Are you sure you want to bring Jesus into this? UPDATED

See the update below

One of my peeves with some liberals (Christian and non-Christian) is that they try to have it both ways with the religion card. 

When debating pro-life or pro-traditional marriage issues I focus on secular arguments unless someone brings up religious arguments.  Yes, they do align with the Bible.  Things just happen to work out that way when the creator of the universe describes how things are supposed to be.  We end up with plenty of arguments on our side without even opening the Bible. 

But even if I haven’t mentioned God or the Bible they often accuse me of pushing my religion on them.  I must admit I enjoy pointing out that unless they brought it up, my arguments are secular in nature and that I save religious reasoning for religious folks. 

But inevitably they bring it up with some bit about how Jesus would love and tolerate and such and that I am not obeying him properly.  At this point they are pushing their religious views on me, of course, which is rather ironic.  Their religious views are seriously misinformed, but that is another topic.

Of course, I would like nothing more than to have a serious conversation about Jesus and how his word addresses the situation in question – and, better yet, the person’s relationship with Jesus.  If they were sincere in wanting his perspective that would be great. 

But as soon as I ask how they came to those conclusions about Jesus they clam up.  They don’t know the Bible and don’t appear to care to.  They just think it is safe to throw out the Gandhi-Jesus lines as some sort of trump card whether they are Christians or not.  They aren’t really interested in the other things Jesus had to say, or even what their bits mean in context.  They know that if they say their views came from the Bible then they’ve painted themselves in a corner.

If people try this on you and really want to talk about Jesus, that is fantastic.  Give people the benefit of the doubt.  But if not, don’t let them get away with a cheap and hypocritical debating ploy.  Call them on it so you can get back to the real arguments.

Update: I have a perfect example of this below.  The comments used to be here.  Richard Brown, (a PhD candidate (ABD) in the Cognitive Science and Philosophy program at The Graduate Center, CUNY and an Instructor (tenure-track) at LaGuardia College, CUNY) posted on civil unions of gays and I made my usual comments with secular reasoning – e.g., they can’t provide a mother and father to children, that the same rights could equally apply to polygamists and incestuous couples, etc.  This guy brought religion into the topic twice, even after I pointed out how I was using secular arguments, then didn’t like how I dismantled his arguments.  He brought out one logical fallacy after another.

He then deleted comments after the fact and is now calling me a sp*mmer.  No problem on my side if he wanted to delete comments, provided that he gave some warning and didn’t do so retroactively.  It wasted a lot of my time.  And he was such a hypocrite about it.  He brought up religion then blamed me for “religious bigotry” when I responded. 

Then he deleted more comments and even edited one of my comments to say the opposite of what I said.  I’ve never seen anyone do this before.  What deception!  Here is what he did to the last comment I left on the civil union thread before he deleted all the evidence.  He changed my comment to say this:

Neil Says:
July 26, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Oh I get it now; I am a huge $%#*.  Gay people are God’s creatures as well and they deserve all of the consideration and respect that all of God’s creatures do. I will try in the future not to use bogus religious reasoning to backup my homophobia.

Then he wrote his own response:

Richard Brown Says:
July 28, 2008 at 5:56 am
Glad to see you came around Neil!

When he realized I had copied and pasted all the comments he got busy cleaning up his site, trying to remove every trace to my blog.  I asked him multiple times to just link here so people could see the thread and decide for themselves. 

He finally tried to hide the original post, though at the moment you can access it if you go directly to it.  I find it amusing that he accuses me of bigoted statements, yet I’m glad to have this on my blog.  Oddly, though, he removed all traces of it on his.  He expressed faux outrage over one comment and did a new post on it, but it is actually quite benign.  He just wanted an excuse to hide the evidence.

He kept making claims about the Bible but couldn’t back one of them up and had no interest in determining the truth about it.  One comment he deleted was my genuine offer to reason through any part of the Bible with him.  Yet he seems to prefer his ignorance because he couldn’t use the sound bites otherwise.

And this guy isn’t uneducated – he’s going to be a Phd in Philosophy and is on the tenure track!  Aren’t you glad people pay guys like him to teach their kids philosophy and how to think clearly?  That’s what $40,000 per year buys you these days.   He has a few bad sound bites about the Bible and obviously has no problem spreading them around.  Sadly, the Biblical illiteracy is so high that most won’t catch them.

