The Submergent Church

The Submergent Church

click on image to enlarge

Recently, Rob Bell came out to voice his support of gay marriage, saying:

“I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. And I think the ship has sailed. This is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

Well, Rob Bell et al. just so happen to also be on a ship… a sinking one.

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “The Submergent Church

  1. Well, what is ‘it’ you are trying to defend inherent in a heterosexual marriage, and of what value?

    If ‘it’ is sacredness of procreation, then disallow all marriages of infertile people that cannot achieve this goal. Disallow any contraceptive use. Age must play a factor as well; there should be mandatory divorce when people reach certain ages. Having children should be part of the marriage contract and, if this is not achieved, then the marriage is dissolved, and so on. Is this what you are advocating for or ‘christianity’ will founder?

    One the one hand, if the holy value of ‘it’ is based on biblical example of one man, one woman from Genesis, then only arranged marriages should be sanctified. Adam and Eve, the story goes, were put together without any prior dating and engagement period, so the ideal of this to be a marriage should be strictly by similar arrangement. Marriages based not on such an arrangement should be annulled.

    On the other hand, if the holy value of ‘it’ is based on love, then all arranged marriages should be annulled. The same argument holds for getting rid of monogamy as a foundation for marriage since it inhibits the expression of love between a man and a woman. So too should any marriage based on any other compelling reasons for connecting two people should void the marriage in the christian sense. Anyone interfering with the joining through marriage of two opposite sex people should be legally sanctioned – perhaps even jailed – for their interference (even if it may be a medical requirement). This argument about the prime value of love presents gay marriage as a necessary requirement.

    So until christians themselves are very clear about what ‘it’ is about marriage that needs protecting from same sex marriages, I’m afraid being against it on supposedly ‘religious’ grounds looks identical with bigotry in action. Plain and simple.

    Like

    • You said:

      “Well, what is ‘it’ you are trying to defend inherent in a heterosexual marriage, and of what value?”

      That just shows me that maybe you haven’t been reading any or much of the literature written by those of us who oppose your view. The rest of your comment shows me that you have either unintentionally misunderstood your opposition or you’re willfully misrepresenting us.

      And I’m not going to respond to each of the statements in your lengthy comment (remember, I do have comment rules, though I’m lenient at times). But to say that “monogamy…inhibits the expression of love between a man and a woman” ranks as about the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever written on this blog. If what you are half-heartedly saying is that not being faithful to someone is more of an expression of love for them, then you are gravely mistaken. Besides, studies show that monogamous husbands and wives are overall happier, have less health problems, and generally live longer than any alternative. In contrast to that, I know of a couple that have such an “open marriage” that you jokingly propose as better than monogamy. Both the husband and the wife suffer from severe depression. (And might I add that surely you know monogamy is the exception among homosexuals, even those involved in “serious” relationships.)

      You appear intent on misrepresenting any and all opposition to gay marriage being strictly the result of religious objections. Again, I think it just shows that you aren’t reading the literature of the opposition. So let me politely suggest you go read some literature by the opposition instead of leaving lengthy comments here.

      Joshua

      Like

      • No, Josh, I’m honestly asking you to seriously consider what ‘it’ is – and the value ‘it’ represents – that you think you are defending in christianity when you condemn same sex marriage to be the cause of ‘sinking’ it.

        Because I see marriage as a legal right for all franchised citizens, I see gay marriage as a victory towards legal equality. The value I attach to this is one of equality. How is it that there can be so many people who would not reduce their rights in order to privilege some subset of the population think it’s pious to inflict exactly that on others?

        Well, obviously there must be some value at play here greater than equality but I have yet to come across a clear articulation of what it may be… other than privileging a faith-based belief and inflicting it on others to reduce their civil rights in law. There is nothing reasonable I can find in this religious push to explain to me how this inequality can be justified as reasonable discrimination that does not directly go back only to a faith position that justifies as a matter of authority the targeting of a specific subset of the population. But what reasonable value informs the imposition of this authority?

