Wednesday, October 02, 2013

A secular argument against same sex marriage

Here.

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
Marcus said...

Really Victor? These arguments are so poor that I feel it would be almost condescending to point out all the flaws in that piece. He just handwaves away all empirical research on gay parenting but accepts, without question, the empirical results that please him (and the best he's got is a book from 1996) as "empirically verified common wisdom."

However, my favorite part, in which he gives any pretense to objectivity away: "Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female."

This is mere bigotry wrapped in a tautology. Putting "not necessarily" before bigoted and blatantly unscientific statements doesn't make them much less bigoted. For example: "Black people are not necessarily lazy." "Immigrants are not necessarily criminals." "The phlogiston theory of fire is not necessarily reasonable."

Victor Reppert said...

I wonder if one line of argument on this has to do with the idea of discouraging promiscuity in the gay community. If you think promiscuity is a bad thing in general, would allowing marriage on the part of gay couples help to discourage that?

Crude said...

This is mere bigotry wrapped in a tautology. Putting "not necessarily" before bigoted and blatantly unscientific statements doesn't make them much less bigoted.

Stamping your feet and crying 'bigotry!' doesn't automatically make a statement bigoted either. Also, 'gay couples cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female' is not 'unscientific' - it is, like it or not, the truth.

Now, you can feel free to argue that, say... mothers or fathers are individually absolutely inessential to a child's upbringing. Go for it. But you can't deny that if a family consists of two male adults and their children, the set of parents does not include a female figure.

I suppose it was condescending of me to point out all the flaws in your reasoning, but hey - I love being condescending now and then. So do you, I'm just not ashamed to admit it. ;)

Crude said...

I wonder if one line of argument on this has to do with the idea of discouraging promiscuity in the gay community. If you think promiscuity is a bad thing in general, would allowing marriage on the part of gay couples help to discourage that?

It apparently didn't help Andrew Sullivan.

Though I'd love to see someone who is in favor of gay marriage but who thinks promiscuity is immoral. So far that's been a type of person much talked about, but rarely seen.

RD Miksa said...

Good Day to All,

My problem with same-sex marriage advocates is not that they go too far with their demands, but that they do not go far enough. Indeed--and using their own terminology--they are essentially "bigoted" and "prejudiced."

Why?

Because if all that is ultimately required for marriage is "love" and "consent", then there exists no in-principle reason to oppose incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, or polyandrous marriage, or polygamous/polyandrous same-sex marriage, or first-cousin marriage, or even whole families getting married to each other (once they are all of age). And any concerns about medical issues/consequences are readily addressed via contraception and abortion.

So my question is this: in the name of "social justice" and "civil rights," why are these other forms of loving consensual marriages being ignored by the advocates of same-sex marriage?

Why the "bigotry" and "prejudice"?

RD Miksa

RD Miksa said...

And another interesting point about the same-sex marriage debate is the following: we have to remember that this debate is about "same-sex" marriage, not "gay" marriage specifically.

Thus, if two male (or female) college roommates, who are completely heterosexual, wish to get married for the tax benefits for example (and yet have an "open" marriage), then there is nothing we could do to stop them. Thus, such a couple would be abusing society without providing any benefit to it (ie - children, meaning future citizens and workers).

Or imagine if a step-father married his step-son in order to avoid paying any type of inheritance tax. What could we say in response to this? Not much, it seems.

Anyway, these are interesting issues to consider.

RD Miksa

Marcus said...

Crude,

"I suppose it was condescending of me to point out all the flaws in your reasoning, but hey - I love being condescending now and then. So do you, I'm just not ashamed to admit it. ;)"

I think you jumped the gun about those "flaws"...

"Stamping your feet and crying 'bigotry!' doesn't automatically make a statement bigoted either. Also, 'gay couples cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female' is not 'unscientific' - it is, like it or not, the truth."

Yes, I agree that's the tautology I mentioned in "mere bigotry wrapped in tautology." Being a gay couple necessarily means there isn't a man and a woman but we know that already we you say "gay couple."

The bigotry and unscientific parts reside in the insinuation that there is reason to believe gay couples are bad parents and that somehow gay couples make their children gay. (The latter claim is particularly appalling). Now, you and Kolasinski are free to argue that all the major psychological associations are wrong on these topics, perhaps they've all just caved to the PC police or it's a big conspiracy, but just putting claims like these out there with the paltry qualifier "not necessarily" is a statement of bigotry in the same way it is to say "women are not necessarily bad at math" without argument.