Fortunately, I saved the comments here (except for one or two that he deleted).  Gotta love the copy/paste feature.  Too bad he won’t post a link to this on his site to back up his accusations of “religious bigotry.” 

This is long, but it covers a lot of good ground.  Read it all if you have time.

Neil Says:
July 19, 2008 at 7:50 am

“And let the state govern civil unions and define it as they want; a loving commitment to partnership and family betweem two persons.”

I have no issue if the gov’t got out of marriage completely, or if they just granted “civil unions” to one male/one female couples.

But the question is why the gov’t gets involved at all. It has nothing to do with love. Plenty of marriages don’t have love in that sense, either because people have their ups and downs, or the marriages were arranged, or whatever.

The gov’t gets involved because by nature and design heterosexual couples produce the next generation of children, and ONLY heterosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child. Are there exceptions with single parents and infertile couples? Of course, but that doesn’t mean we have to nuke the definition of marriage. It is all about what gov’t has a reason to regulate.

Gay people can get married today at all sorts of apostate churches. They can have loving and committed relationships. Your post implies that someone is denying that to them. It has nothing to do with religion.

And why do you limit the defintion of civil unions to two people? What do you have against polygamists? Wouldn’t your love/commitment foundation apply to them? And what about incestuous couples?

Richard Brown Says:
July 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Hi Neil, thanks for the comment!

“But the question is why the gov’t gets involved at all.”

The reason that the government has got to get involved is because of the legal issues involved. There are special rights and obligations that result from long-term partnerships and the government’s role is to officially recognize those rights and obligations and to enforce them if need be. There are all sorts of legal benefits that one gets from marriag and gays are being denied that. That is the point of a civil union…they get the legal stuff but not the church-sanctioned spirtual stuff. My point was that in order to make civil unions anything more than an empty gesture they need to offer those to straight couples. So I suggested seperating the two and getting it over with.

“The gov’t gets involved because by nature and design heterosexual couples produce the next generation of children, and ONLY heterosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child.”

I am not sure what to make of this statement. It is true that some of teh legal benefits one gets when one is married have to do with allowing the couple to have some money to raise children, but this is not the only reason that the government is involved. Besides which, gay couples are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children. As for your claim that only hetrosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child, in one sense that is true and in another quite false. A heterosexual couple is genetically male and female but how does tht translate to anything that matters? Pararents are required to provide for their children and to show them unconditional love. Gay couples are just as capable of giving their children these things as straights are (or at least in theory…no one on either side is perfect). I am not suggesting that we ‘nuke’ the definition of marriage. I was suggesting that we finally seperate the legal stuff from the religious mumbo-jumbo.

“Gay people can get married today at all sorts of apostate churches. They can have loving and committed relationships. Your post implies that someone is denying that to them. It has nothing to do with religion. “

You are right, and I even mentioned this. The point though is that these marriages are not offically recognized by the state and so do not confer the legal benefits I was talking about earlier. Gays ARE being denied this, and that is what I claimed that they were being denied in the post. As I said, let teh issue of a spirtual union between souls (or whatever) be the province of the individual churches. So let it be a church by church matter who can get married. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that the legal stuff is attached to the religious stuff and there is no rational reason for this. It is merely am historical accident that the two are yoked together…

“And why do you limit the defintion of civil unions to two people? What do you have against polygamists? Wouldn’t your love/commitment foundation apply to them? And what about incestuous couples?”

I did that because that seems to be the prevailing attitude of Americansd, but I don’t see anything in principle wrong with polygamists. I suppose it depends on whether you think that there is some harm involved in polygamy or not, or if not if there is some violation of a duty or a right. I mean, if it isn’t forced on you and everyone agrees why should we allow it? Many cultures do allow it. We could debate about this but I don’t think it really matters to the point that I am trying to make here (i.e. seperating the legal from the religious, the church from the state).