        I see this same religious push when it comes to gender and targeting women, when it comes to the morality and targeting non believers, when it comes to education and targeting children, when it comes to science and targeting evolution, and so on. It’s always about trying to impose religious authority without any reasonable justification for it… other than this notion that religious faith ought to determine who gets what rights, what gets a nod of religious approval and what doesn’t.

        That there is a sustained religious push to authorize the actions of people is beyond question. But what I want to know from someone who thinks stopping this push ‘sinks’ their theological ship is what value other than religious authority might be in play, and I want to read a compelling justification to understand why this hidden value is worth the cost in real harm to real people in real life.

        Like

      • No, Josh, I’m honestly asking you to seriously consider what ‘it’ is – and the value ‘it’ represents – that you think you are defending in christianity when you condemn same sex marriage to be the cause of ‘sinking’ it.

        Well, I get that the protection and promotion of monogamy is a mystery to you. (You’ve already shown your disdain of monogamy in your last comment, even if you only said it in jest.) For what it’s worth, whatever seriousness or honesty you may have had didn’t break through previous comment in which you gave a long list of red herrings.

        As much as I hate spoon-feeding, let me say this: the boat is clearly labeled and the person in the front is Rob Bell (if you didn’t recognize him, that would not surprise me). The boat represents the two things he and others like him assumed for themselves in the guise of Christianity in order to keep them afloat in the Christian arena (orthodoxy and credibility). It’s their boat that is sinking, not Christianity’s.

        Because I see marriage as a legal right for all franchised citizens, I see gay marriage as a victory towards legal equality. The value I attach to this is one of equality. How is it that there can be so many people who would not reduce their rights in order to privilege some subset of the population think it’s pious to inflict exactly that on others?

        Everyone already has the same rights; anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose. That’s not your goal. The aggressive gay movement, which you seem to be a part of, wants preferential treatment. It wants to redefine marriage, going against the grain of biological and societal definitions. It also wants to use gay marriage as a means to strip people of freedom of speech, especially that of Christians. Ultimately, it will lead to things like the obliteration of gender distinctions, designations like “father” and “mother”, and so on.

        Furthermore, the way I see it, you would probably maintain that people who love each other should be able to get married, but I’m sure you would submit a long line of exceptions, too.

        Well, obviously there must be some value at play here greater than equality but I have yet to come across a clear articulation of what it may be… other than privileging a faith-based belief and inflicting it on others to reduce their civil rights in law. There is nothing reasonable I can find in this religious push to explain to me how this inequality can be justified as reasonable discrimination that does not directly go back only to a faith position that justifies as a matter of authority the targeting of a specific subset of the population. But what reasonable value informs the imposition of this authority?

        Again, maybe the problem is that you’re either misunderstanding your opposition or your not reading it.

        I see this same religious push when it comes to gender and targeting women, when it comes to the morality and targeting non believers, when it comes to education and targeting children, when it comes to science and targeting evolution, and so on. It’s always about trying to impose religious authority without any reasonable justification for it… other than this notion that religious faith ought to determine who gets what rights, what gets a nod of religious approval and what doesn’t.

        Is this supposed to be some sort of argument? A paragraph of statements?

        That there is a sustained religious push to authorize the actions of people is beyond question. But what I want to know from someone who thinks stopping this push ‘sinks’ their theological ship is what value other than religious authority might be in play, and I want to read a compelling justification to understand why this hidden value is worth the cost in real harm to real people in real life.

        Well, you don’t understand the cartoon and you’ve forgotten my intention in naming the blog “No Apologies Allowed”.

        Joshua

        Like

  2. “Everyone already has the same rights; anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose. ”

    Josh, I can’t believe you still offer this argument. The first time I heard someone say it, I figured it was a joke. Literally, I thought it was a one-liner, as it makes so little sense as a logical argument.

    It is exactly the same defence people use to give for anti-miscegenation laws – “Inter-racial couples are not being discriminated against – they have exactly the same rights to marry someone of their own race as everyone else”.

    It was a bad argument 60 years ago and remains a bad argument today.

    “I want to read a compelling justification to understand why this hidden value is worth the cost in real harm to real people in real life.”

    Tildeb, you can’t ask this question, as the opposers of gay marriage place no value whatsoever on the harm, so can’t weigh it up against anything else.

