Hey everyone, so in the spirit of equality and supporting homosexual marriage I recently shared this picture on facebook:
Sorry I don't know how to re-size this.
Anyway, my brother had this to say:
"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.
Also, (most of, or maybe just many of) the people against homosexual marriage realize that it is not homosexual marriage that destroys the institution of marriage, but it is immoral (sinful) lives that destroy marriage. To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct.
There are other politcal, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage, but ultimately they take a back seat to the spiritual reason." (Oh and then his wife "liked" the comment he left)
As you can guess I really want respond to this but I have no idea what to say without sounding like an asshole (don't know why I bother considering) and I don't want to just delete the comment or ignore it because I feel like that would be somehow admitting defeat or something. So what do you think?
"however, it is not "love" that makes the difference. It is God's defining of love, and what we should love, that makes the difference."
Are there any real world examples of things that we SHOULD love that we don't? Examples of things we shouldn't love but do?
Which god's opinion should the US use to tell its citizens what they should and should not love?
"Amanda, the blog you cite is not well informed about the biblical history of marriage. Marriage is first referenced in Genesis 2:24 (and could be suggested in Genesis 1). Your author seems to have skipped over that. "
Genesis 2:24 establishes that a man should leave his mother and father and find his own woman to marry, but the point the third meme was making was that marriages in the bible came in all shapes and sizes. Though I do not recall any homosexual married couples in the Bible, I can think of quite a few that would be looked down upon by church goin' folks in this day and age.
And the author was primarily writing about the history of marriage not biblical marriage.
"The civil institution of marriage came about because of the spiritual instituion. Obviously there are civil aspects to a marriage, but marriage, at its most fundamental level is spiritual, not civil. Notice, I did not say that marriage is "soley spiritual in nature", but that it is "spiritual...at its core."
I would have to use my think meat a little too much for my liking to research the history of marriage at the moment. But marriage is not necessarily at its core spiritual for all couples in March of 2013
And regardless of whether the civil or spiritual institution came first, it seems clear that marriages now come in many varieties.
There are marriages that are spiritual but not civil, civil not spiritual, and civil but not spiritual in this country.
"You gave a philosophical reason for marriage. You gave a philosophy of "love" as your reason for marriage. "
Amanda stated that "love and commitment" for me : ) (and the dog) are at the core of our marriage. Not the philosophical implications of the concept of love. Not the chemical and biological processes that make us feel love. Or what is love? (baby don't hurt me baby don't hurt me...no more)
"What I showed is that philosophy breaks down."
Always. Without fail right?
"There is no need for marriage philosophically (or scientifically, or sociologically)."
Who said we needed marriage? Marriage is often desired, but it is not a necessity to life. But then again neither is the right to vote...or to be educated...
"One can love without marriage."
I thought this has been said already. Love is often a concordant associated with marriage but not necessarily in all of them or at the core of all of them.
"Why the joining together?"
I would presume that no two marriages have precisely the same reasons for being.
For me it was because I had never felt more compelled to be with someone. And she apparently felt the same way. And a traditional way to express this mutual desire is through formal ceremony. We celebrated our love and commitment to each other with friends and family and it was freaking great! And it still is!
Not to mention the civil benefits and conveniences married couples enjoy.
"The reason behind the joining together is spiritual at its core. Many people do things without knowing the spiritual reasoning behind things; marriage is one of those things. Oh, and one thing I want to make a little more clear: when I say spiritual, I mean theological; in other words, there is a theological reason for it, that is, because of who God is, there is a reason."
Is there a theological reason for the gay couples that have already married?
"Another example of people doing"
funny things in banana costumes is water-skiing?
Sorry you trailed off there, but I am pretty sure this is what you were going to say.
"As far as the damaging affects of homosexual marriage and the other political, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage is concerned, the scientific is the easiest to explain. I should use the phrase anatomical to be more specific. Obviously, anatomically speaking, homosexuality is at a huge disfavor. The other ones can be discussed maybe in another setting if you so desire."
Having a like pair of private parts in the bedroom is hardly damaging to anyone let alone to someone not in that bedroom.
Scientific reasons for not allowing gay couples to marry are that they cannot have sex with each other?
I was under the impression that gay couples do generally have sex with each other. Especially if they are married : )
Are you referring to sexual intercourse as a means of procreation? Marriage is not necessarily for procreation.