Incestuous couples is harder. I mean are we talking distant cousins or brother and sister? As far as I can see the main harm of incest is that children will more likely be damaged (incest was common in royal bloodlines for centuries you know)…but apart from this is there anything wrong with incest? I don’t know…I think the jusry is out on this one. I mean, we all think it is gross (I assume), but what, exactly is wrong about it? (I mean voluntary, informed, childless sex between relatives). But again, all of this is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make…though interesting…

Neil Says:
July 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Hi Richard,

“There are all sorts of legal benefits that one gets from marriag and gays are being denied that. That is the point of a civil union…they get the legal stuff but not the church-sanctioned spirtual stuff. ”

But doesn’t that beg the question of why the gov’t would want to encourage these relationships? I am sympathetic to hospital visitation issues. Hey, you pay those outrageous costs and you should be able to have anyone you like visit. I am sympathetic to estate issues. Estate taxes are ghoulish. The gov’t should not profit from your death.

So while those aren’t easy solutions, they can be solved without changing the definition of marriage to be “whatever we want it to be.”

“Gay couples are just as capable of giving their children these things as straights are (or at least in theory…no one on either side is perfect). I am not suggesting that we ‘nuke’ the definition of marriage. I was suggesting that we finally seperate the legal stuff from the religious mumbo-jumbo. ”

I disagree. Under no circumstance can a gay couple provide a mother and a father, and I defy anyone to prove that isn’t the ideal. Of course, the best gay parenting might be better than the worst hetero parenting, but exceptions make bad rules.

Re. religious mumbo-jumbo, you may have noticed that my arguments aren’t religious at all. I save that for Christians. If anyone wants to bring Jesus into this I’ll be glad to . I do concede that some people make bad religious arguments so I can see why you’d be frustrated with that.

“Incestuous couples is harder. I mean are we talking distant cousins or brother and sister? ”

Given your criterion of the “prevailing attitude,” why does it matter? Some ancient cultures had a prevailing attitude that pederasty was OK, but I’m guessing you aren’t a NAMBLA fan.

I think these items are quite relevant. Remember, unless you are deliberately discriminating against those who want to marry relatives, multiple wives or animals, then you aren’t just changing the def’n of marriage to being between one man and one woman. You are saying that it is NOT just between a man and a woman and that it is now whatever we want it to be.

Thanks for the charitiable dialogue,

Neil

Richard Brown Says:
July 25, 2008 at 8:02 am

“So while those aren’t easy solutions, they can be solved without changing the definition of marriage to be “whatever we want it to be.” “

Why can’t I just accuse you guys of wanting to define marriage as whatever you want it to be?

“Under no circumstance can a gay couple provide a mother and a father,”

Well, as I said, it depends on what you mean by ‘mother’ and ‘father’. If you mean, as it sounds, that you want someone to provide gender stereotypes for children then I am not sure that it is a good thing…so what do you mean by ‘mother’ and ‘father’ such that no gay couple could ever provide it?

“I defy anyone to prove that isn’t the ideal.”

Challenge accepted. Here is an argument. Most children born in the last 100 years have been raised by straight parents. A large number of adults report a troubled childhood with ambivilent feelings towards their parents. Therefor straigt parents are not ideal for child rearing. You may want to respond that a lot of the childhood problems result from poverty etc, and that in ‘ideal’ conditions with a female mom and male dad is really what you had in mind. But I am confident that even in ideal conditions we would have adults making these reports (hence all the movies with the thememe of the ’seedy underside of suberbia’).

“Given your criterion of the “prevailing attitude,” why does it matter? Some ancient cultures had a prevailing attitude that pederasty was OK, but I’m guessing you aren’t a NAMBLA fan.

The cases are different. There are facts about children (mental immaturity, physical immaturity) that precude them from making informed decisions to consent to sexual activity and so we have a basis to rule out pediphilia, but in the case of incest it is different. There, we assume, you have two consent adults choosing to engage in some activity.

“I think these items are quite relevant. Remember, unless you are deliberately discriminating against those who want to marry relatives, multiple wives or animals, then you aren’t just changing the def’n of marriage to being between one man and one woman. You are saying that it is NOT just between a man and a woman and that it is now whatever we want it to be.”