    “studies show that monogamous husbands and wives are overall happier, have less health problems, and generally live longer than any alternative”

    So presumably you understand why same-sex couples would want to enjoy a right that increases longevity, happiness and health.

    Like

    • Josh, I can’t believe you still offer this argument. The first time I heard someone say it, I figured it was a joke. Literally, I thought it was a one-liner, as it makes so little sense as a logical argument.

      It is exactly the same defence people use to give for anti-miscegenation laws – “Inter-racial couples are not being discriminated against – they have exactly the same rights to marry someone of their own race as everyone else”.

      Well, don’t let the simple arguments confound you, Andy. The argument is only the same to those who see no distinction between predetermined character traits (skin color) and sexual behavior. For the rest of us, we see distinctions where they should be.

      Tildeb, you can’t ask this question, as the opposers of gay marriage place no value whatsoever on the harm, so can’t weigh it up against anything else.

      I thought this was a one-liner! That statement is coming from someone who, in another thread, voiced support for abortion.

      “studies show that monogamous husbands and wives are overall happier, have less health problems, and generally live longer than any alternative”

      So presumably you understand why same-sex couples would want to enjoy a right that increases longevity, happiness and health.

      Monogamy is the exception in homosexual relationships, even among “serious” couples. As the NY Times pointed out in reference to a San Francisco State University study:

      “A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.”

      source: Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

      Of course, given the position you and tildeb are espousing here, adultery becomes justifiable. After all, all that’s needed is the consent of two adults, right? (And why just two, pray tell?) I guess I should protest the laws in this country against adultery as archaic, discriminatory, and bigoted.

      Joshua

      Like

      • No, the argument is either a good one or a bad one. It doesn’t become a good argument if it supports a conclusion you already agree with, and a bad one if it’s a conclusion you don’t agree with. It wouldn’t suddenly become a good argument to me if it was saying paedophiles aren’t discriminated against as they have the same right to sleep with adults. They ARE discriminated against, but that’s a good thing. No-one offers the facile argument that they aren’t.

        Like

      • Yeah, so now you appear to understand that we and the law treat different behaviors differently. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are not the same kind of behavior. Sexual behavior is a behavior. Skin color is not. Furthermore, where has monogamous, heterosexual sex among a married couple ever been outlawed or called a psychological disorder?

        I noticed that you always go back to inter-racial marriage arguments of the past and try to equate them with gay marriage rights in the present. I think you do it because you think it’s going to appeal to me (since I’m involved in a so-called “inter-racial” marriage [biology and the Bible only know of one race btw]) and possibly change my mind on the issue. It’s not going to work. Ever. See the reasons above and below.

        Like

      • ” Sexual behavior is a behavior. Skin color is not”

        Choice of race of partner is a behaviour. Gender is not. See – the argument works both ways.

        No, you’re either comparing race and gender, or you’re comparing choice of partner’s race and choice of partner’s gender. The comparison remains valid, my point stands. But you’ve proved my point by rejecting the notion that inter-racial couples were not discriminated against. And no, I don’t bring up inter-racial issues because of your own situation – although the irony of it still strikes me every time, especially to see you using exactly the same arguments people used to use against against inter-racial marriages (right down to quoting stats about gay relationships being lesser in some way, just like people used to quote stats that inter-racial kids were more likely to go into crime etc, as if that justified stopping their parents marrying.)

        Regarding monogamy, I’m always hearing people defending marriage by saying it encourages monogamy. So yes, one would expect couples who cannot marry to be less monogamous. Either way, monogamy is not a legal requirement of marriage.

        And you quoting arguments we’ve had about abortion are irrelevant here, and suggest you can’t argue your case on its own terms.

        You’ve had enough of my time on this thread, thanks for the interaction.

        Like

      • Well, thanks for your time, too. I appreciate it. I just wanted to add:

        But you’ve proved my point by rejecting the notion that inter-racial couples were not discriminated against.

        No, I didn’t. A bad argument (inter-racial marriage is bad) based on a bad premise (there is more than 1 race) doesn’t translate into a good argument for you regarding homosexual marriage, since there are obvious differences.