B. Prokop said...

How very curious. Marcus writes, "However, my favorite part, in which he gives any pretense to objectivity away", and then proceeds to quote a passage from the argument that no one on God's Green Earth can possibly object to. So how is that "giving away any pretense to objectivity"? How is it "unscientific" to say " they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female"?

Marcus, are you saying that they can? Because if so, then how are they same-sex couples???

Marcus said...

RDMiska,

If you are arguing "Sham marriages happen therefore we should stop all marriage." that is not a very convincing argument. For one thing, sham marriages already happen and most countries have made such arrangements illegal. A couple years ago there was a report that stated up to 1/6th of all marriages in Ireland could be sham marriages. Would you have Ireland outlaw all marriage to prevent this?

Even if it were true that pairs of men and pairs of women were more likely to commit this crime, it still wouldn't make much sense to punish everyone for the crimes of a minority.

Irish Examiner - Superintendent registrar: 15% of Irish marriages could be bogus


B. Prokop,

I presume you now see the error you and Crude made (from my reply to him) but, please, just be charitable. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a knave or a fool.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Marcus:

Please note my words in my comment:

"And another interesting point..." and "Anyway, these are interesting issues to consider."

When did I ever say that I was making an argument?

Perhaps an argument could be made from these points, but I have not thought about the issue enough to do so yet.

RD Miksa

Crude said...

I think you jumped the gun about those "flaws"...

Hey look! Another flaw!

Yes, I agree that's the tautology I mentioned in "mere bigotry wrapped in tautology." Being a gay couple necessarily means there isn't a man and a woman but we know that already we you say "gay couple."

So he's emphasizing the fact of the matter, and also drawing attention to it being what he regards as an important fact. It's not 'bigotry', man. It's just flat out obvious.

I'll go one further: if it IS bigoted to point out that a family made up of two gay parents necessarily lacks either a mother or a father, then 'bigoted' has lost its negative connotations. Some forms of bigotry are merely acknowledging the obvious - and sometimes bigotry is reasonable.

Walk that road if you want.

The bigotry and unscientific parts reside in the insinuation that there is reason to believe gay couples are bad parents and that somehow gay couples make their children gay. (The latter claim is particularly appalling).

Yeah, your 'insinuation' comes from saying 'Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay.' By pointing out that those two things are NOT necessarily the case, he... what, insinuates that they ARE in fact the case? Or that he's keeping it as an open question whether or not gays can in fact be bad parents, or that environment can have an effect on sexuality?

Yes, yes, I know - you regard the possibility of questioning these statements to be scary and intimidating. Most sane people won't be quite so livid about it all. Why, it may well be the case that, all things being equal, a child is better off in many ways with a mother and a father rather than two mothers or two fathers. Sexual interests may be influenced, if not totally then at least in part, by environment. Horrors.

And yet, these questions not only can be asked, but should be asked. Freaking out about how bigoted it all is won't work for very long. Eventually people just get goddamn sick of frantic moralizing busybodies freaking out whenever someone questions sacred reasoning - regardless of whether the sacred reasoning in question is Christianity, Atheism, or whatever flavor of 'Social Justice' is on special this month.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Marcus,

I have a question for you. If you are a proponent of same sex marriage, then are you at least in principle in favor of all the other types of marriage I described in my earlier comment? And why or why not?

Thank you.

RD Miksa

Marcus said...

Crude,

"...if it IS bigoted to point out that a family made up of two gay parents necessarily lacks either a mother or a father"

I honestly don't know how you can still be confused about what I meant. So, to be as explicit as possible: I did not mean it is bigoted to point out that a gay couple can't consist of a man and a woman. There were two parts to the statement I quoted and called "bigotry wrapped in a tautology" and this was the part I was calling a tautology (I was calling the other portion bigoted). I repeat, I am not calling the acknowledgement that gay couples can't consist of a man and woman bigotry rather I am calling it a tautology.

"By pointing out that those two things are NOT necessarily the case, he... what, insinuates that they ARE in fact the case? Or that he's keeping it as an open question whether or not gays can in fact be bad parents, or that environment can have an effect on sexuality?"

What if I said: The Moon landing was not necessarily fake. I mean, who really knows. It's an open question.

