Saturday, August 7, 2010

Marriage For ALL!!! NOW!!!

Since the definition of marriage is now fluid, I think that it's high time people's "right" to get married is no longer squelched on any level. By golly, we ought to have schizophrenic marriage! If one person's multiple personalities loooove each other, then they should also be able to marry! The Japanese can marry their pillows! Pillow lovers should no longer be denied their rights. Why are those nasty religious fanatics so bent on keeping lonely men from marrying their video game characters?

I think other thing's rights should be expanded as well. I demand that married bachelorism be legal!!!!!!

**Update**


William Lane Craig gives some great thoughts here.

41 comments:

zilch said...

Brennon: your church is free to solemnize the marriage of whomever they choose or do not choose. Your church is not free to dictate to the State who may or may not marry in a civil ceremony. Thank God.

The Seeking Disciple said...

And I think that men who like to have sex with dogs should be able to marry dogs and whatever other animals they want. People who want to marry children should be allowed to marry children. Since we as a society are now saying that the sin of homosexuality is okay, why not just allow other sins to be legalized as well.

bossmanham said...

your church is free to solemnize the marriage of whomever they choose or do not choose. Your church is not free to dictate to the State who may or may not marry in a civil ceremony

Can the state change what words mean whenever it wants? It should change the meaning of "freedom" to mean subjugation of individuals by the state. Yeah. That sounds good.

Mr. Guthrie said...

It wasn't the State that had spoken against same sex marriage, it was the people of California who ammended their own State Constitution to ban the practice. It was the State through a Federal Judge who dictated to the people. Soon that very State will want to mandate that Churches not teach against same sex relations; after all, many western European countries, such as Canada and the U.K. prosecute preachers for doing so under so called "Hate Speech" laws.

bossmanham said...

And then they have the gall to say they are nations of free speech. Give me a break. Liberals are the least tolerant people on the planet, and the most dangerous to individual liberty.

bethyada said...

bossmanham, you may find this take on marriage interesting.

And schizophrenia refers to paranoia, hallucinations and delusions, not multiple personalities.

zilch said...

Can the state change what words mean whenever it wants? It should change the meaning of "freedom" to mean subjugation of individuals by the state. Yeah. That sounds good.

Who's being "subjugated" here? Are you being forced into a gay marriage? How is gay marriage a threat to you as an individual?

Liberals are the least tolerant people on the planet, and the most dangerous to individual liberty.

Who is restricting individual liberty here? You say that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. They are not restricting your rights; you are restricting theirs.

Since the definition of voting is now fluid, I think that it's high time people's "right" to vote is no longer squelched on any level. By golly, we ought to let poor men vote! If a poor man looooves his wife, then she should be allowed to vote too! The blacks can vote too! Catholics can vote for Catholics! Etc...

Brennon: I am about forty years older than you, so barring disease or accident, you have good chances of living forty years past my death. I am willing to bet that your position against gay marriage will sound pretty much like people holding out against suffrage for blacks or women by the time you reach my current age.

Unfortunately, I won't be around to see how you take this: like one of the old postbellum slaveholders who still thought they were right to hold to Scripture, or whether you grow up. But you will find out, one way or another.

cheers from cloudy Vienna, zilch

The Seeking Disciple said...

Sadly what liberals such as Zilch fail to see is that the Bible never condoned holding slavery as an issue of race and as Philemon proves, when the gospel goes forth it breaks physical chains as well thus the Apostles never preached against slavery for they knew the Gospel could bring complete transformation over a culture. Slavery in the NT was not about race but about usually about debt.

The issue of homosexuality is not even the same. The Bible clearly teaches in the NT that homosexuality is a sin and that no person practicing homosexuality will inherit the kingdom (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 6:9-11; Galatians 5:16-21). The only way to avoid the implications of these passages is to deny what they clearly say.

So if Brennon (or myself) should ever condone homosexuality as a lifestyle then we would be going against the Bible and against God. If I do so, I deserve hell.

bossmanham said...

Zilch, if you or anyone else here has missed it, I am making fun of the ridiculous practice of changing the definition of concepts and ideas. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. When perverts get together and want to call something else marriage, it's as laughable as trying to make other incoherent ideas legitimate.