        And no, I don’t bring up inter-racial issues because of your own situation – although the irony of it still strikes me every time, especially to see you using exactly the same arguments people used to use against against inter-racial marriages…

        Well, it’s only ironic because you fail to draw any distinction between skin color and sexual behavior. And to say that I’m using “exactly the same arguments” is to misread (or skip) what I wrote and to draw attention to the fact that you, again, fail to make the previously mentioned distinction between skin color and sexual behavior.

        And for the third time: homosexual relationships are notoriously promiscuous. As the NY Times article I referenced evidences, even the ability to “get married” doesn’t and would not do anything to curb that very widespread tendency.

        See ya!

        Joshua

        Like

  3. “Well, what is ‘it’ you are trying to defend inherent in a heterosexual marriage, and of what value?

    If ‘it’ is sacredness of procreation, then disallow all marriages of infertile people that cannot achieve this goal. Disallow any contraceptive use. Age must play a factor as well; there should be mandatory divorce when people reach certain ages.”

    That’s ridiculous. People don’t object to gay marriage because homosexuals are unable to procreate, they object to it for the same reasons they object marriage between human and animals, adults and children, humans and corpses, etc.–on moral grounds. Because they consider such unions to be deviant.

    Like

    • ” they object marriage between human and animals, adults and children, humans and corpses”

      All the examples you give come down to consent. Animals and corpses cannot consent to marriage (or any contract). And children cannot give informed consent to sex (and by extension marriage).

      Like

      • “corpses cannot consent to marriage (or any contract)”

        That’s a ridiculous statement as anyone can simply sign a consent form before they die. It is their body after all.

        Like

  4. Whew. Andrew Ryan arrives as the voice of reason just in time. I was still in the process of picking up my jaw from Josh’s assertion that legal equality was already in practice and synapticcohesion‘s assertion that the value is a restraint against marrying corpses, both very… well, I’ll just say not very reasonable.

    I ask what I think is a perfectly frank question about what ‘it’ is that is darn valuable to christianity that same sex couples would threaten it and all I get in response is outrage, accusations of ‘aggressive’ gay motives, insistence that I go read more, and the weird notion that I seek some kind of apology. I want a clearly enunciated explanation that is reasonable.

    (Shrug)

    Maybe there isn’t one, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation why there seems to be such floundering about to make me seem to be some kind of bad guy for daring to ask the question.

    Like

    • I’ll tell you something I’ve noticed – every now and then you hear of a committed opponent of SSM discovering their child is gay and changing their mind on the issue. Not everyone has that reaction, but I’ll say this: If they found out their son was a paedophile they’d call the police. If they found out he was doing the dog they’d call a psychiatrist. If he was digging up corpses to bone they’d get him committed. And yet we’re told that being gay is somehow in the same bracket as those things. I don’t believe anyone remotely believes that.

      Like

    • I ask what I think is a perfectly frank question about what ‘it’ is that is darn valuable to christianity that same sex couples would threaten it and all I get in response is outrage, accusations of ‘aggressive’ gay motives, insistence that I go read more, and the weird notion that I seek some kind of apology. I want a clearly enunciated explanation that is reasonable.

      Again, you’re intentionally misrepresenting the argument, making any and all objections to gay marriage and homosexual behavior purely religious ones, which, let me point out for the third time, shows you aren’t reading or aren’t understanding those of us who oppose it.

      Again, for a second time, monogamy is one of the things that I want to promote and protect. Leaving aside the fact that you have no rational or reasonable basis to promote or desire monogamy given your belief in evolution and support of homosexual behavior, you already made a joke of monogamy. And the homosexual lifestyle is notoriously NOT one that involves monogamy.

      I wasn’t saying you were seeking some kind of apology. Obviously, you have forgotten that “No Apologies Allowed” is a pun, as I have had written in the “About” section for a couple years now. You want a long, detailed, reasonable explanation of opposition to gay marriage from me. Here is not the forum for that. Besides, there are plenty of things in print and on the Web already. If you really want a long, detail explanation of why we oppose gay marriage and the public promotion of homosexual behavior, then order Dr. Michael Brown’s book “A Queer Thing Happened to America”. It’s 691 pages long. That should be long enough for you, no? Well, then, put your money where your mouth is.