I suspect you wouldn't find that very plausible. Perhaps because all the evidence points against this theory. I could say I was just asking tough questions but in reality I'd be just ignoring piles of evidence which contradict my theory.

I'm not denying environment can affect sexuality (though I suspect we disagree wildly on what is meant by 'environment' and the scope of this effect) or that gays can be bad parents just as straight parents can. I'm pointing out the "not necessarily" style of argument is often, and in this case, just a thin veil placed over bigoted claims.

"Yes, yes, I know - you regard the possibility of questioning these statements to be scary and intimidating."

Not at all, question away. Be curious. However, I'm sure you'd agree, sometimes questions get settled.

"And yet, these questions not only can be asked, but should be asked. Freaking out about how bigoted it all is won't work for very long..."

Am I stopping you from speaking by disagreeing about whether something is bigoted? By all means, if you have an argument, make one. But freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to be free of criticism. When people say things like "Are all Christians stupid? Inquiring minds want to know." they can (and should!) be criticized.

Marcus said...

RD Miska,

"Please note my words in my comment:

"And another interesting point..." and "Anyway, these are interesting issues to consider."

When did I ever say that I was making an argument?"


I did notice that and that's why started by saying "if you are making the argument..." I should have been more clear about that though.

"...are you at least in principle in favor of all the other types of marriage I described in my earlier comment? And why or why not?"

Basically yes. There are practical difficulties with large numbers of people getting married so there would likely need to be some cap placed on how many people can get married. Also I think it may be more practical to ban close family members from being married to prevented them from having children but you are correct in assuming I largely think marriage should be legal for adults who consent under most circumstances. However, I really can't stress consent enough as in reality women who currently enter polygynous marriages actually do so due to what amounts to childhood brainwashing and/or because they have few real economic options.

I know there are other SSM advocates who think like this but I couldn't quote you a number other than to say it's far short of the roughly 50% of Americans who currently support SSM and probably very few, if any, politicians in office. Still, as you hint at, in practice advocating for such ideas right now might actually be counterproductive in the political arena. Support for polyamorous marriage is still used as a reductio against SSM advocates so it'll probably be a couple decades before such ideas gain wider public support (at least in the U.S.).

WMF said...

Secular arguments against gay marriage are nothing new

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2277/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2295/

Crude said...

I repeat, I am not calling the acknowledgement that gay couples can't consist of a man and woman bigotry rather I am calling it a tautology.

You called it "mere bigotry wrapped in a tautology." I'm pointing out that nothing, nada, zero in that statement was bigoted, save for the way anything can be made terribly offensive and bigoted - strained, hypersensitive readings.

What if I said: The Moon landing was not necessarily fake. I mean, who really knows. It's an open question.

I suspect you wouldn't find that very plausible. Perhaps because all the evidence points against this theory.


First off, bad example. 'The moon landing' is a singular event. 'Gay parents' describes a general class. It's entirely possible for a particular set of gay parents to be terrible. Yes, it's even possible for, on the whole, gay parents to fall short of a given standard.

Second, not 'all the evidence' points against the claim that gay couple headed households are not ideal. In fact, I think most of the evidence and arguments, when appraised, points in an opposite direction than you like. Once again, your big problem here seems to be that someone is actually questioning a conclusion you demand be true. Sorry - ain't buying it.

Third, I wouldn't freak out merely at someone disagreeing with a consensus-reached situation. If anything I'd be annoyed if they misrepresented the opinions of others. Tell me the moon landing was fake, and if I've got nothing to do I may hear you out. Tell me that 'everyone knows the moon landing was fake' and that this has been conclusively established and I'll call bullshit.

I'm pointing out the "not necessarily" style of argument is often, and in this case, just a thin veil placed over bigoted claims.

And I'm pointing out your criticism here is extraordinarily thin-skinned, rather crazy, and quite content free intellectually. It won't work, at least not with me, likely not with anyone else around here. If you want to be effective, you should probably reconsider wielding this particular and overused manner of debate cudgel right about now.

Not at all, question away. Be curious. However, I'm sure you'd agree, sometimes questions get settled.

In science? Science doesn't deal in certainty. In *soft science*, over a heavily and long-standing politicized question, that also involves a tremendous amount of metaphysics and philosophy? Yeah, no.

Am I stopping you from speaking by disagreeing about whether something is bigoted? By all means, if you have an argument, make one. But freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to be free of criticism.

