Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
Where was marriage invented by God? I'm genuinely curious, because my primary school religious instruction never covered it. The first mention I recall of it was when Cain went to Nod and found a wife.
It's right there in the early chapters of Genesis, a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife, they will become one flesh. I don't have it in front of me. This is the basis and orgination of marriage. The ceremony and state recognition and everything we have added on top is simply an acknowledgement of a fact already recognised by God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
As you will hopefully understand if you read this thread it is a part of my belief to 'impose' my beliefs on you as you put it. If I didn't do this, simply because you insist on it, I would have your beliefs and not mine and you would have imposed them on me, making your belief system self-inconsistent, therefore illogical, therefore wrong. So you'd better hope I don't do as you want or it would simply prove you wrong.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
You remind me of Red Stateler. He had the same circular reasoning that he thought proved him he was right.
-
Based on your posts it seems you are missing the most important point. It has nothing to do with the truth (which is right and which is wrong, is God or not). It has only to do with that fact that this country was founded on the basis of freedom and religious freedom is a significantly important one. Now since not all of them can be 100% correct it is without question that the freedom you are entitled to as an American is not dependent on your beliefs being correct. Since we have the unalienable right to freedom, no one, not even a majority has the right to deny those freedoms. This aspect of our history is fundamental to Jeffersonian Principles and had a major impact on the Constitution and design of the checks and balances. Today there is a massive effort to destroy our founding principles by the religious right. What will happen? I have no idea what the future holds but the past is known.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Today there is a massive effort to destroy our founding principles by the religious right.
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms. One problem is the understanding of freedom itself and the difference between freedom and license. Total license says you can do anything you want even if that includes murdering your neighbour and raping his wife. My best take on the definition of freedom is that being free means knowing what is right and being able to do it. Total freedom would be always knowing what is right and always being able to do it, an unobtainable goal but a worthy one. The difference between the two is huge and yet many people confuse these ideas.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
God does not, cannot share His ineffable self with the like of you.
If you read the scripture you will find that that is precisely what he has done, even you can partake of Christ. It is the most amazing thing there is period.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you read the scripture
Do you read Aramaic? And Greek? Unless you do, you have never read the Scriptures.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
even you can partake of Christ
ROFL! I have probably munched on more unleavened crackers and cheap red wine than you have dreamed of. I was at least as much of a religious cannibal as you are.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
led mike wrote:
What does that have to do with the making same sex marriage illegal?
A parallel to nurses who are required in some hospitals to assist with abortions. Not important to my thesis of course, so feel free to ignore it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I have advocated no stake burning or in fact anything at all harmful to anyone except the straw man you are putting up to avoid having to deal with what I'm saying
Unfortunately Torquemada was no straw man but a very real creature, as sure of his redemption as you are of yours; as positive that he walked in God's grace, as you are; and using the same arguments against those who walked different paths that you do. He just had a power that, at least so far, has been denied you. For from avoiding what you are saying, I hear you very clearly. I just don't hear the angelic choir singing loudly enough to drown out the screams of those burned by the stake by others who said the same thing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
as sure of his redemption as you are of yours; as positive that he walked in God's grace, as you are
You may assert this but it is unknowable.
Oakman wrote:
others who said the same thing.
I doubt they said the same things, or meant them if they did. Regardless, "by their deeds you shall know them", just because someone like Torquemada may have known the truth or spoken it unknowingly does not lessen the value of the truth itself. Is house painting unacceptable because it was Hitlers profession? No
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
Facts are verifiable. Beliefs or opinions are not.
I have already showed you that this is logically false so you're using bad definitions that can only lead to bad conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
So far you have shown no way to verify the existence of your god
Neither have I attempted to do that which cannot be done and is unnecessary.
Oakman wrote:
one you have already admitted may be a snare of the Antichrist.
That is simply a lie, or you simply can't read, go back and look again.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I have already showed you that this is logically false so you're using bad definitions that can only lead to bad conclusions.
