'second-class creating'' of homosexuals than it is to say that three people don't constitute a marriage. To understand this, we have to look at the concept of a definition.

But you ignore the fact that definitions change over time. At one time the definition of the word "marriage" included the marriage of one man and multiple women. In some cultures that is still the case. Are you suggesting that the original definition should not have evolved and we should return to polygamy?

Other words have changed in meaning over time: Nice once meant foolish. Awful meant deserving of awe. Girl could refer to a young person of either sex. Sophisticated meant corrupted. Burglary once required the breaking and entering of a house in the night.

The meaning of these terms changed over time. Why should the definition of "marriage" be carved in stone and unchangable?

 

[Rhamiel]

...you want to put your rights to a vote also?
tulc(doesn't think that sounds like a good idea)

no, I was just trying to make a point, MOST people do not want homosexual marriage
but I do not think we should vote on our rights
you are the one who wants to redefine our rights

our rights come from God, God abhors homosexual relations

now, we live in a country that does not follow the laws of God...

 

[Rhamiel]

The meaning of these terms changed over time. Why should the definition of "marriage" be carved in stone and unchangable?

God
because of God

 

[Yarddog]

Look for his announcement that the church will perform civil unions.

The Catholic Church does not, in the slightest amount perform "CIVIL UNIONS" regardless of whom wishes to have one performed.

Or full on gay marriages in those few states that permit such an abomination.

The Catholic Church will not perform any marriage not deemed a valid marriage in the eyes of the Gospel. No same sex marriages nor marriages which a man or woman is a divorcee or one where the couple does not the proper understanding of what a marriage is.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church and it will be protected.

Next, transsexual priests!

 

[Archivist]

God
because of God

Then I presume that you would agree that the definition of marriage should include marriages between one man and multiple woman.

 

[Yarddog]

Then I presume that you would agree that the definition of marriage should include marriages between one man and multiple woman.

Are we talking Old or New Testament?

 

[Archivist]

Are we talking Old or New Testament?

We know that marriages between one man and multiple women existed in the Old Testament. New Testament does not forbid such marriages except in reference to church leadership.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

no, I was just trying to make a point, MOST people do not want homosexual marriage
but I do not think we should vote on our rights
you are the one who wants to redefine our rights

our rights come from God, God abhors homosexual relations

now, we live in a country that does not follow the laws of God...

At least in the US, according to polls taken in the past years, this is not the case. It is most recently close to 55% (give or take, depending on the poll and research group doing it).

Neat little site that put together results (including the question) from numerous polls over the last several years.
Civil Rights

That is certainly not "most people don't want homosexual marriages", though, I am sure, most of those in favor would support churches being able to (as they are able now) to refuse to marry those they do not want to.

And, as we do not live in a nation based (more than partially) on Christian principles or God's laws, the fact that it is not biblicly supported should not matter for the legal issue of SSM.

 

[Yarddog]

We know that marriages between one man and multiple women existed in the Old Testament. New Testament does not forbid such marriages except in reference to church leadership.

The NT not stating that all believers were to do the same does not mean that this was the practice. If we look at at what is said, Paul always speaks in the singular when he refers to a husband and wife. We do not see a man with many wives.

 

[Rhamiel]

We know that marriages between one man and multiple women existed in the Old Testament. New Testament does not forbid such marriages except in reference to church leadership.

In the Gospel According to St. Matthew Chapter 19, Jesus talks about how it was from the beginning. Jesus only talks about one man and one woman for there being a marriage. polygamy is not allowed in the New Testament. Jesus explains what marriage is, and He does not talk about polygamy or homosexual unions

Remember, the first man in the Bible to take more then one wife was the wicked descendant of Cain named Lamech, and Lamech was also a murderer. THIS is the origin of polygamy.

 

[tulc]

no, I was just trying to make a point, MOST people do not want homosexual marriage
but I do not think we should vote on our rights
you are the one who wants to redefine our rights

No, I want them to be equal, you want them to only apply to people you like. That's the real difference.

our rights come from God, God abhors homosexual relations

And divorce and doing yard work on Saturday eating leavened bread at certain times of the year or mixing your wools fabrics with your linen fabrics. How about we deal with those first and then take care of this?

now, we live in a country that does not follow the laws of God...

Thank goodness! I like rib tips and cheese burgers!
tulc(will gladly give those up when in Heaven but til then...)