I can agree with part of what you say here. There have been culture that allow all of these things, and religions too I am sure. My position is that since marriage and civil union are made made things we can make them what we want. Now, of course, the religious person claims that marriage, in the proper sense, is not a man made thing but is a holy sacrament made by God and is the spiritual union of two souls, or some such. That is fine with me. As I have said, I think we seperate the two for just this reason. There are clearly two things going on here. There are the legal issues we were talking about before and then there are the spirtual issues just metnioned. So if a particular church wants to allow gays to marry that is up to them. It is then a chuirch issue, decided by the church’s interpretation of their holy books etc. So, gays who want a Catholic marriage should have to take that up with the Catholic church. The same goes for those that want to marry their siblings or goats (The Church of England seemed to allow incestuous marriages…though I am not a history buff).

But just because I think that gays, and straights, should have the option of either civil union of marriage I don’t think that has anything to do with animals! IOn the legal sense a civil union is a decleration of partnership. Animals can’t do that and so trivially cannot enter into civil unions (nor can they buy property or pay taxes).

Now as for multiple wives, that is hard. I think, though, that you might be able to make an argument that the nature of the promises that you make to a person during the ceremony determine what you are obligated to do and those obligations might rule out multiple marriages or unions. Certainly in the traditional wedding vows we promise to ‘forsake all others’…but I guess the question might be asked ’should that be a vow?’ To me that seems to be a personal choice and not one that should be regulated by the government. I don’t really care if teh Big Love people do their thing. That is not an arrangement that I would want, but I can’t see why it is wrong for those that choose it.

Neil Says:
July 25, 2008 at 8:46 am

“Why can’t I just accuse you guys of wanting to define marriage as whatever you want it to be?”

Because it wouldn’t be true. It was always the definition, and it was an institution recognized by the gov’t after it already existed.

“Well, as I said, it depends on what you mean by ‘mother’ and ‘father’.”

I think you and everyone who reads this knows what I mean. Your appeal to the “gender stereotypes”pejorative betrays all the research showing the value of a child having a mother and a father.

“There are facts about children (mental immaturity, physical immaturity) ”

I think you are being inconsistent. Who gets to define maturity? I assume you are wildly opposed to Planned Parenthood and their Teenwire website, which tells kids to have sex whenever they decide they are ready.

I find your civil union / declaration of partnerhip view very inconsistent with your polygamy view. If these are just legal unions, such as a business partership, there would be no limit to how many I could have.

Again, there is no reason for the gov’t to be involved in gay unions. They can live together, have sex with each other, get married in fake churches, etc., but the gov’t has no incentive to be involved in or to encourage these relationships.

Richard Brown Says:
July 25, 2008 at 9:13 am

“It was always the definition”

Why does that make any less ‘however we want it’? They just got to it first.

“I think you and everyone who reads this knows what I mean.”

No, I really don’t, since gay couples seem to be able to give everything that a stragight couple could provide (even gender stereotypes if they wanted) I simply don’t see what you mean by mother anf father that is more than this.

“Who gets to define maturity? I assume you are wildly opposed to Planned Parenthood and their Teenwire website, which tells kids to have sex whenever they decide they are ready”

I don’t see the inconsitency. I am not opposed to teens having sex. I don’t care what consent people do. There is obviously a point at which it is biologically normal for a person to become sexually active; it coincided with puberty. That is natural. I don’t think that there is anything inherently wrong with teen pregnancy. There are, of course, things about particular teen pregnancies that do make them wrong; rape, inability to care for the child, etc. Now in our society we do not have the age of consent coincide wityh puberty (I think the lowest it goes is 16 right?). But obviously where we put the age of consent is arbitrary (after puberty, that is). So we can rule out pediphiles and rule in teen sex; where’s the inconsitency?

“I find your civil union / declaration of partnerhip view very inconsistent with your polygamy view. If these are just legal unions, such as a business partership, there would be no limit to how many I could have.”

No, this isn’t true. I cannot agree to sell the same object to two people. What I said is that there MIGHT be some form of obligation that you take on in a civil union that precludes you having it to multiple people at the same time (like the selling example). But,as I also said, I ultimately think that it boils down to a personal choice about what kind of commitment you want to make.

Neil Says:
July 25, 2008 at 9:43 am

“They just got to it first.”

Yes, thousands of years ahead of you as well. Thousands. And their version just happened to be the one that had couples who by nature and design can produce children.

“gay couples seem to be able to give everything that a stragight couple could provide ”

Gay couples can never provide a mother and a father. If the audience for a debate sees no difference between a mother and a father then they’ll nod their heads at you. I’ll be glad to have the vast majority agree with me.