I didn't cite 'freedom of speech', because I wasn't making a constitutional claim. I'm talking about culturally, socially. People do get sick of this crap. But hey, by all means, keep it up if you want. I'll be ignoring it in this context, and when eventually the typical reaction stops being 'cowed obedience' and starts being 'contempt', you'll have learned the lesson I'm speaking of.

B. Prokop said...

"Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a knave or a fool."

I'll gladly go along with that, as long as you agree to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

B. Prokop said...

RDM: "...are you at least in principle in favor of all the other types of marriage I described in my earlier comment? And why or why not?"

Marcus: "Basically yes."

And there you have it.

And in in the same breath, SSM proponents will deny vociferously the existence of a slippery slope (and call anyone who brings it up a "bigot").

im-skeptical said...

"I'm pointing out that nothing, nada, zero in that statement was bigoted, save for the way anything can be made terribly offensive and bigoted - strained, hypersensitive readings."

So says the one who makes strained, hypersensitive readings of practically everything - one who can't refrain from misinterpreting or misrepresenting the words of others.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Marcus:

You said:

“I did notice that and that's why started by saying "if you are making the argument..." I should have been more clear about that though.”

No worries, I just want it to be clear that I was not presenting an actual argument with my comments, but more something to think about.


You said:

“Basically yes.”

Well, I admire your consistency even if I think it leads to absurdity, as I will demonstrate.


You said:

“There are practical difficulties with large numbers of people getting married so there would likely need to be some cap placed on how many people can get married.”

Irrelevant. If the criteria required for marriage is simply “love” and “consent”, and if marriage is a civil rights issue, then it is just “bigoted” and “prejudiced” to restrict any sized group that loves each other and wants to get married simply on the basis of your so-called “practical” difficulties. Indeed, if ten thousand women consensually loved one man, and he could afford to look after them, then would you not be a “bigot” for smashing their civil rights to marry and restricting their love simply on the basis of your practical difficulties?


You said:

“Also I think it may be more practical to ban close family members from being married to prevented them from having children…”

Again, irrelevant. Contraception and on-demand abortion deal with any medical problems arising from incest.


You said:

“…but you are correct in assuming I largely think marriage should be legal for adults who consent under most circumstances.”

Under most circumstances? Wait a second, if they are consenting, then who are you to restrict their civil rights by determining which circumstances they can and cannot get married in? You also sound like an opponent of same-sex marriage with your attempts to establish “circumstances” on people’s love and consent.


You said:

“However, I really can't stress consent enough as in reality women who currently enter polygynous marriages actually do so due to what amounts to childhood brainwashing and/or because they have few real economic options.”

Ultimately irrelevant, because we are speaking in-principle here, but also: how do you know this is actually the case?

More to follow…

RD Miksa said...

Dear Marcus:


You said:

“I know there are other SSM advocates who think like this but I couldn't quote you a number other than to say it's far short of the roughly 50% of Americans who currently support SSM and probably very few, if any, politicians in office.”

So what you are saying is that most same-sex marriage advocates are essentially uninformed about the logical consequences of their position. This is, of course, not at all surprising, but it is also telling for why the position has gained such rapid acceptance….namely, because people (like with most things) have lapped up the propaganda of the position without thinking about the logical of it.


You said:

“Still, as you hint at, in practice advocating for such ideas right now might actually be counterproductive in the political arena.”

Ahhh…so what you are saying is that your priority is not really about the civil rights of the issue, but rather about what is politically expedient. How unsurprisingly crass (not you personally, just in general).
You said:

“Support for polyamorous marriage is still used as a reductio against SSM advocates so it'll probably be a couple decades before such ideas gain wider public support (at least in the U.S.).”

And the fact that it can be legitimately used as a reductio ad absurdum argument should tell you something about SSM.

More to follow…

RD Miksa said...

Finally Marcus,

A couple of more quick questions:

Remembering that SSM advocates argue that “love” and “consent” are the key criteria necessary for a marriage, then let me ask you these admittedly strange but serious questions (and I do indeed mean them seriously):

1. Would you be in favor of necrophilia marriage? After all, a person, right before death, could consent to a marriage and could love their partner who has a necrophilia fetish. So in such a case, there would be both consent and love, and thus I ask, would you support such a marriage? Why or why not? (And again, any medical issues would be handled by contraception).

