"To allow them to marry, therefore, would be unjust, for the same reason that it would be unjust to allow a human to marry a dog."
I never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA? He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?
This debate is old. The federal govt provides tax exemptions to the Mormon Church (which many find an anti-Biblical, heretical cult). This in no way changes the definition of Christianity or infringes on the rights of other Christians. We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals of "virtue" are the foundation of civil law. (See CATO's excellent article.)
Besides, "marriage" throughout most of society consisted of one man, many women. Abraham had three wives. So did King David and Solomon (who actually had several hundred concubines as well). God still saw fit to use these men (inc the book of Ecc - one of my favorite books of Scripture).
The definition of "marriage" has indeed changed, as anyone without a myopic view of history can see.
By the way, because I know I'll probably be labeled an "amoral heathen" for my liberal political views on this topic, let it be known that my own personal life is relatively disciplined and rigorous. I don't smoke or gamble. I've never taken an illegal substance (including pot). I disapprove of and avoid pornography and casual sex. Even my diet is restricted. My alcohol consumption consists of a glass of wine before bed.
I just tend to have libertarian views on how American society should be governed. Valuing freedom of choice (excluding abortion in most cases) simply seems the most successful way of creating a thriving society.
I never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA?
James, I suspect you're being hypocritical when you try to reframe the argument merely in terms of being human. Do you think pedophilia is ok? Do you think incest is ok?
He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?
Where does he say that? He finds a difference between an animal and a proper object of marriage. What do you even mean by that?
We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals
Why are you reframing this in terms of theonomy? Do you think murder should be legalized because it is prohibited in a religious document? Sexual morality is a secular as well as a religious issue, just as murder is. Prohibiting a self serving redefinition of words by a small group of activists is something even a secular government might find desirable.
Besides, "marriage" throughout most of society consisted of one man, many women.
Seriously? You name a few patriarchs and conclude this was normative? On what basis? And why conclude that it was in accord with God's moral law? Read Genesis 2:24.
God still saw fit to use these men
God used David. Does that mean you think that God supports murder and adultery?
The definition of "marriage" has indeed changed
No it hasn't, and mere assertions, no matter how much attitude they are delivered with, can't change that.
let it be known that my own personal life is relatively disciplined and rigorous. I don't smoke or gamble.
I never got this argument. Why do gays think they can sanctify a sinful behavior by compensating for it by other behaviors that would be good in and of themselves? It's like a thief who tries to justify his theft on the basis that he always gives 10% of the loot to charity. It comes off as a rationalization that I'd expect you yourself would not accept in any other context but this. Please explain why this "argument" is so popular amongst homosexuals.
Valuing freedom of choice
Well of course you do. As does everyone else. But that freedom has limits, and even your system has its limits. You are evading the real issue by trying to imply it is a generic question of "freedom".
"I never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA? He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?"
That completely misses the point. His argument is based on a parallel disanalogy, not equivalence.
"This debate is old. The federal govt provides tax exemptions to the Mormon Church (which many find an anti-Biblical, heretical cult). This in no way changes the definition of Christianity or infringes on the rights of other Christians. We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals of 'virtue' are the foundation of civil law. (See CATO's excellent article.)"
KBJ is not a theonomist. In fact, I believe he's an atheist.
C Andiron: I'm a software engineer in the financial industry, not a designer.
I answered your questions, although they've apparently been deleted?
Much of my reasoning is based on my readings of history along with political analysis from groups like the CATO Institute. Apparently, you must have some pretty impressive credentials to be so dismissive.
The real question is what is marriage? And those who don't like the definition, say, "I have a different definition for marriage."
ReplyDeleteWell, then can we change the meaning of words at will?
"To allow them to marry, therefore, would be unjust, for the same reason that it would be unjust to allow a human to marry a dog."
ReplyDeleteI never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA? He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?