Actually, the only thing you've shown is that you are either unwilling or unable to see outside your rather pathetic circular-reasoned view of the universe. And I have wasted as much time as I ever will in trying to help you see what the real world is like. Bye.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you read the scripture
Do you read Aramaic? And Greek? Unless you do, you have never read the Scriptures.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
even you can partake of Christ
ROFL! I have probably munched on more unleavened crackers and cheap red wine than you have dreamed of. I was at least as much of a religious cannibal as you are.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Do you read Aramaic? And Greek? Unless you do, you have never read the Scriptures.
Nonsense, and you forgot Hebrew.
Oakman wrote:
have probably munched on more unleavened crackers and cheap red wine than you have dreamed of. I was at least as much of a religious cannibal as you are.
And yet you have no part in Christ so all you do is eat and drink judgement on yourself, how sad. :sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You remind me of Red Stateler. He had the same circular reasoning that he thought proved him he was right.
No my reasoning is not circular,nor as wholee as a string vest, like Red's, you simply don't accept the basis of it and cannot argue against it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
No my reasoning is not circular,nor as wholee as a string vest, like Red's, you simply don't accept the basis of it and cannot argue against it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Your basis is: God exists. I feel like I am talking to a 4-year old.
-
Well Oakman says your post is rational and intelligent. You have not yet pulled the wool over my eyes of course. ;) You can flower up your posts all you want, but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do. As you are well aware we have had many past discussions regarding the constitutional support for freedom. I'm still not buying your bigoted bag of crap I don't care how fancy you wrap it up or how much perfumed prose you pour over it.
led mike
led mike wrote:
but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do.
I am indeed proposing that. It is a question fundamental to our federalism itself. Should there be institutions within our society which have some degree of authority in defining the parameters of our culture other than government itself? Is religious sentiment as appropriate a means of determining ones democratic opinion and if the majority view reflects taht sentiment is it as valid a basis for our legal system as any other? Is discrimination against behavior a behavior that is allowed or is that to be the one kind of behavior the state can legitimately surpress? If you believe that government's appropriate role is to define behaviors and suppress attitudes against those behaviors, than you are a fascist. Such principles are part and parcel of fascist political idealogy. Since I am a Jeffersonian, I reject facist principles and thus believe that personal discrimination is a more basic and fundamental freedom than is butt fucking or other similar forms of behavior.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Your basis is: God exists. I feel like I am talking to a 4-year old.
Well done, you got that much anyway. This does not mean of course that I believe that some random, made up on the spot, definition of God digital_man comes up with is in any way valid. I don't define God, he has revealed himself to the extent that he chooses to.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
Today there is a massive effort to destroy our founding principles by the religious right.
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms. One problem is the understanding of freedom itself and the difference between freedom and license. Total license says you can do anything you want even if that includes murdering your neighbour and raping his wife. My best take on the definition of freedom is that being free means knowing what is right and being able to do it. Total freedom would be always knowing what is right and always being able to do it, an unobtainable goal but a worthy one. The difference between the two is huge and yet many people confuse these ideas.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms.
Sure, I have no problem with that distinction, I mean I don't know if your are correct, but I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
One problem is the understanding of freedom itself
Well I think people pretend to not understand it, and/or they attempt to define it to their own purposes. Stan and (D)espeir are great examples of that. They propose that two men marrying infringes on their right/freedom to believe that two men should not marry, which is of course completely retarded and a great example of how bigots purposefully attempt to manipulate truth and reason to their own twisted ends. The fact that other less bigoted people are fooled into believing that their ugly intentions hidden behind intellectual prose passes for logic reason and truth is very sad. It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period.
led mike
-
Well Oakman says your post is rational and intelligent. You have not yet pulled the wool over my eyes of course. ;) You can flower up your posts all you want, but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do. As you are well aware we have had many past discussions regarding the constitutional support for freedom. I'm still not buying your bigoted bag of crap I don't care how fancy you wrap it up or how much perfumed prose you pour over it.
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms.