2. Would you be in favor of a marriage between a person and an object (and these have already occurred)? If a person really, really, really loved their computer, and wanted to spend the rest of their life with their computer, could they legitimately marry it? Why or why not?

3. Would you be in favor of a marriage between a human and an animal? Perhaps a primate could sign-language his love and consent for a human. If this—even for the sake of argument—were possible, would you be in favor of it? Or perhaps a human just wanted to marry his dog but would never consummate the marriage; rather, he just wanted to be married to the dog for sentimental reasons. Would you support such a marriage? Why or why not?

4. If a country had no laws on the age of consent, then if a 10-year old child with the mind of a genius and thus the rationality of an adult loved and consented to the marriage of a sixty-year old, would you favor such a marriage? Why or why not?

5. If a whole large family, all above the age of consent, wanted to consensually and lovingly marry each other—so the son was sleeping with father and his brothers, etc.—would you support such a marriage? Why or why not?

Take care,

RD Miksa

BenYachov said...

>Thus, if two male (or female) college roommates, who are completely heterosexual, wish to get married for the tax benefits for example (and yet have an "open" marriage), then there is nothing we could do to stop them. Thus, such a couple would be abusing society without providing any benefit to it (ie - children, meaning future citizens and workers).

That is fascinating! It's like people who marry immigrants so they can get a visa or permanent citizenship.

The government began cracking down on that by investigating to see if these people had real romantic relationships.

Are we going to now need sex police to make sure that "gay" marriages are real?

Marcus said...

This is the last thing I'm going to say on this topic because intentional or not (probably not), far too many red herrings and misdirections were collectively just thrown against the wall and I can't possibly respond to them all. So I'm just going to make some general points which any one of you may or may not have gestured at or explicitly made. If not consider what follows general observations on this topic.

In the late 19th century... "If we give minorities the vote, soon women will get the vote. And it's absurd for women to get the vote." In the mid 20th century... "If we ban discrimination against minorities we'd have to ban discrimination based on sex. It's ludicrous to ban discrimination on sex, therefore we shouldn't ban discrimination against minorities." Despite the fact you could logically support one without the other, and there were plenty of people who endorsed one but not the other, these types of arguments were used as knockdown arguments against expanding rights to anyone that didn't currently have them. I realize you guys likely don't equate SSM marriage as equal to women's or minority rights but the structure of the arguments is identical and I suspect you can understand how people and societies can and do endorse one without endorsing the other whether or not you find it just or logically consistent.

So when I endorse some views to assume all SSM marriage advocates secretly think like I do, or just haven't figured out their position dictates they should, is wildly unwarranted. That's every bit as silly as an atheist assuming all Christians are really young earth creationists (or should be) because one Christian makes the case and he, as an outsider, thinks it's the most logically consistent position within Christianity.

Further, if you don't understand that objects, animals and or dead people can't consent then there's unlikely anything I can say to you to convince you otherwise. Moreover, if you think what's stopping the overwhelming majority of people from having sex with animals, children, objects or their own families is a social prohibition you have failed to understand basic human psychology. Likewise, if you don't understand that there are rules in society which should emerge out of out of what happens in practice when we actually implement other rules your model of reality is so far off I'm unlikely to be able to convince you otherwise. "What difference is there really between a 20 year old and an 21 year old? Not much. Therefore, if we found a 12 year who was hyper-rational and intelligent we should allow him to drink and vote." That's not a very convincing argument for the same reasons it isn't if you are arguing about marriage instead of voting.

Finally, you may find this hard to believe but, despite some differences between groups, I think the same general principles that tell us we should allow interracial marriage means we should allow SSM. Does the fact that some people could (and did) attempt to use SSM as a reductio against interracial marriage tell us anything about interracial marriage? No. Indeed, I think the same principles that endorse equality for LGBTQ people are those that support the extension of rights to all groups including women and minorities. That you may find this absurd tells us nothing, for example, about the merits of treating women equally. The arguments for each group stand or fall on their own. That is all.

B. Prokop said...

And, folks, in his "last" posting, Marcus reveals all. Basically, it boils down to:

- I approve of SSM, therefore it is logical, just, and virtuous to do so.

- If you disagree with me, you are bigoted, and/or lacking in understanding and reasoning skills.