All sorts of sins and perversions have come into fashion and passed out of it, even the sin you anachronistically read into the OT. Yet, Christ's church still stands. Ironically for you, it just confirms what Jesus prophesied would happen. They wouldn't be called principles if they shifted with every cultural change.

Mr. Guthrie said...

Zilch, your contention that legalizing same sex marriage only affects those who choose to follow such a life style is incorrect. Whenever a "right" is recognized by the state, it creates an entirely new set of laws to prevent those who oppose such recognition from limiting or circumventing that new "right." The campaign to force opponents of the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle to accept this lifestyle as legitimate has already led to Christians being charged with hate speech in European countries, see http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=37191 and http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/724 . Those who are seeking to become psyciatrists face discrimination if they don't accept same sex attraction as normal, see http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5346. A couple with a photography business from New Mexico were fined because they refused to photograph a same sex marriage, http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5156 . The costs in settling "divorces" for a lifestyle known for multiple partners will be huge. The lifestyle poses unique health risks for homosexuals and lesbians which can spread to the general population. See here from the U.S. Health and Human Services on the health risks of the Lesbian lifestyle: http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/lesbian-health.cfm . So Zilch, this is not just a matter between two consenting adults. Also, the attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriage to prejudice against other races is intellectually bankrupt and an attempt to try to embarrass those you disagree with into silence.

Skeptical Rationalist said...

Whenever a "right" is recognized by the state, it creates an entirely new set of laws to prevent those who oppose such recognition from limiting or circumventing that new "right."

Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose.

Those who are seeking to become psyciatrists face discrimination if they don't accept same sex attraction as normal

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed, does not list homosexuality as a disorder, per the latest research and the general consensus of the psychological scientific community. If you put your religious beliefs ahead of the latest research in your profession, find another line of work.

The costs in settling "divorces" for a lifestyle known for multiple partners will be huge.

The lifestyle poses unique health risks for homosexuals and lesbians which can spread to the general population.


Your own prejudices aside, aren't these arguments for promoting stable, long-term relationships between gay couples? In particular, many of the health risks cited are specifically tied to negative social pressures, thus making a further argument for broader support in our culture.

I recognize that you hate and fear homosexuality based on your religion and you just go right on believing whatever you want. However, someone else's marriage is none of your business.

I love how Christians claim we live in a Christian nation--the Ten Commandments should be in schools, courtrooms, all that.

First commandment, no other gods: Unconstitutional if written into law.

Graven images? No laws, also unconstitutional if so.

Name of the lord in vain? Turned on your television lately?

The sabbath? Blue laws are dwindling, and the post office is closed, I suppose.

Honor thy father and mother? No laws there.

Thou shalt not kill--good idea, that's why it's illegal in every civilized nation regardless of religion.

Adultery--grounds for divorce but not illegal.

Stealing--see killing.

False witness--minimum standards to constitute perjury or fraud, otherwise nada, and what laws there are, see "killing" and "stealing."

Coveting--capitalism wouldn't be much good without it.

Bottom line--grow up. You live in a pluralistic society which is under no obligation to conduct itself in accordance with the archaic morals of your ancient holy book or anyone else's.

You don't have to condone it, but you live in a nation with Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Atheists, Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Gays, Liberals, Conservatives, and everybody is going to hell by at least somebody's standards.

Does it bother you that the person who answers your tech support call worships Shiva and is going to hell?

Does it bother you that the owner of the Lebanese restaurant with the really good gyros prays five times daily and is going to hell?

Does it bother you that the local librarian couldn't give a rat's ass about Magic Man In The Sky and is going to hell?

Why should homosexuality be any different?

Mind your own business, follow the rules you accept for yourself and leave other people the hell alone.

zilch said...

Skeptical Rationalist: word.

Seeking Disciple: you said

Sadly what liberals such as Zilch fail to see is that the Bible never condoned holding slavery as an issue of race and as Philemon proves, when the gospel goes forth it breaks physical chains as well thus the Apostles never preached against slavery for they knew the Gospel could bring complete transformation over a culture. Slavery in the NT was not about race but about usually about debt.

