Marriage is a civil right in the US

I assume (for you moderators out there) that since the discussion has shifted to a tangent of the issues covered in this forum, that my post will not be hidden because it is off topic, since the topic had already strayed before this post. -hint hint-Crashfrog, Faith said, "Marriage transcends all tradition, it has been a part of every culture forever."And your response was, "And, yet, different in every culture."I would like to defer to C.S. Lewis on this point, as my own comments (though I think undeniably reasonable) are problamatic for the forum administration. It is my hope that a man of C.S. Lewis' reputation, might instill in them a respect for the nature of the educational value in such insight."I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' Chapter 1 The Law of Human NatureSource - http://www.btinternet.com/~a.ghinn/lawof.htmKeep the faith, Faith...Rob

---

Any biters in the stream?

Faith said, "Marriage is something objectively practiced apart from ALL these different traditions you bring up."She is quite right! Without getting into the details, to argue against that, is really equivelant to saying that 'women bear children' is only so because of tradition, when in fact is the natural state of things. (I hear this may possibly change in the future [different discussion] so it is a relevant point)It is of no difference whether all cultures have adhered to that or not. If what is right by convention in one state, is wrong in another only by convention, then an island of cannibals has every right to invade their non-cannibal neighbors and consume them. If we attempt to convince them that they should not, we must realize we are invoking a moral framework that necessarily implies that 'it is the right thing'. 'The right thing' is then by implication acting as an absolute. I don't suppose a lot of people in this forum believe in absolutes, they only think we should agree on the rules. Well to them I say, 'welcome to the club of the inescapable conclusion.'That is why the same people who argue against the sacredness of marriage and the role it plays in human developement, are 'often' the same people who hope (you know you do) that the terrorists will kick our evil, Christian, imperialist pig butts. That way the world and it's rampant Fruedian/Marxist beliefs will have a better chance of coming home to save us all from ourselves.Isn't it strange that everyone seems to be hoping for a savior. I spoke to one gentleman recently who said he is hoping for the aliens to come set us straight. I told him, 'they already did, and we crucified Him'. He was stunned!How can so many people look to the state to take care of them, and at the same time reject God's willingness to provide? It is because they envision a world where their sins are not called sins. They want to have their cake and eat it too.Rob

---

Any biters in the stream?

It may be a charged question, but do you (and Iano and Faith) recognize homosexuals as human? If so, like I asked before, how can you logically deny them their rights?No it's a great question. A lot of people get offended too easily when pressured. I try very hard not to be.Of course Homosexuals are human beings. They're no more guilty of sin than you or I. But keep in mind, I don't believe in homosexuals. There is nothing sexual about it. Sexuality invloves reproduction regardles of the organism. Pleasure seeking can be accomplished in any number of ways.I think the question is flawed. What rights are you inferring?

"This is really pretty disgusting. Do you think before you post?"Not always, as evidenced by this one...I'll bet there is two or three of you that were just waiting fo me to step in it. Well, let a man talk long enough...I'm human too, I only play a machine on the internet. I had it coming... touche'. I haven't cut any slack myself, so I don't expect you folks to give me any. Your playing by my own rules, so I gotta live by em' A little lesson in community...Please don't take my comment out of context even if it was stated very poorly. All I meant in saying homosexuals don't exist, is that if two people decide that they are canabals, then they have the right to define themselves that way. I just don't believe that people are canibals in the sense that they would choose to be (that is evil). Instead it is a rare and degenerate state, brought about by an unnatural environmental condition. They are not so, just because they decided to become what they are not.They have the right, do not misunderstand, just as so-called 'homosexuals' have the right to argue their case, petion for inclusion and all that, so do so-called 'cannabals'. I am not one who imposes my beliefs, I just think the reasoning is innescapable. I argue for thought, because I presuppose that we can make sense if we dare to try. If I did not, there would be no point in tyring to argue sensibly. We all do it, so we all assume that 'reason' is in fact 'reasonable'.So in that light, it is not so much whether we can logically deny them rights. Rather, the question is, can we logically give them rights? Well, yes! but only if we presuppose that 'reason' is not really 'reason'. In that case, we must argue for moral equivocation for all. The conflict of our differing truths then, is the world we live in; chaos and confusion.If all is morrally equivelant, then all is morally equivelant. Katy bar the door. at that rate even Hitler did what he thought was right. Personally I cannot accept that.We live in a society that has open discussion and we can vote on these matters. In the long run (relatively speaking as time is relative), you will get what you want with this issue and all of the others issues that are dear to this group and that, because people pretend to be dumber than they really are, and always are eager (though sometimes wiser) to take the easy ('now') road.Johnny will get his free dope, sally will get her free sex change, and the man of sin will rule the world. Each will get a sense of the power play that turned their hearts to stone when they were young. It's payback time. No forgiveness for the sins against them by their sisters and brothers in humanity. It's time to 'reload' like the Menendez brothers and bring it all down man. It is his time, and until we repent, 'we' are his children. It has all been forseen, but not by many of you. You think your persoanl power play is harmless. It is that self-righteous anger and hate that blinds you.In reality, which exists eternally, I believe you will be gravely disapointed by your choices. I was with my own, and chose to regret and ask for forgiveness now, while I was sure there is still time for me. I think God is right. And I am glad He will forgive a truely repentant heart. No man convinced me of that, God did. I have everything I need and am not naive enough to think that power will bring me happiness. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. I forgive my debtors and wish them the same peace that I now have. I hope they can forgive theirs, and break the cycle of destruction.You do what you think is right... We don't have to agree, I only contend that we should if your honest with yourself. But we don't even have to agree on that...Sicerely, Rob Edited by Rob, : A definite need to clarify / It is his time, and until we repent, 'we' are his children.

---

Any biters in the stream?

''But your ridiculous beliefs essentially disqualify you from the discussion.''What qualifies your belief to be better than mine? Awful closed-minded thing to say...I've never insulted you (Well I might have, and if so I was wrong), I should only try to reason. We're all human... even the wierdest among us.I do not think you are a fool because you disagree with me. In fact, I am impressed with the quailty of discussion in this forum (you included. I just expect a lot from you. As Morpheis said to Neo, "your faster than this, now hit me!"Edited by Rob, : Trying to heal wounds...

---

Any biters in the stream?

I think this, you think that.
I think this, you think that.Are we all only discussing different feelings?Is there not such a thing as a 'universal moral law' which we must all live by?Careful 'crash', your about to fall into a trap! Don't say I didn't warn you...Rob

---

Any biters in the stream?

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?

Owning slaves is not the same as bigotry...