      I’d like to add that a person who waits for someone to provide them an answer instead of going and looking for it themselves reveals to me a little bit about the shallowness of their sincerity.

      Maybe there isn’t one, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation why there seems to be such floundering about to make me seem to be some kind of bad guy for daring to ask the question.

      Always the victim, aren’t you?

      Joshua

      Like

      • Well, nothing like judging a book by its page numbers! I’ve given you a reference that interacts with just about every objection you could offer. Now it’s your responsibility to read it. I hope you won’t continue to deceive yourself and others by saying that you’ve never heard a clear explanation about why we oppose gay marriage and homosexual behavior.

        Besides, I don’t think you care anyway. I mentioned that homosexual behavior was unhealthy and unnatural in an old thread. You weren’t satisfied with a clear, concise reason then. I don’t think you’ll be satisfied with one now.

        Anyways, I’ve given you at least 3 reasons that homosexual behavior, part of homosexual marriage, is bad for society:

        1) It’s an unhealthy lifestyle. (STD, promiscuity, depression, and suicide affect many involved in it. And we make laws to gently persuade people to not get involved in unhealthy things, things like smoking.)
        2) It’s unnatural. (It misuses the organs of the body.)
        3) It’s generally not a monogamous lifestyle.

        Like

      • Well, I still haven’t heard it clearly enunciated. But what I have heard is not coherent on its own as a value that can be shared by everyone to the betterment of society; instead, it’s all about promoting authority of some religious framework at the direct expense of individual equality rights.

        Like

      • Josh, you haven’t enunciated what the positive value is; all you’ve done is try to defend against having to express it. For example, I’m very much in support of monogamy. I can express why I think this is for the betterment of society and part of a very positive social value for everyone everywhere all the time. I can do this without the slightest regard for any supposed authority of any specific religious framework because the value stands on its own merit.

        But what I don’t see regarding why same sex marriage should be legally discriminated against is the equivalent ability to promote a positive value based on its own independent merit. I see a strong and passionate defense against it for threatening religious orthodoxy, by threatening religious authority to determine these what these values should be…. not by independent merit of social benefit because of this legal discrimination but by expressions of impending social doom for thwarting god’s intentions (unsupported by evidence from reality).

        That’s why all I come across to criticize same sex marriage is really quite rationally incoherent… an incoherence that is demonstrable in thread about marrying corpses and having to read tomes to grasp what the threat really is. But, again, none of this is a clear enunciation of what value is being held sacred because it yields a positive social benefit on its own merit (and thus justify the legal discrimination against same sex marriage) that can be recognized to be such by all and thus shared by all as a positive value.

        Like

  5. “If they found out their son was a paedophile they’d call the police. If they found out he was doing the dog they’d call a psychiatrist. If he was digging up corpses to bone they’d get him committed.”

    You make valid points. To put it crudely, some people prefer to use the excretory organs instead of the sex organs to have sex. Yet for some reason we no longer place any stigma or attach any psychological dysfunction to this particular sexual act. Why?

    Like

  6. “After all, all that’s needed is the consent of two adults, right? (And why just two, pray tell?) I guess I should protest the laws in this country against adultery as archaic, discriminatory, and bigoted.”

    I have no doubt that in the not-too-distant future, the “experts” will be making that exact assertion–that it is archaic and unnatural (even selfish) to expect your spouse to remain monogamous. That is is only natural that spouses have an “outlet” to explore the full breadth of their sexuality.

    Like

    • I have no doubt that in the not-too-distant future, the “experts” will be making that exact assertion–that it is archaic and unnatural (even selfish) to expect your spouse to remain monogamous. That is is only natural that spouses have an “outlet” to explore the full breadth of their sexuality.

      You’re perceptive and just extending the logic. And doesn’t that seem that “monogamy is yucky / bad” was what tildeb was implying a little further up in this thread where he wrote the following?

      “The same argument holds for getting rid of monogamy as a foundation for marriage since it inhibits the expression of love between a man and a woman.”