I didn't say that slavery in the Bible was about race; I was talking about slavery in the States, which was defended by Christians quoting the Bible.

As far as Philemon and what the Apostles didn't say about slavery goes, the fact is that there is not one single word in the OT or the NT against slavery, only passages regulating how you may beat them and which slave's children may be sold. Saying that the Gospels break the chains of slavery is fine if it gets the chains broken, but it is just ex post facto rationalization- it can't be extracted from the Bible without tortuous eisegesis. The only reason most Christians are now against slavery is because they were dragged kicking and screaming into the Enlightenment, and keeping slaves, of whatever color, is no longer salonfähig, (fit for polite society) as they say here.

The issue of homosexuality is not even the same. The Bible clearly teaches in the NT that homosexuality is a sin and that no person practicing homosexuality will inherit the kingdom (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 6:9-11; Galatians 5:16-21). The only way to avoid the implications of these passages is to deny what they clearly say.

A very good reason, along with what the Bible says about women, witches, disobedient children, and slaves, to chuck the whole thing as a source of moral guidance.

And bossmanham: I would appreciate an answer to the questions I posed you in my previous post. Thanks.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

zilch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zilch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Guthrie said...

Skeptical Rationalist: Marriage is regulated by the state; it is not an entirely private matter. As the state is a Constitutional democracy, that makes marriage the public's business. The State is under obligation to its citizens to regulate marriage for the end of promoting a stable society. Therefore, to state that someone's marriage is not the business of others is not legally correct.

Aparently you did not read the article on the health risks of the lesbian lifestyle very closely. Yes, it does address social pressure as a factor in lesbians not seeking treatment. Yet the article does not attribute these social pressures as the main source of risk. It is unhealthy personal practices that account for the risk. And as the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle involves a high rate of multiple partnerships, legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect creating long lasting committments. Today, anyone is free to live with another person in a same-sex relationship. When any such person feel pressured by society because of this relationship,I doubt their response is often "Gosh,since the pressure from society is so intense, I have to dump my partner and get a new one." Those that have taken advantage of same-sex civil ceremonies in states that allow them are beginning to seek divorces. This should not be suprising as their lifestyle involves multiple partners as well as the fact that heterosexual couples who live together before marriage have high rates of divorce. As lesbians have not only multiple partners but also likely to engage in bisexual activity, the health risks of their chosen lifestyle makes their lifestyle public business. You need to read that article more closely.

You stated that we should legalize same-sex marriage to encourage long term committment. That would mean you believe society has a role in regulating marriage for the good of society. Yet you also say that someone else's marriage is none of the public's business. You cannot have it both ways. If the state, which answers to the public, can foster policies that encourage long term committment, it can discourage marriage practices that discourage long term committment. That gives the public the right to regulate marriage through Constitutional amendments, such as Prop.8 in California.

The field of psyciatry is fluid, there are as many therapies as there are therapists. There is no uniform body of knowledge as there is in medicine or law. As you said, the source you cited concerning mental disorders is the result of consensus and consensus is opinion, not fact. The labeling of homosexuality as abnormal by psyciatry no doubt reflected society's past attitudes. The change of mind concerning the label also reflects the attitude of society. These opinions are the result of concensus and consensus does not have the force of law, so no professional body has the legal authority to decide if a person's belief's disqualify them from engaging in psycological couseling. Certainly no institution of higher learning has the right to make a student publically renounce their beiefs and undergo "sensitivity training" to be forced to think differently, as in the article I cited (Don't you read these things?). In fact, over the past few years, the psyciatric profession has recognized the positive benefits religious faith can have on a person's mental well being and have sought ways to make room for faith in counseling. Didn't you know that?

Mr. Guthrie said...

My original comment was over the limit, so I deleted the final paragraph and am retyping it here.