“So we can rule out pediphiles and rule in teen sex; where’s the inconsitency?”

Just so I don’t mischaracterize your views, you appear to be saying that post-purberty sex is fine and that age of consent laws are fluid. So anyone post-puberty can have sex with anyone else post-puberty? If so, that is very interesting.

Richard Brown Says:
July 26, 2008 at 7:37 am

Why does it matter that they got to it so early? They had slaves back then too, but we don’t…they didn’t allow women to own property, we do; they didn’t allow divorce, we do…things change….just pointing out that things have been a certain way is NO argument that they should (in principole) continue to be that way…and it was true back then that only those couples could have children…not anymore!

Obviously, you don’t have an argument for your claim that only straight couples can provide a mother and a father…whether “the vast majority” agree with you or not is irrelevent to the point I was trying to make. Define ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in such a way as it rules out gay couples and all you are left with is the biological notion of male and female and that is not even something that only straight couples can provide (transsexual couples, for instance, might technically count as gay and male and female….)

yes, as for the last point, I pretty much think that anyone post puberty (who is mentally age appropriate and in full command of their faculties can have sex with anyone else post puberty that consents (ditto the caveats)…Now I am not married (pun intended, sadly) to this claim..IF you could provide some reasons that I should back off this claim then I would reconsider, but I cannot think of any reason not to allow this…I mean sure I think it is gross if a 45 year old is with a 17 year old, but if the two consent what, other than grossness, is the problem here?

Neil Says:
July 26, 2008 at 8:34 am

“Obviously, you don’t have an argument for your claim that only straight couples can provide a mother and a father…”

For an apparently well educated guy, you are not taking this seriously.

“I mean sure I think it is gross if a 45 year old is with a 17 year old, but if the two consent what, other than grossness, is the problem here?”

I appreciate your candor. Of course, you example could have been 45 / 13 as well, provided the 13 yr. old was through puberty. Yes, that is a huge problem.

Re. the vast majority comment: Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I was just pointing out that it is enjoyable to debate folks with views like yours. Many people with your views aren’t so clear on taking them to their logical conclusions, so I appreciate how you don’t wiggle out of them halfway through the discussion.

You remind me of Peter Singer. He uses the same faulty “personhood” argument to rationalize abortion that countless pro-lifers do (they had to abandon the silly “not a human being” argument when those pesky ultrasounds and DNA came around). But Singer has the consistency to take his view to its logical conclusion and support infanticide. Is he a freak? Sure, but he’s a consistent freak.

I am definitely not saying that the majority should decide what is moral. By that logic, we could return to U.S.-style slavery and shrug our shoulders about how people “used to” think it was bad.

The majority used to think abortion was immoral (actually, a slight majority still does but that is a different story), but the real question hasn’t changed: If it was immoral to crush and dismember an innocent human being for whatever reasons (inconvenience, gender, economic reasons, race, etc.) in 1972 then it was immoral in 1973 and today. Despite their influence on society, laws do not change underlying morals.

Cheers,
Neil

Richard Brown Says:
July 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm

“For an apparently well educated guy, you are not taking this seriously.”

No, I am; I shouldn’t but I am. I gave you a couple of arguments for why I thought that gay couples could provide a mother and a father in…you, on the other hand. haven’t given ANY reason to think otherwise (except saying most people will agree with you)…

Richard Brown Says:
July 26, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Oh, and thanks for the compliment…I do like Singer, he is a smart guy, but I don’t agree with everything he says (he is too much a=of a utilitarian for me…I am more of a Kantian).

Neil Says:
July 26, 2008 at 4:58 pm

You want to change the definition of marriage from “a union of a man and a woman” to “NOT a union of a man and a woman, but a union of whatever we want it to be.” That’s a big change in my book.

Now you want to completely redefine the definitions of a mother and a father that have existed since humanity began, and you think I’m the one short of arguments?

I repeat: A gay couple can NEVER provide a mother and a father to a child. See the definitions below.

One of the things the MSM never calls the pro-gay is their incredible inconsistency with respect to rationalizing their relationships AND their “rights” to parent.

Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner. A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male.

But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination). They are all supposedly equal in value.