Or maybe it stops after they get married... : /
"Feenicks, I have often stated that if I were not a Christian, I would never get married. Why would I do that?"
Probably for similar reasons why non-Christians get married. But everyone is different.
"There is no reason behind entering into an intentionally permanent relationship with another while excluding all other possible sexual relationships."
No reason that you can think of at least.
If you were born to atheist parents and had no religion you cannot see why you would ever want to spend the rest of your life with a specific person that you loved and that loved you? A person that understood you and that you understood? A person that the very thought of being separated from for an extended time physically
If this is the case I find the differences in our views of human coupling disturbing.
"I actually know of many intelligent atheists who have come to that same conclusion."
I know many Christians who seem to have reached that conclusion as well.
Now, as I said earlier, there are many philosophical, scientific, and sociological reasons for marriage, but none of them necessitate marriage. Only the spiritual (theological) necessitates marriage.
And what would be the theological REASON for marriage?
Would Hindus have the same theological reasons for marrying than Christians? They would be different for everyone I suppose.
And even if theological reasons necessitate marriage. Would it be fair to force non believers and believers in different spiritual views to follow the rules of a religion that they did not believe in?
"Feenicks, you are way out of line as far as this discussion is concerned. "
I did not realize there were lines we had to stay within in order to participate in this formal debate either Feenicks. So don't feel too bad.
I'll be more careful as well.
"All you are doing is tirading and creating a bunch of Red Herring fallacies. "
Woah woah woah no tirading either? I think we should all step back and establish what we can and cannot say on this open forum.
In the mean time...I wouldn call Feenicks' herrings yellow...orange at best (*wink *wink).
Meaning that all the topics he covered were related to what we are discussing. All reasons for forbidding gay couples from marrying that have been presented thus far are not applicable unless you subscribe to a particular sect of a specific religion.
"I never once said this is a Christian nation. The only time I referenced the Bible was when a blog post was used that inadequately used the Bible."
These are from the first responding post:
"ultimately they [scientific, philisophical, and sociological reasons for marriage] take a back seat to the spiritual reason."
"Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct."
You assert that there is a god, that this god has ordained marriage, that marriage is a symbol of this god's love, and that all marriages are based in spirituality which you later clarified to mean theology. I think it is clear who brought religion into this discussion of rights of US citizens in regards to marriage. And for many, this is not a religious issue because it is a government issue. Last time I checked the church and state were supposed to be separate.
I never brought up Creationism (which is a science by the way). I will not even address the fallacies.
How are we to know what statements you consider to be false if you do not address them? And what makes them false exactly?
A frustrated tone is defiantly present is his post, but I'm guessing that he was frustrated. As I bet many are at this point.
Just because the religious text that you believe in (not you specifically) says that god said something, doesn't mean it was so.
Imagine what laws would be like if they could be based on the assumption that religious texts are infallibly true.
"Creationism (which is a science by the way)"
Not according to the scientific community.
"Now, as far as your suggestion that marriage was created to answer estate questions, that is modern marriage. That is not marriage itself."
Was this debate not about modern marriage? I don't think any gays plan on getting married back in 1854.
"What you do not seem to understand is that I do not believe marriage to be ONLY a spiritual act. It is spiritual, civil, emotional, and a lot of other things. However, at its core, its raison d'etre, is spiritual (theological).
For everyone right?
"Being way out of line meant logically. I will not debate fallacies. They are only distractions."
Fallacies are only distractions. But you have not identified what you believe to be false in his posts. Which is what I asked for.
"Yes, there are lines when it comes to debate. If you have ever been on a debate team, or had to present a logical argument to a grading individual, then you would know that there are appropriate methods to debate and logic. "
Hold on my condescension detector just caught on fire.
"There is a long list of fallacies that cannot be used when debating."
As I stated before. This is not a formal debate. No terms were agreed upon. There are no debate teams here. This is an open forum where people can have open discussions.
There are debate forum websites that you can go to if you're looking for one. There if someone violates a term of the debate, they are disqualified.
Facebook is like Youtube. They have "comment" sections. A comment does not need to adhere to the rules or even the basic guidelines of a debate.
"Tirading is not debate."
Agreed. Tirading is not debate. This is not a debate. Open forum.
The points he brought up had something to do with the discussion, but they were not on topic. For instance, he said "Christian like to think of this nation as a christian nation". What does that have to do with what we were discussing or with the arguments I made?"