Skeptical Rationalist: Your remarks would seem to indicate that we should live in a society where everyone is free to believe what they want but those beliefs should have no influence on the rest of society. But such a society is impossible. Anyone who adheres to a moral system is obligated by that system to behave in a perscribed fashion toward the rest of the world. For you to tell me that I can believe anything I want yet must not seek to seek to influence society in accordance with those beliefs is to cede to you the power to set society's standards and enforce them yourself. (example: Those that do not accept a professional consensus at odds with one's own beliefs should either find another line of work or be forced to undergo a public process of having one's beiefs altered- as cited in the article previously cited by me.) Yes, we live in a pluralistic society, but many of the religions you mentioned being practised in the U.S. also consider same-sex relationships to be sin. Would you force them to act in matter that violates their conscience and make them act according to the dictates of a rival belief system rooted in secularism? From the tone of your comments, the answer would appear to be yes. So much for the rhetoric of tolerance.

Skeptical Rationalist said...

Yet the article does not attribute these social pressures as the main source of risk. It is unhealthy personal practices that account for the risk. And as the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle involves a high rate of multiple partnerships, legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect creating long lasting committments.

I didn't say main, I said "many." Of the health risks cited, NONE are unique to the gay lifestyle, except for "cohabiting with a female relationship partner increases a lesbian woman’s likelihood of having a higher BMI." How many heterosexual couples settle down and let themselves go? You need to read that article more closely.

Besides, even if any of the health risks cited were unique to the promiscuous lifestyle your homophobia fills your imagination with, if those risks were present among heterosexuals, you'd be trumpeting the virtues of abstinence and marriage to anyone who would listen, particularly schoolchildren. Oh wait--they are, and you do.

You stated that we should legalize same-sex marriage to encourage long term committment. That would mean you believe society has a role in regulating marriage for the good of society.

I didn't say that. I said the logical conclusion of your points would be in favor of gay marriage.

The source you cited concerning mental disorders is the result of consensus and consensus is opinion, not fact. The labeling of homosexuality as abnormal by psyciatry no doubt reflected society's past attitudes. The change of mind concerning the label also reflects the attitude of society.

Actually there are specific criteria for what constitutes a disorder, such as the degree of suffering that a person undergoes as a result of having a condition, the ability to function normally, and the potential harm to one's self or others. It was recognized that homosexuality entails none of these in and of itself, therefore, not a disorder.

Certainly no institution of higher learning has the right to make a student publically renounce their beiefs and undergo "sensitivity training" to be forced to think differently, as in the article I cited (Don't you read these things?).

I didn't say that.

Would you force them to act in matter that violates their conscience and make them act according to the dictates of a rival belief system rooted in secularism? From the tone of your comments, the answer would appear to be yes. So much for the rhetoric of tolerance.

I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth, and every word of what you wrote is dripping with homophobia, strawman arguments and slippery-slope fallacies, and I feel no further need to respond to you.

Mr. Guthrie said...

Skeptical Rationalist: Whether I am putting words in your mouth or whether my words drip with homophobia, readers of this comment section can decide for themselves. I hope readers would read all the articles cited in the article you were responding to. Whether or not you choose to respond is your business,not mine. However, I will respond to you on two points. You still have not read the article concerning the dangers of the lesbian lifestyle closely. You wrote that it states that the only unique dangers associated with such a lifestyle are an increase in BMI. That is incorrect. Lesbians have a higher risk for uterine, breast, cervical, endometrical and ovarian cancers. The viruses that cause most cervical cancers can be sexually transmitted between women. Lesbians are also more at risk for Bacterial Vaginosis which could lead to more serious STD's. There may be critera that psycologists may use to determine mental disorders, but whether or not same-sex attraction can be labeled such is still a matter of consensus, not conclusively proven. By the way, the original article which I cited (which I'm not sure you read) did not state that the psycology student who is being punished for her religious views stated that she believed same-sex attraction was a mental disorder. It states that she espoused her views on the subject which were biblically based.

Mr. Guthrie said...

Zilch, your statement that Christians are now against slavery because they were brought kicking and screaming into the enlightenment is historically inaccurate. Yes, the Church's hands are dirty when it comes to slavery. Yet it was the Evangelical Church which led the opposition to slavery which resulted in the criminalization of the trade world wide. The Enlightment did not result in any slave populations being set free. There is no Enlightenment hero associated with the demise of slavery the Evangelical Church can point to William Wilberforce. The revolutionaries in France promised to abolish slavery in its territories and those it conquered, but they never delivered on that promise. In modern times, it is the Evangelical Church which has put the isssue of child slavery and sex slavery in the spotlight and many ministries and Christian agencies are actively engaged in combatting such modern day slavery.

zilch said...