This debate is old. The federal govt provides tax exemptions to the Mormon Church (which many find an anti-Biblical, heretical cult). This in no way changes the definition of Christianity or infringes on the rights of other Christians. We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals of "virtue" are the foundation of civil law. (See CATO's excellent article.)
Besides, "marriage" throughout most of society consisted of one man, many women. Abraham had three wives. So did King David and Solomon (who actually had several hundred concubines as well). God still saw fit to use these men (inc the book of Ecc - one of my favorite books of Scripture).
The definition of "marriage" has indeed changed, as anyone without a myopic view of history can see.
By the way, because I know I'll probably be labeled an "amoral heathen" for my liberal political views on this topic, let it be known that my own personal life is relatively disciplined and rigorous. I don't smoke or gamble. I've never taken an illegal substance (including pot). I disapprove of and avoid pornography and casual sex. Even my diet is restricted. My alcohol consumption consists of a glass of wine before bed.
ReplyDeleteI just tend to have libertarian views on how American society should be governed. Valuing freedom of choice (excluding abortion in most cases) simply seems the most successful way of creating a thriving society.
"The definition of "marriage" has indeed changed,"
ReplyDeleteMarriage is having a husband and a wife: A man and woman, a male and a female--wed.
There's no such thing as a husband and a husband, or wife and wife.
Also the having children part is, for the most part, a big part of marriage.
The definiton hasn't chnaged really. The basic root meaning that is.
I never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA?
ReplyDeleteJames, I suspect you're being hypocritical when you try to reframe the argument merely in terms of being human. Do you think pedophilia is ok? Do you think incest is ok?
He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?
Where does he say that? He finds a difference between an animal and a proper object of marriage. What do you even mean by that?
We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals
Why are you reframing this in terms of theonomy? Do you think murder should be legalized because it is prohibited in a religious document? Sexual morality is a secular as well as a religious issue, just as murder is. Prohibiting a self serving redefinition of words by a small group of activists is something even a secular government might find desirable.
Besides, "marriage" throughout most of society consisted of one man, many women.
Seriously? You name a few patriarchs and conclude this was normative? On what basis? And why conclude that it was in accord with God's moral law? Read Genesis 2:24.
God still saw fit to use these men
God used David. Does that mean you think that God supports murder and adultery?
The definition of "marriage" has indeed changed
No it hasn't, and mere assertions, no matter how much attitude they are delivered with, can't change that.
let it be known that my own personal life is relatively disciplined and rigorous. I don't smoke or gamble.
I never got this argument. Why do gays think they can sanctify a sinful behavior by compensating for it by other behaviors that would be good in and of themselves?
It's like a thief who tries to justify his theft on the basis that he always gives 10% of the loot to charity. It comes off as a rationalization that I'd expect you yourself would not accept in any other context but this. Please explain why this "argument" is so popular amongst homosexuals.
Valuing freedom of choice
Well of course you do. As does everyone else. But that freedom has limits, and even your system has its limits. You are evading the real issue by trying to imply it is a generic question of "freedom".
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"I never got this argument. Humans are not dogs. Does this guy belong to PETA? He finds some equivalence between humans and animals?"
That completely misses the point. His argument is based on a parallel disanalogy, not equivalence.
"This debate is old. The federal govt provides tax exemptions to the Mormon Church (which many find an anti-Biblical, heretical cult). This in no way changes the definition of Christianity or infringes on the rights of other Christians. We don't live in a theonomy whereby religious ideals of 'virtue' are the foundation of civil law. (See CATO's excellent article.)"
KBJ is not a theonomist. In fact, I believe he's an atheist.
James, I recommend you stick to high end interior decorating. Theology, philosophy and agitprop/propoganda doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
ReplyDeleteC Andiron: I'm a software engineer in the financial industry, not a designer.
ReplyDeleteI answered your questions, although they've apparently been deleted?
Much of my reasoning is based on my readings of history along with political analysis from groups like the CATO Institute. Apparently, you must have some pretty impressive credentials to be so dismissive.