Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 106 of 134 (174342)
01-06-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by commike37
01-06-2005 12:08 AM


Re: Is there really no questioning this?
Commike37
commoke37 writes:
To clarify:
The Judeo-Christian nature defines marriage.
The secular nature promotes the benefits of marriage (under its current definition) by granting political privileges to married people. It does not define marriage.
This hasn’t really clarified it for me, so let me ask you this: Are you proposing that only Judeo-Christian marriages should be recognized in this Country?
And why even mention the health issue? What does it have to do with discrimination? Fineheterosexual marriages result in better health (maybe), so does that mean that only heterosexual marriages should be allowed? Would not it also be good for a single homosexual to get married, so he/she can have the benefits of marriage and thus be, by your own words, more healthy than when they were single?
Do you think that a homosexual male that does what many Christians say he should do (i.e. marry a women anyway cuz it’s the Christian thing to do) would really be more healthy than if he remained single or, God forbid, married another male? Or do you think that a homosexual male should remain single, even though you yourself have repeatedly stated that married couples are healthier? I guess you feel the homosexuals deserve be in poorer health than heterosexuals.
My biggest area of confusion, I guess, is in trying to decipher what exactly you think is Christian about banning gay marriage. I think it’s what Jar has been trying to get from you for quite some time, but has yet to receive an answer. So let me try. If you know that by denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are also going to deny them: A) health care, B) protection from domestic violence, C) access to protection under divorce laws, D) and inheritance rights, then how can you in any way consider your action to be Christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 12:08 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 5:37 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 134 (174504)
01-06-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by FliesOnly
01-06-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Is there really no questioning this?
This hasn’t really clarified it for me, so let me ask you this: Are you proposing that only Judeo-Christian marriages should be recognized in this Country?
Well, you can't go around willy-nilly recognizing every possible form of marriage (homosexual, polygamous, own family). It's like making a gifted education class for everyone. You had to establish some sort of standard for marriage. This standard was largely borrowed from a Judeo-Christian (in the Middle East, it may have been borrowed off of Islam). It's not very strict Judeo-Christian because of separation of church and state (ie: you can't ban a believer from marrying an unbeliever under the federal definition of marriage). The fact that it is partially borrowed from Judeo-Christian tradition does give marriage some sanctity. Not as much sanctity as a marriage in a Christian church, but it still has sanctity (just like gifted classes are challenging). To remove the Judeo-Christian standard would take away the sanctity of marriage.
And why even mention the health issue? What does it have to do with discrimination? Fineheterosexual marriages result in better health (maybe), so does that mean that only heterosexual marriages should be allowed? Would not it also be good for a single homosexual to get married, so he/she can have the benefits of marriage and thus be, by your own words, more healthy than when they were single?
I'm saying that, evidence-wise, this info would likely apply to only heterosexual marriages (just do to the sheer lack of gay marriages that exist, especially in the past). It's not known whether or not the results would hold true for homosexual marriages. But that's evidence-wise of course.
My biggest area of confusion, I guess, is in trying to decipher what exactly you think is Christian about banning gay marriage. I think it’s what Jar has been trying to get from you for quite some time, but has yet to receive an answer. So let me try.
The part of marriage where the government hands out marriage licenses and the associated political benefits does not discriminate. These licenses are handed out regardless of what the definition of marriage is. If marriage is heterosexual-only, then heterosexuals get the licenses. If marriage is hetero- and homosexual, then both get the licenses. The agencies that hand out just promote marriage through political benefits. They just check to see that you meet the standards. They don't make standards.
Just like it's important to separate church and state (not completely, but to some degree), it's important to separate marriage into that which promotes it and that which defines it.
edit: Defense of Marriage Act would be related to that which defines it, not that which promotes it. It defines marriage on the federal level as heterosexual. And even then, states can still also include homosexual marriage (if they want), but it will only apply in their state. But abortion and Roe v. Wade have shown that the option of leaving it to the states may only last so long on controversial moral issues.
This message has been edited by commike37, 01-06-2005 17:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 01-06-2005 9:10 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2005 5:46 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 116 by LinearAq, posted 01-07-2005 12:27 AM commike37 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 134 (174509)
01-06-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by commike37
01-06-2005 5:37 PM


You had to establish some sort of standard for marriage.
What's wrong with a standard of "any two unmarried, consenting adults?" You've given us no indication why the current standard is better than this proposed one; you've simply made an argument that the current standard is better than no standard at all.
Well, no shit, genius.
The part of marriage where the government hands out marriage licenses and the associated political benefits does not discriminate.
What? Of course they discriminate. They discriminate in that they don't hand out the licenses to homosexual couples.
The civil government defines civil marriage. Your religion can define marriage however it likes; the only definition of any relevance is the governments, and currently it defines marriage in an unconstitutional manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 5:37 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Quetzal, posted 01-06-2005 6:02 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 110 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 6:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 109 of 134 (174512)
01-06-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
01-06-2005 5:46 PM