So why is the sex of one’s partner paramount and the sex of one’s parents irrelevant? If the “mothering” of a child can be provided by a male then why can’t the a gay guy’s need for a “feminine” partner be satisfied by a female?

moth·er1 Audio Help /ˈmʌðər/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[muhth-er] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a female parent.
2. (often initial capital letter) one’s female parent.
3. a mother-in-law, stepmother, or adoptive mother.
4. a term of address for a female parent or a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent.
5. a term of familiar address for an old or elderly woman.
6. mother superior.
7. a woman exercising control, influence, or authority like that of a mother: to be a mother to someone.
8. the qualities characteristic of a mother, as maternal affection: It is the mother in her showing itself.
9. something or someone that gives rise to or exercises protecting care over something else; origin or source.
10. (in disc recording) a mold from which stampers are made.
–adjective 11. being a mother: a mother bird.
12. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a mother: mother love.
13. derived from or as if from one’s mother; native: his mother culture.
14. bearing a relation like that of a mother, as in being the origin, source, or protector: the mother company and its affiliates; the mother computer and its network of terminals.
–verb (used with object) 15. to be the mother of; give origin or rise to.
16. to acknowledge oneself the author of; assume as one’s own.
17. to care for or protect like a mother; act maternally toward.
–verb (used without object) 18. to perform the tasks or duties of a female parent; act maternally: a woman with a need to mother.
—Idiom19. mother of all, the greatest or most notable example of: the mother of all mystery novels.

Father
1. a male parent.
2. a father-in-law, stepfather, or adoptive father.
3. any male ancestor, esp. the founder of a race, family, or line; progenitor.
4. a man who exercises paternal care over other persons; paternal protector or provider: a father to the poor.
5. a person who has originated or established something: the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.
6. a precursor, prototype, or early form: The horseless carriage was the father of the modern automobile.
7. one of the leading men in a city, town, etc.: a scandal involving several of the city fathers.
8. Chiefly British. the oldest member of a society, profession, etc. Compare dean1 (def. 3).
9. a priest.
10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.
11. a title of respect for an elderly man.
12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.
13. Also called church father. Church History. any of the chief early Christian writers, whose works are the main sources for the history, doctrines, and observances of the church in the early ages.
14. Ecclesiastical. a. (often initial capital letter) a title of reverence, as for church dignitaries, officers of monasteries, monks, confessors, and esp. priests.
b. a person bearing this title.

15. fathers, Roman History. conscript fathers.
–verb (used with object) 16. to beget.
17. to be the creator, founder, or author of; originate.
18. to act as a father toward.
19. to acknowledge oneself the father of.
20. to assume as one’s own; take the responsibility of.
21. to charge with the begetting of.
–verb (used without object) 22. to perform the tasks or duties of a male parent; act paternally: Somehow he was able to write a book while fathering.

Richard Brown Says:
July 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Actually, I don’t really care about the definition of marriage; what I was suggesting was separating marriage (a religious sacrament) from civil unions (a legal contract)…I really could not care less what the various religions decide about marriage…but that should not prohibit gays from receiving equal rights under the law.

as for the parenting thing…did you read the definitions? Uh, look at number 8 under mother…what is your argument that gays can’t meet that definition of mother? You haven’t given any reason to think that they cannot exhibit ‘maternal qualities’. But sure, as I have already said, if all you mean is that a gay couple can’t be genetically male and female, then I agree, but why on Earth should that matter? Again, you give no reason.

“If the “mothering” of a child can be provided by a male then why can’t the a gay guy’s need for a “feminine” partner be satisfied by a female?”

I don’t know the answer to that, not being gay, but I would guess it has to do with what a person finds attractive…some people seem to find members of the same sex attractive, why? I don’t know, but I don’t think that is enough of a reason to discriminate against them in the way that you and other Christians think is OK…I mean yeah, the Old Testament has a couple of lines aboug gays, so what? It has MANY more lines about stoning women on their period who don’t leave town, but I don’t see you up in arms about all the bleeding women running around. Etc, etc, etc…It is abit suspect when you cherry pick which parts of the scriptures you choose to endorse. If you are to be consistent you need to endorse slavery (it is edorsed in Leviticus, among other places), infantificde (God even commands that this be done on a couple of occasions)…the list goes on…

Neil Says:
July 26, 2008 at 5:38 pm

First, please skip the “equal rights” bit. They have the same rights as anyone else. Marry someone of the opposite sex and you get those rights. Remember, you’ve never explained why you don’t champion the “rights” of people involved in polygamous or incestuous relationships, among other things. Why discriminate against them?