You wrote earlier this:
"...God's love and desired relationship with humans..."
"marriage is a spiritual issue at its core"
"Marriage has absolutely no foundation without the spiritual meaning. "
"It is God's defining of love, and what we should love, that makes the difference."
"Oh, and one thing I want to make a little more clear: when I say spiritual, I mean theological; in other words, there is a theological reason for it, that is, because of who God is, there is a reason."
These posts seem to indicate that you have asserted directly that marriage is at its core "spiritual", that God has love and a desire to have a relationship with all humans, that without "spirituality" the foundation of marriage is meaningless, and that it is God that defines "correct" love.
You then clarify your meaning of "spiritual" to be theological. Unless I missed something, the only logical arguments you successfully used to make your case for not allowing gays to marry are based in theology.
A quick glance at your Facebook page reveals that you are indeed a Christian and that the theology that you personally believe in and use to defend your position is the Holy Bible.
And it has been mentioned several times in this thread already...Religious texts have no business influencing the practices of any one that does not subscribe to that particular religion or religious text. If a religious text were used by any branch of government as a basis for any law, amendment, or limitation on rights it would be government endorsement of a religion and would violate the Constitution of the United States.
"I never asserted that this was a Christian nation, so it was wrong to try to throw that into the debate. That is the very definition of Red Herring. Trying to make another argument that does not directly deal with the argument at hand."
If you believe that The Holy Bible should be used as a bases of law in the United States, then it is implied you believe Christian doctrine should affect the rights of all American Citizens. Even if they are not Christians. This would create an American Christian Nation.
I understand that Feenicks' language was not the most polite in the world. But his feathers were ruffled. : )
"And no, the last time you checked the Constituion, it did not say church and state were to be separate, because it does not say that. It says that the goverment will not make any law restricting the practice of religion."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . " -The Constitution's First Amendment.
It also goes on to say that it may not pass law restricting religious expression, practice and such and such.
That is what is said the last time I checked.
Also I don't know whether or not that was condescending. You've already broken my detector.
I understand that it is the Supreme Court and not Congress that is dealing with this issue. I also understand the implications of using a religiously held believe to dictate the lives of others who do not share that belief. It is not my rights that are being restricted right now...but the future is persistently flowing into the present and past. And times they are a changing. I may not be so lucky next time. Who knows what crazy future religions will be popular. XD
"I did not say the statements were false, I said the arguments were fallacies. In other words, they were not logically sound."
Okay you win this one. I neglected to acknowledge the differences between fallacies and falsities.
Clearly Feenicks was exercising his freedoms given to him by this open forum to express his mind. He obviously has strong feelings regarding this issue. As do I.
I am willing to bet that there are a lot of people reading this thread that share Feenicks' anger / frustration at this conversation.
I am also angry and frustrated that I have countrymen and countrywomen who are being denied rights that I enjoy.
And I am saddened that there are so many of my countrymen and countrywomen who cannot see why religiously held beliefs should not dictate the lives of those who do not believe in them.
"What is infallibly true?"
Is it not your belief that the Holy Bible is infallibly true?
"What makes your belief in "marriage equality" infallible?"
I never said that it was infallible. When I come across evidence not based in religious belief that supports banning gay marriage I will let you know.
"You see, humanistic beliefs are just as fallible as any other. If you assert that Scripture is fallible, then certainly is any other writing. "
That is true. "Humanistic beliefs" are indeed fallible. I never claimed that they were anything but.
A quick Google search of "inaccuracies in the Holy Bible" yields a large body of evidence that the Bible is indeed fallible as well.
"just because something happened in the Bible, it does not mean that God wanted it to happen (endorsed it). Many things happened in Scripture that God did not endorse."
Inconvenient, no? What parts were directly endorsed and which were only inspired by God and thus made fallible by man? How do we even know that the second God sent his inspirations to the authors of the Bible they did not become fallible? And here's the big question: How do we know that God is infallible? Because the book he inspired said so? Kim Jong Il said he was infallible too.
The point of all this is that religiously held beliefs are based in faith. Humanistic beliefs are based on hard, observable, repeatable evidence. This country has many different religions, sects of religions, and branches of sects of religions. Amending the Constitution based on reasons from a specific religion's belief system will light the fuse of a shit blizzard bomb filled with shit.
And I just got new shoes.