And having just finished listening to the confirmation hearings for our newest Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, we can be assured that DOMA will be federal law (thank you CSPAN radio). The only question he answered unequivocally was that he supported the "traditional" view of marriage (no one thought to ask whose tradition), and that he believed DOMA would be immune to challenge on constitutional grounds. IOW, looks like the fundies will get their anti-homosexual discrimination into the federal statutues. Congratulations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2005 5:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 5:33 AM Quetzal has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 134 (174514)
01-06-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
01-06-2005 5:46 PM


What's wrong with a standard of "any two unmarried, consenting adults?" You've given us no indication why the current standard is better than this proposed one; you've simply made an argument that the current standard is better than no standard at all.
If you do that, you effectively abolish the Judeo-Christian standard and thus the sanctity of marriage. The problem is, without some sort of standard of sanctity, marriage loses its value. Abolishing this standard also opens marriage to all kinds of redefinition. Many have said that it is things like polygamy, but I have my own interesting take on this: While I am not against free expression and new ideas, I certainly don't think we need to go around accepting all of these ideas. And considering how increasingly globalized and postmodern our world is becoming, gay marriage will not be the last challenge to the definition of marriage. If gay marriage is passed, many people are going to come up and try to give persuasive rhetoric and extend the homosexual logic to the conclusion that their form of marriage should be recognized, too. And if their rhetoric and logic is simply an extension of the logic used for homosexual marriage, then marriage will constantly be redefined and its sanctity and specialness destroyed. Homosexuals have clearly defined what they're against, but they haven't as clearly defined what they're for. To a certain degree, homosexual marriage is just a pursuit of their interests.
Well, no shit, genius.
Well that's real civil.
What? Of course they discriminate.
If you would carefully read and comprehend my argument, you would understand what I meant. The part which defines is considered with values. Since marriage should have sanctity, this part considers what values will uphold the sanctity of marriage. The part which promotes is that merely upholds the these values. Once marriage is defined, this part will promote marriage with some sort of policy (in this case political privileges) regardless of the definition of marriage. In that way, these two parts remain independent, because it is important not to mix values and policies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2005 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 01-06-2005 6:36 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2005 12:14 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 118 by FliesOnly, posted 01-07-2005 8:28 AM commike37 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 134 (174515)
01-06-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by commike37
01-06-2005 6:25 PM


You keep bring up things that are solely related to one individual and limited religious belief. You say things like marriage should have sanctity.
Why should marriage have any sanctity?
How can one marriage affect the sanctity of a different and seperate marriage?
How can a civil secular marriage affect a religious marriage?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 6:25 PM commike37 has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 112 of 134 (174556)
01-06-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by jar
01-05-2005 11:23 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
The town name is my way of saying that I live in rural Eastern Shore Maryland.

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 11:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 01-06-2005 11:55 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 113 of 134 (174560)
01-06-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by LinearAq
01-06-2005 11:37 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
Well, I sailed and wandered over most of the Eastern Shore and many of the little islands such as Tangiers. It was simply one I had never heard.
Of course, the Eastern Shore that I knew is probably pretty much gone. It is a price of two bridges.
And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by LinearAq, posted 01-06-2005 11:37 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 114 of 134 (174561)
01-06-2005 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by commike37
01-06-2005 12:08 AM


Re: Is there really no questioning this?
commike37 writes:
Speaking of which, these reports probably refer to heterosexual marriage (gay marriage is starting to make gains, but for the longest time straight marriages was a de facto standard and still is by far the most prevalent form of marriage).
Agreed, so the study doesn't say anything against homosexual marriage. Therefore, it doesn't support your reasoning behind the Defense of Marriage Act.

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 12:08 AM commike37 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 115 of 134 (174564)
01-07-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by commike37
01-06-2005 6:25 PM