      It’s twisted and deceptive to say that being unfaithful to someone is an expression of love for them.

      In addition, the editor of Fab (a gay magazine published in Canada), Mitchel Raphael, said:

      “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ’till death do us part’ and monogamy forever.”

      source: NY Times: Now Free to Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’

      Notice how he proposes gays could “change the institution” — no “till death do us part” (an interesting point to consider given that most pro-gay marriage proponents complain about not receiving benefits when their partner dies) or “monogamy forever”. As I’ve pointed out a few times in this thread, monogamy is not a characteristic of homosexual relationships. And monogamy is but one of the things that those of us against gay marriage want to promote and protect by opposing it.

      Joshua

      Like

  7. Since we’re all just animals, let’s compare this to a situation with dogs: If your dog started pursuing other male dogs and constantly tried to mate with them, would you conclude that this natural for some dogs because some animals are “born gay”–or would you take him to the vet to find out what is wrong with Fido? And if you took him to the vet would you feel guilty for being a hypocritical bigot–intolerant of your dog’s innate homosexuality while advocating for the rights of innately homosexual human beings? After all, different dog breeds mate all the time, yet you are so illogically intolerant of Fido’s running around your home after his trysts with other dogs in the neighborhood just because they happen to be male. Shame on you.

    Like

  8. Earth: 14 January 2050

    Teacher: OK, class today we’re going to look at a particular type of bigotry in our history. Discrimination that banned people from marrying corpses.

    (Collective gasp from classroom.)

    Teacher: Yes, it was a dark chapter in our history. Religious fundamentalists and other people stuck in the past claimed that marriage between people and corpses was “deviant” and “unclean”–even evil.

    (Gasps and murmurs.)

    Teacher: But we have progressed since then. Anti-corpse marriage advocates who claim that there is no “consent” just have to take a look at the legal contracts between partners who wish to marry and continue to be together after one of the partners is deceased. And since there is a legal requirement that bodies be preserved and taken to a taxidermist, anti-corpsers cannot use the excuse that such unions pose a health threat due to unsanitary conditions. So it is clear that anti-corpsers have lost the battle and, luckily, they are a dying breed. No pun intended.

    (Giggles and cheers.)

    (Cue Twilight Zone theme.)

    Like

  9. “That’s why all I come across to criticize same sex marriage is really quite rationally incoherent… an incoherence that is demonstrable in thread about marrying corpses and having to read tomes to grasp what the threat really is.”

    Just because you can’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s “incoherent.”

    Why do you get to pick and choose which type of marriage should be accepted and which shouldn’t? People who wish to marry corpses aren’t hurting anyone. Why is it any of your business what they do in their private lives and whom they choose to marry? In both parties agree and give consent, then who are you to say that it is wrong? Who are you to discriminate and say that they are making a mockery of marriage? After all, in some parts of the world, men and women of different “races” weren’t allowed to marry.

    Like

    • What really disgusts me is that no one here on the expanding marriage side is willing to be honest. Instead of pretending that they support monogamy and that they find marriage to corpses to be abhorrent, I would have a lot more respect for them if they were honest and maintained that they believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to making decisions in their personal lives as long as it is not overtly hurting anyone. At least that would demonstrate their honesty and consistency. Anything else is cowardly, and hypocritical, and deceptive.

      Like

  10. “Pretending they find marriage to corpses abhorrent? That’s right, Synapt, it’s us whose pretending here.”

    Either you are pretending, or you are a hypocrite. You condemn others for objecting to things that they find abhorrent and wrong; yet you feel it is perfectly fine for you to object to what you feel to be abhorrent and wrong. Hypocritical and self-centered, don’t you think?

    Like

    • The difference, synapticcohesion is that Andrew offers positive reasons that stand on their own merit for the value he is upholding. You, in stark contrast, seem unable to enunciate any equivalent positive value for yours. You just condemn and vilify and name call.

      There is a qualitative difference in the value of these responses.

      Like

      • No, Andrew hasn’t given a single reason why his objections to other types of unconventional marriage is any more valid than the objections many have to gay marriage.

