Marriage is a civil right in the US

you think there is. he thinks there is not.(i would say it was you who just fell into a trap...)

---

You too Rob. Appreciate your posts. I think I'll leave this thread in your hands.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think I said anything about "legal status" beyond what is available to all of us. They can make contracts and covenants between each other as they please, disown their natural families in favor of each other or whatever, without having anything remotely like a marriage involved in it as far as status goes.

First of all you are twisting Lewis's words to into a context beyond their original scope. Exactly how does homosexual marriage make a society less brave or honest?Secondly, an appeal to some form of "eternal morality" is false since homosexuality is, and always has been, an element of human existence.

quote:

---

Is there not such a thing as a 'universal moral law' which we must all live by?

---

No - all laws and morals are defined by situational context.Surely you were not going to pull the old chestnut of -

How is this any different (or any more likely) than different-sex people who currently marry for the same sort of reason?

so, they should be able to enter into legal contracts defining themselves and their partners as a state-recognized family unit, but they can't get "married?" what's the difference?or are you saying that they should be able to enter into all legal contracts except marriage?or are you saying, "i don't care, just don't let them in the church?"

---

i much prefer the "argument by clapton" proof of god.

---

Quote: No - all laws and morals are defined by situational context.Really? Then if I disagree with that, would I be wrong? Or does your statement apply universally? I ask beecause you are assuming an absolute my friend, in order to deny them.You cannot challenge the law-of non-contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction. If you challenge the law, you will have to imply that I am wrong and you are right.Quote: Secondly, an appeal to some form of "eternal morality" is falseSo bigotry is not wrong? It is ok for me to do what has been done throughout the history of the human race? Or are you also going to invoke a universal / absolute / eternal and transcendant moral framework?If we say it is 'wrong' to impose morality, we only undermine our own mind.I would like to share a very insightful quote from a great theologian. I believe it is from near the turn of the century 1900."The new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."- G.K. ChestertonI think you will find all of this links nicely together. When we catch a glimpse of the coherency of it all, it tends to move beyond simple reason in some way, and instead appears rather divine in nature.Off to work, have a nice day, rob

---

Any biters in the stream?

i heard more than enough of this line of wankery in my postmodern philosophy class.he didn't say there are no absolutes. he said that morality is not universal. those are two very different statements. we can say what is morally right and wrong for us to do. while trying to make this look a contradiction, you forget that this is a very simple principle.treat others how you would like to be treated.if there IS a universal moral principle, that is it.

---

quote:

---

So bigotry is not wrong?

---

Well owning slaves is not according to the christian god So are we accepting or rejecting this version of the christian god concept as the provider of universal moral law?Also I generally don't try and single out posting styles but it's generally considered arrogant if you make constant reference to how profound your statements are or how clever you think you are.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Owning slaves is not the same as bigotry...

no, it's not. our system of slavery in this country was, because it was largely race-based. but biblical slavery was not.however, i'll make up for ck's slack. while slavery in and of itself is not the same as bigotry, genocide is awful close:

quote:

---

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

​

Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

---

---

Yes. Perhaps new forms of contracts designed to accommodate their concerns. I don't mean a contract that "defines" them as a "state-recognized family unit" at all, however, just various legal provisions to cover some of the things they think marriage would do for them, concerning insurance benefits and kinship rights or whatever. There have to be other ways to solve these problems than making a mockery of marriage. They are welcome in church, to hear how they are sinners who need to repent and give up their sins.

I'm not talking about particular practices, which would get us into questions of sin rather than normality. I'm talking about the homosexual experience of "orientation" toward the same sex. This is what is abnormal -- and obviously so, I would think.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.