 

[Rhamiel]

are you a judaizer?
why do you keep bringing up things from the Old Law?

man does not go to hell for eating a bacon cheeseburger
a man does go to hell for committing sodomy

 

[tulc]

are you a judaizer?
why do you keep bringing up things from the Old Law?

uhmmm...I thought since you seemed upset that "we live in a country that does not follow the laws of God... " you meant that we (as a Nation) should follow the, you know, Laws God gave. All of them, not just the ones you like.

man does not go to hell for eating a bacon cheeseburger
a man does go to hell for committing sodomy

Actually picking up sticks on Saturday was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament so I kind of think it was important. Eating pork made you unclean so that bacon cheeseburger? It's kind of also a big deal. Those were Gods Laws, not suggestions.
tulc(wont even get started on divorce laws or legal rape in Gods Laws)

 

[judechild]

Interesting, according to the Bible 3 people do constitute a marriage.

Well, I'm afraid that, in the context of your overall argument (I.e. that what the bible says doesn't matter in the question of what the state should define as marriage), you can't even object to my argument by saying ''according to the Bible 3 people do constitute a marriage.'' What you cut off on one hand can't be used by the other. I'll respond to the illogical use of the Bible at the end of the post, but since it's not a part of my argument, I'll go back to objective principles.

hmmm...so (if I'm reading the above right) marriage never changes, in all cultures and in all societies marriage has only ever been 1 man and 1 wife....except well the Bible doesn't say that does it? So the Book that all Christians are supposed to believe in, what's considered a marriage has changed quite a bit over the years. Here's the problem I've having here: marriage should be about two adults joining together with the one they love. And they shouldn't have to have other peoples permission to do so. You don't like the idea? That's your problem I'm just not sure you not liking something is justification for other people to not have the right you have: you get to marry the person you love and they can't.
tulc(is enjoying the recent snow here in Chicago!)

You can go on your rants, but, if you noticed, I didn't mention the bible in my argument at all; but you have. Hence, it would seem, paradoxically, that you want the law to be based on your reading of the Bible, while I think it should be based on objective principles.

Since you decided not to think at all, and instead responded with clap-trap about what I like and don't like, I'll have to re-state certain parts of my argument by asking a few questions:

I asked you to defend the redefinition (that marriage is between two consenting adults), by telling me how a non-sexual friendship between two people does not constitute a marriage. What is ontologically dissimilar between two men in a sexual relationship, and, say, if you and I, a 23-year-old continent who will perpetually stay that way were to declare that we are married? Under the re-definition, sex is meaningless in the relationship - hence there is no principle of consummation; so I wouldn't necessarily be violating my vows, would I? I realize you don't love me - and the sentiment is returned - but then, that's never been a reason for the state subsidizing marriage; so that's also no objection. So tell me, then:

1) How is a non-sexual friendship between two adults (or even two children, since sex isn't necessary in marriage under the redefinition), different than a married couple (either homo or heterosexual)?
2) If marriage is not related to sexuality (of any type) under the re-definition, then how does marriage expanded to two men or women of the same sex constitute raising their sexuality from 2nd-class status?

I'd also like to point out the irony in telling a celibate that he has the right to marry. What Ramiel has been saying is true, though, everyone in an individual state has the same right to marry as everyone else; it's only a question of the definition. If I live in Iowa, I can get married to any consenting man or woman; if I live in Nebraska, I can get married to any consenting woman - in both cases, the possibilities that are open to me are the same whether I am homo or heterosexual. In fact, under the re-definition, unless you can show me how non-sexual friendships ontologically differ, I'm free to get married to another man without necessary being suspected of violating my continence.

Regarding the Bible: it is a complex book, and it describes many different cultures. Everyone's who is not an evangelical knows that revelation occurs in a contexualized situation (hence, God is depicted as ordering a genocide in 1 Samuel). Ironically, appealing to the bible doesn't help your argument fort the simple reason that - while polygamy was practiced in the Mesopotamean region - never was polyandromy (and still, as far as I know, this is the case). That is because the objective ends of sexuality (which are obvious) were still the basis for marriage. Over time, the reality that our fundamental make-up involves thee bonding hormones to attach themselves to one person came tho dominate - but that too, is based on an objective reality.

I'd also like to point out that I did not say that all cultures have always defined marriage between one man and one woman, but they have always acknowledged the objective ends of marriage as being based on those of sexuality - hence even in Greece, where homosexuality was largely accepted, there was not same-sex marriage (see Plato's Protagoras, and the Elusinian Mysteries).

Anyways, if you answer my two questions, then I will be happy.