"You are right, just because a religious text says something does not make it true. However, I am just telling you what I believe to be true."
I understand that. But clearly there are those who disagree with you. Should those people have to adhere to your religiously founded beliefs?
"There are many reasons for me to believe the text, so I choose to believe it."
There are many reasons for a Hindu to believe the texts of his religion. Maybe we should amend the Constitution in a way that will limit the rights of Americans using evidence from their texts.
No. We shouldn't. That would be ridiculous. And we might have to give up our right to eat cheeseburgers.
"The scientific community is full of Christians who believe in Scientific Creationism."
A list of scientific societies that explicitly reject intelligent design:
Creation Science wiki:
From the Creation Science wiki:
"Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide."
Creation science starts with the religious text and actively seeks out support for its claim while trying to discredit real science.
Real science starts with observation. Then a hypothesis based on that observation. Then a grueling series of testing and retesting until a conclusion is reached.
These tests use empirical, measurable, demonstrable evidence.
The whole process is analysed and reviewed by other men and women of science and if it stands up...BOOM...theory.
And the beauty of science is that it is not claimed to be infallible as religious texts are. If evidence is observed that successfully refutes a theory... BOOM ... no more theory.
Creation science is not science. It is based on evidence grounded in religion, religious texts, and religiously held beliefs.
"I have not been understanding this debate to be about modern marriage."
This is not a debate. And if it were why would we ever be talking about any other marriage besides modern marriage in the first place?
Oh that's right...
"Marriage has absolutely no foundation without the spiritual meaning. Why do humans have the institution of marriage? There is no scientific, sociological, or philosophical demand for marriage. Sure science, sociology, and philosophy can give good reasons for marriage, but there is no necessary need for marriage. Only the spiritual reason can make marriage necessary. If we were to only use science, sociology, or philosophy, then marriage could break down at any time and be defined in any way one would like."
Amanda attempted to answer your question by directing you to a blog she believed would help you understand the non subjective, non "spiritual", non biblical explanation for marriage.
"I have been understanding this debate to be about marriage philosophically. "What is marriage?" has been the question I have been trying to ask and answer, not "What, according to history, makes homosexual marriage permissible?"
This open forum discussion has been about many many things. But the original post was about the ridiculous notion that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage.
It hasn't by the way. In this country there are many gay married couples already and I have yet to see a single marital institution destroyed.
"What I have been trying to show is that marriage cannot be defined through science, philosophy, or sociology alone; theology must be taken into account."
And I have been trying to ask you why this is the case.
"The only conclusion that can be reached without accounting for theology is that marriage is lawless, created by mankind for whatever purposes mankind wishes."
Laws are created by mankind. In fact we have created a plethora of laws regarding marriage.
List of Marriage and Divorce Laws in the United States.
I'm not going to spend the time to fetch a web address detailing the history marriage law.
"In other words, divorce, infidelity, polygamy, and anything else is just fine, because there are no rules for marriage."
As demonstrated, there are rules for marriage. To cite the failure of a marriage, the betrayal within a marriage, and the practice of marrying multiple spouses at the same time as examples of things marriage laws restrict, when you hold the belief that the law should also forbid the marriage between consenting adult gay men and women is reprehensible.
" I cannot do this anymore. It is too tiring. I would rather have a lively face-to-face discussion. Peace out."
I agree. This is tiring.
However I hesitate to accept the invitation to have this conversation face to face. This has been an emotionally charged discussion and I believe it will be even more so if we were in the same room.
More can be accomplished in a text based discussion where emotions can at least be reset to neutral levels several times before responding or waiting for a response.
I fear that if we were to have this conversation in person, it would not take long before emotional levels reached "uncomfortably high".
Also it is very helpful to have a documented record of exactly what was said by each party and at what point in the conversation it was said. It holds each party accountable for what they have previously stated.
Also, it allows for later study and reflection on the discussion without the need to retrieve those pesky data blocks in our limited and unreliable think meats.
Keeping all of that in mind, I would gladly accept a private message correspondence if you wish to continue at a later date.
Take care all, and remember that sometimes disagreements bring us down. But if everyone had the same opinion on everything there would be no change. Without change, there is no advancement. Without advancement how would humanity look today? And more importantly how will it look in the future?
And that ends the discussion. Sorry that is took so many posts, I didn't mean to artifically inflate the activity on this thread.