        Like

      • Andrew has expressed that “same-sex couples would want to enjoy a right that increases longevity, happiness and health.” These results inform a value of equality, which stands on its own merit. And he has clearly explained that the examples you gave were inappropriate because they “come down to consent.” Your examples involve non consensual sexual congress. But isn’t marriage far more than just sexual congress? This leads us right back to my question about what positive value informs the anti-SSM position. Why can’t you answer that as quickly and easily as proponents can? And because you can’t enunciate any positive value, then for your own sake you deserve to re-examine what values you are actually supporting. I think you will find that they are all in support of religious authority over and above values of merit that stand on their own accord. This is a strong indication that you are exercising bigotry and calling it pious; the name doesn’t alter the negative value you are trying to impose on everybody.

        Like

    • “Either you are pretending, or you are a hypocrite.”

      Wait a minute. One minute you demand that we stop pretending to be against necrophilia. Then when we call you on it you say “Either that or you’re a hypocrite”. That’s a pretty big come down. That’s like me saying “Synaptic and Josh – why not at least be honest and admit you approve of paedophilia?”. And then when you say “Eh?”, I then say: “Well either that or your arguments aren’t logically consistent”, as if the two accusations were equivalent.

      You see no difference between accusing someone of approving of necrophilia and accusing them of being a hypocrite?

      So when you said asked for us to drop the dishonesty and admit to approving of necrophilia, it was in fact YOU being dishonest, as you never actually thought we approved of any such thing.

      And if you still maintain that we do, I’ll just go ahead and demand that you admit to hating black people and thinking women should be kept in cages.

      And my point remains too: we hear all the time of right wing Christians saying their mind had been changed on the issue of gay marriage. The reaction from remaining opponents of gay marriage is pretty mild. They might get disowned or called RINOs. If Rob Bell had announced that he backed necrophilia or paedophilia or bestiality (NPB for short), Josh would have drawn him shaking hands with Satan or something, not simply sinking in a ship. If I was a member of a political party and increasing numbers of that party backed NPB, I’d LEAVE that party. If a majority of my fellow countrymen now backed NPB, I’d leave that COUNTRY.

      In short, I’m doubtful that the comparisons most SSM opposers make to NPB are made for anything more than shock value or trolling. They don’t really see them as being in any way equivalent.

      Like

  11. “And he has clearly explained that the examples you gave were inappropriate because they “come down to consent.” ”

    Can a dead body consent to leaving all of their money and possessions to their family members? No. Can dead body consent to donating his or her organs to someone else? Of course not. But people can put people in their wills and donate their organs to others after they die because of prior consent–consent of the individual while they are still alive. So your “consent” excuse is BS.

    For once, just answer the question(s): Why is it OK object to (and ban) some forms of unconventional marriage when it’s not “hurting” anyone? When both parties have expressed consent? Should we leave it up to you, tildeb, to decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?

    Like

  12. “Andrew has expressed that “same-sex couples would want to enjoy a right that increases longevity, happiness and health.””

    Right. This coming from the same people who criticize marriage because “the divorce rates are higher than ever,” “most spouses cheat,” and “most marriages are dysfunctional.”

    And those longevity statistics are based on traditional marriages. How can you claim that must also apply to all other types of unconventional marriages by default? Marriage is not a magic life extending elixir–overall, it works for the majority because it is a tried and true value system.

    Like

    • “This coming from the same people who…”

      Tildeb specifically said “ANDREW has expressed…”, and you reply by making reference to “the same people”. I’m not “the same people”. I don’t answer one of your arguments by saying “This from the same people who…” and then go on to quote a bunch of things you never said.

      I’ve no idea who said those words or indeed what context they were made in. At any rate they are a complete non sequitur with regards to Josh’s claim that marriage “increases longevity, happiness and health”, because the two sets of claims are not mutually exclusive.

      “How can you claim that…”

      If you were setting up an experiment to test whether marriage does indeed increase monogamy, health, etc, then one would expect that a group not allowed to marry would be more promiscuous, die younger etc.

      Saying that a group is too promiscuous to enjoy a right that you also claim boosts monogamy is bizarre.