Mr. Guthrie: let's suppose for the sake of argument that what you say about the increased levels of disease and even mental illness among the gay population are true. So what? What does that have to do with allowing gays to marry? One might think, as Skeptical Rationalist already mentioned, that these would be arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage, not against it. Are married gays more likely to spread disease, or mental illness, than unmarried gays?

As far as my comment about the Enlightenment goes: it's hard to prove anything about what moved people at this historical remove, but the Enlightenment was a beginning of people questioning the inerrancy of the Bible, and rethinking how to best build human societies. But you are right; slavery was not abolished by any of the leaders of the Enlightenment.

But while various Christians and Christian denominations, the Quakers for instance, took leading roles in the elimination of slavery in the States, their opposition was Christian too. In fact, pretty much everyone in the States back then was Christian. In any case, the God of the Bible somehow forgot to say anything at all against slavery.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

Skeptical Rationalist said...

It's all a red herring anyway.

"The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest...

"Most laws subject to rational basis easily survive equal protection review, because a legitimate reason can nearly always be found for treating different groups in an unequal manner. See Romer, 517 US at 633. Yet, to survive rational basis review, a law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group...

"In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. [FF 78-80.] Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate."

The court decision makes it perfectly clear that the Prop 8 proponents advanced no rational case for the law to exist. It couldn't have been more of a legal smackdown if he'd found a way to work in the phrase "breathtakingly inane."

Since people like links:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

bossmanham said...

let's suppose for the sake of argument that what you say about the increased levels of disease and even mental illness among the gay population are true. So what? What does that have to do with allowing gays to marry

If the government is in the business of regulating behavior for certain health concerns, like they do with drugs, then this would be one of those health concerns.

But here's the thing, the government isn't telling people they can't shack up and stick their reproductive organs in each other's fecal excrement orifices, they are simply providing state recognition of an already existing institution. The state didn't create the institution, and it doesn't define what it is. It simply recognizes it. Again, this goes back to words, ideas, concepts having propositional truth, and the silly phrase "gay-marriage" is simply incoherent.

bossmanham said...

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples

First off, he has absolutely no evidence of this. Second, it is not grounds for declaring a law voted on by the citizens of a state unconstitutional. No one is saying gay people can't get married. They can get married like anyone else. There's no discrimination. Marriage is simply one thing. Two homosexuals shacking up is another.

Mr. Guthrie said...

Zilch, as I stated in an earlier post, the legalization of same sex marriage will not foster long term committment. While I recognize that there are many such relationships that last for decades till one partner dies, for the most part, this lifestyle involves multiple partners. As I stated earlier, many of those who have gone through a civil ceremony in states that recognize them are beginning to divorce. If those in same-sex relationships have multiple partners before the performance of a legal ceremony, why would legalizing same-sex marriage increase the liklihood of commitment?

You are correct that the Enlightenment had a major impact on human freedom. But the influence of the Reformation did to. Its rediscovery of the importance of an individual's relationship with God led to a radical rethinking of the rights of individuals in relationship to the state. This in turn led to a recognition of the injustice of the slavery system. One could say that Enlightenment thinkers borrowed from the Christian thinkers and secularized what they borrowed. I hope your weather in Vienna isn't as hot as it is here.

Skeptical Rationalist said...

Again, this goes back to words, ideas, concepts having propositional truth, and the silly phrase "gay-marriage" is simply incoherent.

Just because it makes your stomach churn doesn't mean it's incoherent.

"Historian Nancy Cott* testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. [Tr 185:9-13.] She explained that marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.” [Tr 201:9-14.] The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households."

[emphasis mine]

::In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.::

First off, he has absolutely no evidence of this.


Do consider reading the court decision wherein said evidence is reviewed in detail.

Second, it is not grounds for declaring a law voted on by the citizens of a state unconstitutional.