If you do that, you effectively abolish the Judeo-Christian standard and thus the sanctity of marriage.
And thus nothing. Marriage will still be sancitifed. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the sole source of what is sanctified and what is not. And so what? Why does the Judeo-Christian standard have to apply to everybody? Especially those who aren't Judeo-Christians?
The problem is, without some sort of standard of sanctity, marriage loses its value.
Here's the standard: "A sanctified social binding between two consenting, unmarried, loving adults."
Again, we're not proposing that standards be abandoned. Simply changed to recognize that homosexual couples are heading families, just like hetero ones. The family is still sacred. We're just getting the government caught up with that.
If gay marriage is passed, many people are going to come up and try to give persuasive rhetoric and extend the homosexual logic to the conclusion that their form of marriage should be recognized, too.
The "homosexual logic" only applies to unmarried couples. How can it be expanded any further than that? Once you have man+man, woman+woman, and woman+man, what other combinations of two unmarried adults are there? None, of course.
Homosexuals have clearly defined what they're against, but they haven't as clearly defined what they're for.
Certainly they have. They're for the privledges of marriage offered to all couples comprised of unmarried, consenting adults. But I guess you just weren't paying attention?
Well that's real civil.
Sorry, I forget that not everyone participates in the level of discourse that me and my friends use. Wasn't trying to insult you, just drive home the point.
The part which defines is considered with values.
Well, I disagree. The government defines civil marriage, because the government defines all government-recognized civil institutions, just like the government defines "corporation", "non-profit charity", etc.
Churches are free to define religious marriage however they like, I don't give a damn. The government is the only group here that matters.
Since marriage should have sanctity, this part considers what values will uphold the sanctity of marriage.
Well, traditionally that's been the values of love, sacrifice, forbearance, sharing, and parenthood. Gay couples have all those values, so why shouldn't they enjoy marriage?
There's no legal argument against gay marriage; there's no moral argument against it; there's no logical argument against it. Despite the best efforts of the conservatives, we're going to have it, and why shouldn't we? It's not like people are going to make other people enter into gay marriages if they don't want to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 6:25 PM commike37 has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 116 of 134 (174567)
01-07-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by commike37
01-06-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Is there really no questioning this?
commike writes:
Not as much sanctity as a marriage in a Christian church, but it still has sanctity
Please define sanctity as it applies to marriage.
In what way is a heterosexual marriage more sanctified than a homosexual marriage?

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 5:37 PM commike37 has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 134 (174599)
01-07-2005 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Quetzal
01-06-2005 6:02 PM


quote:
And having just finished listening to the confirmation hearings for our newest Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales,
You mean Torturer-General.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Quetzal, posted 01-06-2005 6:02 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Quetzal, posted 01-07-2005 10:08 AM contracycle has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 118 of 134 (174628)
01-07-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by commike37
01-06-2005 6:25 PM


Hi again commike37
Hold on buddy, I’m not letting you off the hook this easily. You have completely ignored the main question.
FliesOnly writes:
My biggest area of confusion, I guess, is in trying to decipher what exactly you think is Christian about banning gay marriage. I think it’s what Jar has been trying to get from you for quite some time, but has yet to receive an answer.
You Replied:
commike37 writes:
The part of marriage where the government hands out marriage licenses and the associated political benefits does not discriminate. These licenses are handed out regardless of what the definition of marriage is. If marriage is heterosexual-only, then heterosexuals get the licenses. If marriage is hetero- and homosexual, then both get the licenses. The agencies that hand out just promote marriage through political benefits. They just check to see that you meet the standards. They don't make standards.
But you KNOW that the main question was as follows (and is the one for which I really want an answer):
FliesOnly writes:
If you know that by denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are also going to deny them: A) health care, B) protection from domestic violence, C) access to protection under divorce laws, D) and inheritance rights, then how can you in any way consider your action to be Christian?
Please oh please oh please answer this for us commike37.
commike37 writes:
To remove the Judeo-Christian standard would take away the sanctity of marriage.
Bull shit. What a big load of homophobic crappola.
commike37 writes:
The part which defines is considered with values.
And by this, what you really mean is that you want YOUR values to be those which will be used to define.
commike37 writes:
Once marriage is defined, this part will promote marriage with some sort of policy (in this case political privileges) regardless of the definition of marriage.
AgainBull shit. If marriage is defined as you (and many other homophobes) want it defined, then it will deny the rights of homosexual couples to be married. As such, these individuals will NOT be allowed to benefit from your rather limited and quite discriminatory political privileges. Why can’t you see this and admit to it?
commike37 writes:
In that way, these two parts remain independent, because it is important not to mix values and policies.
And yet againBull shit. You have completely mixed the two (values and policy). Your values determine the policy. How can you see this any other way? Gays can’t marry, therefore gays cannot benefit from the policies. It’s not rocket science here, commike37

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 6:25 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 134 (174668)
01-07-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by contracycle
01-07-2005 5:33 AM


You mean Torturer-General.
Heh. You have no idea. At the risk of providing more ammunition for your anti-Americanism, one of the questions on which Gonzales REALLY waffled was the torture question. In context, he refused to answer unequivocally whether the President had the right to ignore or deliberately contravene legislation which he personally felt was unconstitutional - regardless or in the absence of any court ruling on its constitutionality. Sigh. The only good thing is Gonzales appears to be at least marginally less nutty than Ashcroft was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 5:33 AM contracycle has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 120 of 134 (187253)
02-21-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
12-28-2004 10:46 PM


quote:
Christians cite this as the only example of an unforgivable sin.
Can a Christian please explain how does someone commit "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"?
I saw this late and if it has been answered, sorry for being redundant.
To understand the unpardonable sin, one must understand the work the Spirit does. It is, therefore, not a kind of sin, but a DEGREE of sin.
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
You are a parent pleading with your child to behave, you are a boss pleading with your employee to behave, or so. If your pleas remain unheeded, the moment will arrive when the one you plead with will be given up as reprobate. More often than not, this takes a long time. Especially a parent is patient and longsuffering.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 12-28-2004 10:46 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024