      “it works for the majority because it is a tried and true value system”

      And you know this how exactly? You have no idea what it is about marriage that carries over those benefits, and so it is special pleading to claim it wouldn’t carry those benefits for same sex couples.

      Like

  13. “A bad argument (inter-racial marriage is bad) based on a bad premise (there is more than 1 race)…. doesn’t translate into a good argument for you regarding homosexual marriage’

    You are being shifty. The bad argument wasn’t ‘marrying someone of a different skin colour is bad’, and I wasn’t (here) attempting to make ‘a good argument’ for gay marriage.

    The bad argument was anything with the following format:
    “Denying people who want/need/have to do X the right to do X is not discriminatory because they have the same right as everyone else to do Y”.

    And it doesn’t make any difference if X is a behaviour, a choice, or involves a biological fact. Neither does it make any difference if you think the people SHOULD be able to do X or not. It’s a bad argument. This stands apart from any good or bad arguments that you think may be made for or against ‘X’. You can’t say it’s a good or bad argument simply because you are for or against ‘X’. For example:

    1. Serving only bacon for dinner doesn’t discriminate against Jewish people because they have the same right to eat bacon as everyone else.
    2. Stopping inter-racial marriage doesn’t discriminate against inter-racial couples because they have the same right to marry their own race as everyone else.
    3. Saying everyone must swear on the Torah doesn’t discriminate against Christians because they have the same right to swear on the Torah as everyone else.
    4. Stopping same race marriage doesn’t discriminate against same race couples because they have the same right to marry another race as everyone else.
    5. Outlawing paedophilia doesn’t discriminate against paedophiles because they have the same right to sleep with adults as everyone else.

    It’s like algebra – if you have a logically incoherent formula, it’ll be bad regardless of what values you assign to ‘A’ or ‘B’ or whatever.

    Like

  14. “Well, it’s only ironic because you fail to draw any distinction between skin color and sexual behavior.”

    I addressed this in the very post you replied to. It’s sneaky when someone says “Here’s my point, now I’ve got to go” to then reply and effectively say “Shame you haven’t addressed this particular point”, when it was exactly the point they addressed (whether you agree with that point or not).

    If you don’t want to read the post again, I’ve got a bit more time now so will I’ll explain in a different way.

    If ‘wanting to marry the same gender’ is a ‘sexual behaviour’ than ‘wanting to marry someone with a different skin colour’ is also a sexual behaviour. If inter-racial marriage is ‘about’ skin colour, then same sex marriage is ‘about’ gender.

    The comparison is either ‘skin colour/gender’ or it’s ‘opposite race attraction/same sex attraction’. One or the other. Anything else and it is YOU making the apples/oranges argument.

    Either way, as I explained in my post of ten minutes ago, the “They’re not being discriminated against…” argument doesn’t work ANYWAY, regardless of whether it involves race, skin colour, gender, ice cream preference or whatever. You’re better off giving reasons why you believe discrimination SHOULD occur than pretending that it DOESN’T.

    “And for the third time: homosexual relationships are notoriously promiscuous”

    So what? I don’t see you arguing for monogamy to be a requirement of marriage, so your point is irrelevant. Perhaps gay men are simply more promiscuous due to opportunity. Perhaps they’re simply more honest about admitting to it (not being married, they have less reason to lie). Perhaps continually being told they’re second class citizens drives them to seek solace in sex. Who knows.

    What we do know is that straight men who HAVE the opportunity to be more promiscuous due to their job tend to TAKE that opportunity. Read any rock star, comedian or actor biography. Led Zeppelin, Russell Brand, Frank Skinner, The Who, AC/DC, Motley Crue – they all numbered their conquests in the hundreds or even thousands. Frank Zappa? Promiscuous wasn’t just a song to him, it was a way of life. Yet he was still able to marry. Twice. This isn’t comparing the minority of one group with the majority of another – it’s pointing out that the only differential is opportunity (You can surely find me people who had the opportunity but didn’t take it, but equally I can show you monogamous gays).

    So I don’t see that a) this is something intrinsic to being gay, or b) that this has anything to do with whether gays should be able to marry anyway.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s