Actually, it is. On a Rational Basis standard of review (the loosest possible burden of proof for the Prop 8 proponents) all that is required is to show some compelling state interest in having the law on the books, if you are going to discriminate against a particular class. They couldn't even do that.

No one is saying gay people can't get married. They can get married like anyone else. There's no discrimination.

Sure there is. All you people here, you get to marry the person of your choice. You other people, you may not marry the person of your choice. If you're going to take away the right of a citizen to marry whom they wish, you have to have a good reason. "It makes my head explode because I can't cope with a descriptive definition (which is what the dictionaries use) instead of a proscriptive definition" doesn't count.

The proponents in the case tried several lines of argument and none of them held water.

Facts, they're beautiful things. Read the decision.

*before you engage in ad hominem on this expert witness, acquaint yourself with the standards necessary for expert testimony to be admitted as evidence. Your personal disagreement isn't one of them.

bossmanham said...

Sure there is. All you people here, you get to marry the person of your choice. You other people, you may not marry the person of your choice.

Sure they can marry people of their choice. No one is stopping them from choosing a woman (if they're a man) and marrying her. But you can't do something that is logically incoherent.

zilch said...

But you can't do something that is logically incoherent.

Sure you can- you can believe in leprechauns.

More to the point: if you find gay marriage to be "logically incoherent", you are welcome to do so. But just because you find it "logically incoherent" does not give you the right to deny it to couples who have different ideas about what's logical, or perhaps don't even think of it in terms of logic.

And if I may remind you: I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I posed you in my second post.

Mr. Guthrie: no doubt the Reformation did bring forth some improvements in individual freedom. But the picture is not entirely rosy: I'm reading Martin Luther's last book, Von den Jüden und iren Lügen, and it's pretty nasty. Of course, European anti-Semitism didn't start with Luther, but he certainly gave it a boost, especially in Germany.

This does not prove anything about God, of course.

Mr. Guthrie: where are you? I think you told me already, but if you have, I've forgotten, sorry. It's warm here but not too hot- we did have some scorchers, above 100 F, a couple of weeks ago, but now it's just pleasant.

cheers from summery Vienna, zilch

Mr. Guthrie said...

Zilch, you are correct that the Church's history is not always something to be proud of. I am aware of Luther's anti-semitism. A few months ago I wrote a post on my blog concerning the history of anti-semitism in the Church in which some of Luther's comments were quoted: http://www.redemptivethoughts.com/2010/04/about-shameful-past-repentance-and.html . My blogger profile page used to list my whereabouts, but after someone tried to trace me after I posted a positive review of Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I decided after my recent move not to advertise my whereabouts. So I no longer post my location, age, local Church or denominational affiliation.

zilch said...

Mr. Guthrie: I'm sorry to hear about someone trying to trace you, and your being forced to keep your whereabouts secret. Unfortunately, being nasty seems to transcend all bounds of political and religious affiliation. Luckily, so does being loving.

In any case, my email address is in my blogger profile. Please drop me a line if you're ever in Vienna, or in the SF Bay Area in the summer, and lunch is on me.

cheers from a summery evening in the sixteenth district of Vienna, zilch

Mr. Guthrie said...

Thanks Zilch.

bossmanham said...

More to the point: if you find gay marriage to be "logically incoherent", you are welcome to do so

I tend to adhere to definitions. It makes life intelligible.

But just because you find it "logically incoherent" does not give you the right to deny it to couples who have different ideas about what's logical, or perhaps don't even think of it in terms of logic.

Again, no one is denying anyone anything.

And if I may remind you: I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I posed you in my second post.

I haven't looked at them. Been pretty busy.

zilch said...

Bossmanham: take your time- real life comes first, and you have a family to care for.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

Skeptical Rationalist said...

But you can't do something that is logically incoherent.

Again, no one is denying anyone anything.

Now you're just repeating yourself. When your points have been shown and laboriously explained to be nonsense, you need to actually add something, or else you're just doing the rhetorical equivalent of "la la la la I can't hear you."

There is a world of difference between changing the definition of a word to something gender-neutral and having something self-contradictory. The former has happened with more and more frequency in the past couple of centuries, and "marriage" in particular is a concept which has undergone far more change than this. Language is referential. A word is nothing but a symbol, with a consensus definition. If "marriage" is changed to refer to a gender neutral concept, there is nothing logically wrong with that, and it wouldn't be the biggest change the word has ever had.