“as for the parenting thing…did you read the definitions? Uh, look at number 8 under mother…what is your argument that gays can’t meet that definition of mother?”

So you only had to search down to the 8th most common definition to find something that might help prove your point, but even that requires you to consider the remaining definitions. That is hardly a trump card to redefine what a mother and a father are.

Again, you are redefining words. I’m moving on from this topic. I give you the definitions of words as evidence plus thousands of years of human history, and you say I’ve given you no reasons to offset this niche understanding.

“I don’t know the answer to that,”

I’d encourage you to philosophize on it some more. It is another “reason” I’ve given you that you insist I haven’t provided.

“I don’t know, but I don’t think that is enough of a reason to discriminate against them in the way that you and other Christians think is OK…I mean yeah, the Old Testament has a couple of lines aboug gays, so what? It has MANY more lines about stoning women on their period who don’t leave town, but I don’t see you up in arms about all the bleeding women running around. Etc, etc, etc…It is abit suspect when you cherry pick which parts of the scriptures you choose to endorse. If you are to be consistent you need to endorse slavery (it is edorsed in Leviticus, among other places), infantificde (God even commands that this be done on a couple of occasions)…the list goes on…”

Very interesting. Once again you bring religion up, but I haven’t. Seems kinda stereotypical and prejudiced of you.

Do you really want to bring the Bible into this? I’d be glad to correct your misperceptions. For starters, check out flaws of the shellfish argument. You’ve probably heard the bit about how God says shellfish and homosexual behavior are an abomination, so what is wrong with those crazy inconsistent Christians?

But if you have no interest in what the Bible really says and are just using it as a red herring and an ad hominem attack, it probably wouldn’t be a good use of time.

Neil Says:
July 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm

P.S. Here’s the Bible on homosexual behavior in a nutshell:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.

100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

GNZ Says:
July 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm

To me marriage is not a religious issue. Maybe thats a result of being from NZ.
but it is by definition between a male and a female. I don’t like the idea of running around effectively redefining words for political purposes because that makes it hard to have a reasonable discourse even if that definition was created by religion.

Better to just assert civil unions to carry all the legal rights (as RB originally suggested)

But to go even further… I think the state should also remove most of those advantages because it isn’t clear why married people should have significant advantages over non married people (as it happens in NZ in my experience being married has significant financial disadvantages).

if there is an incentive that is required it can be designed specifically to achieve the aim in which case we don’t even need to think about marriage and discrimination or even civil unions per se. I suspect most of the advantages that being married confer around the world are just the results of lobby groups arguing for them rather than actual attempts at achieving the best for society or for children.

Richard Brown Says:
July 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm

“First, please skip the “equal rights” bit. They have the same rights as anyone else.”

I can’t skip that bit since that’s the only bit that I care about. It is just simply false that gays have the same rights as every one else, and you quip about marrying someone of the opposite sex is absurd. It used to be illegeal in this country for blacks and whites to intermarry…imagine someone saying what you just did…oh they have the same rights as everyone else all they have to do is marry within their race. C’mon, let’s be serious here. I mean, if I think that blacks and whites should be allowed to marry does that mean I have to endorse polygamy too? Hardly. But even so, as I have said, I don’t really have anything against those kinds of things…

“That is hardly a trump card to redefine what a mother and a father are”

OK, it is getting hard for me to take you seriously anymore. I never said I wanted to redefine words. i don’t care about the meaning of the words. What I said was that you hadn’t given any reason to think that gays could not provide a child a mother and a father. I gave you reasons that they could and all you do is say that mother=female; father=male and so gays are out. But that is something like a ridiculously absurd way of thinking.