Sure, I have no problem with that distinction, I mean I don't know if your are correct, but I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
One problem is the understanding of freedom itself
Well I think people pretend to not understand it, and/or they attempt to define it to their own purposes. Stan and (D)espeir are great examples of that. They propose that two men marrying infringes on their right/freedom to believe that two men should not marry, which is of course completely retarded and a great example of how bigots purposefully attempt to manipulate truth and reason to their own twisted ends. The fact that other less bigoted people are fooled into believing that their ugly intentions hidden behind intellectual prose passes for logic reason and truth is very sad. It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. Bravo. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, purfuit of happineff period.
I fixed that for you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
If you accept that which is the opposite of what you believe then that surely says something about the weakness of your belief, or perhaps the inherant weakness of what you believe in?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do.
I am indeed proposing that. It is a question fundamental to our federalism itself. Should there be institutions within our society which have some degree of authority in defining the parameters of our culture other than government itself? Is religious sentiment as appropriate a means of determining ones democratic opinion and if the majority view reflects taht sentiment is it as valid a basis for our legal system as any other? Is discrimination against behavior a behavior that is allowed or is that to be the one kind of behavior the state can legitimately surpress? If you believe that government's appropriate role is to define behaviors and suppress attitudes against those behaviors, than you are a fascist. Such principles are part and parcel of fascist political idealogy. Since I am a Jeffersonian, I reject facist principles and thus believe that personal discrimination is a more basic and fundamental freedom than is butt fucking or other similar forms of behavior.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a question fundamental to our federalism itself.
No, it's a question fundamental to our VERY FREEDOM itself. Try posing you intellectual bigot clap trap at someone who will buy into it, it's completely wasted on me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since I am a Jeffersonian
What crock of shit, you're nothing but a poser.
led mike
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I guess my point is, that if it really is an arbitrary line, who decides how far we move it? And if we're willing to move it for one group, can we say no to the next group?
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything - If we have the death penalty for convicted serial rapist-killers today who is to say that we won't impose it on people who don't pay their cable bill tomorrow? I think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Ehh, fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything
True, but this is the one time it actually seems applicable. Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works. I don't think donkeys and blow-up ferrets are going to be an issue but... Personally I don't think it's an arbitrary line, but if gays get marriage it will mean the decision makers do believe it's an arbitrary line. And if you see it as arbitrary, you still have the very real problem of where that line should be. I don't think the slippery slope argument has any weight in the capital punishment issue. It's really easy to draw a logical line for it, repeat offenders of violent crimes showing no sign of rehabilitation. But this... I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms.
Sure, I have no problem with that distinction, I mean I don't know if your are correct, but I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
One problem is the understanding of freedom itself
Well I think people pretend to not understand it, and/or they attempt to define it to their own purposes. Stan and (D)espeir are great examples of that. They propose that two men marrying infringes on their right/freedom to believe that two men should not marry, which is of course completely retarded and a great example of how bigots purposefully attempt to manipulate truth and reason to their own twisted ends. The fact that other less bigoted people are fooled into believing that their ugly intentions hidden behind intellectual prose passes for logic reason and truth is very sad. It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
Unfortunately this is not quite as simple as you think and in practice doesn't work. My right to walk down the street naked because it makes me happy impinges on the right of someone else not to be appalled by my nakedness so I have to wear clothes but I'm butt ugly so it doesn't help very much so in fact for them not to want to throw-up I have to stay indoors which impinges on my right to go to Wal-Mart :doh: This rights based view of the world just fundamentally doesn't work. The doing what is right view of the world on the other hand where I wear the clothes for the benefit of others and they put up with my ugliness because it is the right thing to do works just fine. The problem with it is when some people don't want to play nice, which turns out to be just about everybody at one time or another, hence we have to have standards, norms and enforced rules to makes sure we all get along. That's the socialogical explanation anyway. In fact things turn out this way because of bundle of 'religious' truths about human nature, original sin, authority and morality. One of those truths is that homosexual intercourse is wrong and another is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Where Red and co go wrong is trying to argue a point from one paradigm using the language and ideas of another. The 'rights' based view of the world does not even connect with the 'religious' view because it is a very modern, entirely secular, and completely insupportable viewpoint. by accepting it as the framework in which to form their arguments they have already fouled their logic and lost the debate. It's a great pity because it's actually not a difficult debate to win.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.