Again, no one is denying anyone anything.

You are singling out a group of people and saying "you may not form a state-recognized union with a partner of the gender to which you are attracted."

Read the decision: for the state of California, marriage is "a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life."

If two people want to share that kind of arrangement, what other word would you use?

"You people, the ones who have sex that I think is icky, you don't get to have any of that. All you other people who don't offend me can go right ahead."

That you don't have the intellectual honesty to stand up and say "yes, I would deny that right to homosexuals because of my religion and for no other rational reason" is cowardly.

bossmanham said...

SR, I don't think you've shown that anyone has less rights than anyone else. That is the whole idea of this movement.

Homosexuals have the same rights as I do, and I have the same restrictions as homosexuals. I couldn't go marry another dude if I wanted, but I could marry my wife. They can't marry another person of the same gender if they wanted to (it's incoherent), by they could marry someone of another gender.

I have no extra rights, they have no fewer rights. Prove me wrong.

Skeptical Rationalist said...

It's like when Henry Ford said his customers could have a car in any color they want, as long as it's black.

You have the right to choose a lifelong partner of the gender you're attracted to and enjoy the manifold benefits of state recognition and support.

Equal rights entail homosexuals having the same right, to choose a lifelong partner of the gender they're attracted to. We have a word for that kind of relationship, and liberal churches have been performing such solemnizations for decades.

Provide a rational reason that such unions should not receive state recognition under a perfectly recognizable linguistic tag.

Or, alternately, just admit that you don't like it because your holy book says it's bad and you think it's icky. But then you'd need a good reason why anyone else should follow your rules.

bossmanham said...

It's like when Henry Ford said his customers could have a car in any color they want, as long as it's black.

No, it's actually nothing like that at all, since the definition of "car" does not include the color black, and Henry Ford was a private businessman who had the right to sell whatever color of car he wanted.

You have the right to choose a lifelong partner of the gender you're attracted to and enjoy the manifold benefits of state recognition and support.

And no one is keeping anyone from hanging out with someone for their entire life.

Equal rights entail homosexuals having the same right, to choose a lifelong partner of the gender they're attracted to.

Who's keeping them from doing that?

Provide a rational reason that such unions should not receive state recognition under a perfectly recognizable linguistic tag.

I already have. "Marriage" is one thing, gays shacking up is another.

Now, can you show me where anyone has less rights than anyone else? When is this going to happen?

bossmanham said...

And where do you find it anywhere in American law that anyone has the "right" to state recognition?

Skeptical Rationalist said...

And where do you find it anywhere in American law that anyone has the "right" to state recognition?

drumroll please...

Perry v. Schwarzenegger!!!

Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts.

Seriously, the answers to all your questions can be found at:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

bossmanham said...

That's a judicial decision, not law. Judges can't make law, and nowhere in American law can you find it that anyone has a right to be recognized by the state. If the state chooses to recognize something, that's another deal.

Liberals and their abject silliness.

BTW, you still haven't shown how there are any rights being obstructed here.

Skeptical Rationalist said...

You keep asking questions which are amply answered by the decision.

Heterosexuals have the right to have their partnerships recognized by the state.

If you want to deny the right of state recognition to the partnerships of gays, you have to show some reason why, per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (there's your law) that they should not enjoy equal protection of the law. The court decision goes into great detail why there is no Rational Basis for denying the right of state recognition.

I'm not answering any more questions while you choose to remain willfully ignorant of the facts and reasoning in play here. Seriously, this is background reading you should have looked over before spouting off in your OP.

bossmanham said...

Gays have the same protection under the current law. They can get married same as anyone else. Marriage is simply one thing. Gay "partnerships," or any other strange arrangement you can think of, is something, but it's not marriage. The equal protection clause does not give additional rights to a group of people.

I'm not answering any more questions while you choose to remain willfully ignorant of the facts and reasoning in play here.

WAH!! Boo hoo! I'm all too cognisant of the falsehoods and sophistry in play on the side of the gay movement.