I brought up the religion thing because the only people who think there is something wrong with gay marriage are religious nutbags. And as I said, I recognize that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. My point was that it also says that about a lot of other things that you don’t seem to be so worked up about. Why aren’t you out there advocating against women going to work on their periods? That is also an abomination according to the scriptures. It is suspect of you to decide which parts of the bible you choose to endorse and those that you do not. I took your point about polygamy and incest seriously but you haven’t taken this point seriously. Do you or don’t you think that women going to work on their period is an abomination? Do you or don’t you think that a slave trying to escape from their master is an abomination? These are all mentioned in the bible and declared to be abominations. Who are you to cherry pick which abominations to denounce?

By the way, there is no mystery as to why there is no pro gay remarks in the bible or why there are so many dispareging remarks about women…that is why a lot of rational religious people do not take these things at face value but see them as parables and leesons…

Richard Brown Says:
July 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Hey GNZ, I forgot to reply to you. But I pretty much agree so that’ss be easy: I pretty much agree. NZ sounds like a cool place!

Neil Says:
July 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm

“It used to be illegeal in this country for blacks and whites to intermarry”

Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not. You are still discriminating against the preferences of polygamous and incestuous couples. But I’m repeating myself so you can say your bit again and have the last word.

“i don’t care about the meaning of the words.”

Fair enough. That closes out the mother/father topic.

“I brought up the religion thing because the only people who think there is something wrong with gay marriage are religious nutbags”

Wow, I gave you a chance to back out of your ad hom and you double down, and throw in the false statement that “only” “religious nutbags” are against it. I know quite a few pagans who disagree.

“My point was that it also says that about a lot of other things that you don’t seem to be so worked up about.”

And my point is that if you were seriously interested in what the Bible has to say and my alleged inconsistency about it, I’d be glad to field those questions. I have plenty of time for honest seekers. You don’t appear to be in that category, especially with concession speeches about religious nutbags. If I am wrong, please correct me, or visit my Bible Study Blog and ask questions – http://bible1.wordpress.com/ . Don’t worry, I don’t bite.

I read things in context, whether it is the Bible or the newspaper. I’ll bet that you usually do, too.

So you have a couple options. You could read the Bible in context and you’ll be able to tell which laws were ceremonial and just for the Israelite theocracy, to set them apart from the Gentiles, and which were moral laws that God held everyone accountable to, like the Canaanites. It isn’t that hard, the text spells it out for you. The link about the shellfish argument above gives an example.

Or if you prefer, you could continue to take verses out of context to attack “religious nutbags,” which is probably more fun and certainly easier, because most people are biblically illiterate. You might shout them into a dignified surrender, but I’ve actually studied the book and am not as easy to bully and bluff.

“It is suspect of you to decide which parts of the bible you choose to endorse and those that you do not. ”

If your claim weren’t false then I suppose it would be suspect. If you can show me where those claims applied to Gentiles, and universally so, I’ll be glad to reconsider. But I’ve been through the book quite a few times and am pretty confident in my views.

Thanks for the Bible tips . Seriously, it is an incredible book worth of serious study, even if you just want to do a more effective job of (allegedly) dismantling it.

But I must warn you that “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) Take it seriously and it just might save and transform you. Because the fact is that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. You have sinned countless times against a perfect and holy God, just like I have. But we can’t forgive ourselves and we can’t save ourselves. But if we trust in Jesus then our sins are transferred to his account and his righteousness is transferred to ours.

See what happens when you bring religion into this? I start giving sermons.

Peace,
Neil

Richard Brown Says:
July 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Your sermons are as bad as your arguments. I hope someday you listen to reason and free yourself from bigotry…until then, God be with you…You’re gonna need him!

Neil Says:
July 27, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Couldn’t resist one last ad hom, eh? Seems to me the bigot would be the one who speaks without actually reading the texts in question.

I’ll leave it to the undecideds to assess who uses reason here – you know, like the definition of the words in question.

You’re right – I do need him, and I’m glad to have him!

Richard Brown Says:
July 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Yeah, I have a hard time tolerating people who hide behind their religious beliefs in order to advance an agenda of hate and bigotry; I’m funny that way. I hope someday you learn the true meaning of the stuff in that book you hold so highly…but given your reasoning abilities I wouldn’t bet on it!

Neil Says:
July 27, 2008 at 8:06 pm

You deleted my last comment?! I’ll take that as a concession speech, thanks.

Richard Brown Says:
July 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm

No, take it as an indication that I won’t let this turn into a platform for you to launch your religious tirades. Don’t post again, thanks, and good luck.