- Any dialog on this subject is in any case purposeless, because the March of Inevitable History will bury you all in the near future. (spoken while banging one's shoe on the podium)

- Yer all dumb YEC'ers anyways, so there!

Crude said...

Marcus,

This is the last thing I'm going to say on this topic because intentional or not (probably not), far too many red herrings and misdirections were collectively just thrown against the wall and I can't possibly respond to them all.

Baloney. You tried to lead with the 'BIGOT!' charge, and it turns out that doesn't work nearly as well as you may be used to it working. Once again, what you're tasting there is a taste of the future. Stop using that trick. Call the guy who rants about 'them faggots just love to molest kids' and such a bigot. Don't try to parse pretty meager words into bigotry, unless you want 'bigotry' to lose most of its force - as we've seen happen with 'racist' over the years.

I realize you guys likely don't equate SSM marriage as equal to women's or minority rights but the structure of the arguments is identical

No, it's not. What's more, I haven't been offering any 'slippery slope' argument myself. Bob has discussed it, but hasn't really spelled it out - and it takes many forms, not all of them centering around what is/isn't legal.

I suspect you can understand how people and societies can and do endorse one without endorsing the other whether or not you find it just or logically consistent.

"We'll just be logically inconsistent if we don't like where the logic leads!" is not exactly an encouraging response.

Moreover, if you think what's stopping the overwhelming majority of people from having sex with animals, children, objects or their own families is a social prohibition you have failed to understand basic human psychology.

Who said anything about 'the overwhelming majority'? It's bad enough to tolerate these things among a public minority. And 'sex with objects'? Not exactly a rare thing nowadays. What do you think vibrators are, among other things?

You may as well be telling me 'It's absurd to think that very many people will end up looking at pornography on a regular basis just because it's easily available. Basic human psychology shows people prefer monogamous relationships.'

The arguments for each group stand or fall on their own. That is all.

If you really believed that, you would have come in here to argue. Instead, your immediate move was to try and rule certain arguments and questioning as bigoted, and therefore wrong, by default. And this is the typical pro-SSM tactic: 'you're a bigot!' on one hand, and on the other, emotional appeals. It's been a successful strategy - but the first prong of it will not last. We'll see how the second holds up over time.

Papalinton said...

I fail to see any positive argument for the prohibition of SSM to today's society, let alone any 'secular' argument against.

The inclusion of this article as an OP is clearly one of providing the opportunity for those to vent their bigotry under the guise of free expression.

And is this the same Adam Kolasinski that wrote this?

"Predestination and the Catholic Church

by Adam C. Kolasinski

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man's free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).
The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.
But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.
Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church's soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:

1) Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.

2) Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God's grace. Man must continuously allow God's grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.

3) Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.

4) Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ's sacrifice.

5) God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.

For more on the Catholic Church and Predestination, this essay by Ludwig Ott has more: Catholic Predestination http://www.catholicsource.net/Predestination.html"


If it is the same person, I find it difficult that as a Catholic he could ever make a 'secular' case against SSM. And if he is the same person, then it simply demonstrates the lies and untruthfulness he is prepared to promulgate his agenda as a 'secular' cause.

Just saying.


BenYachov said...

Can anyone here figure out what Paps' point is with the last post?

There is a mystery between God's sovereignty in Grace and Man having true free will so all objections to SSA marriage are false?

????????????????????

Paps I told you to lay off the drugs!

OTOH that Australian draft must be some potent shit. Are you like seeing Bug Bunny right now talking to Elmer Fude? I mean without the television or youtube being on?

Get some sleep you will sober up in the morning.

BenYachov said...

One gay argument against SSM I heard that I often quote from memory goes something to the effect of by lobbing for gay marriage, gay people are really saying that Heteros are the norm and intrinsically normal.

Thus they have to be a much like them as much as possible. They can't be content to just be themselves they have to become semi-straight to be seen as normal.

I would add with some of the speculations I've read on Transhumanism websites. About future biotech that can install cybernetic wombs in men so they can get pregnant or using exotic nanotech to fuse two ovem together so lesbians can reproduce without a man I kind of get the impression they are just trying to ape what comes naturally to men and women.

Funny during the 60's and 70's people where calling marriage an outdated institution. Atheist Madelen Murry O'Hair called it a license to f***. Now these people are all about the marriage if it's dude & dude or babe & babe.


Voxday once quiped at the beginning of our republic marriages didn't require a licence from the state. You went to a Church not the court house. Maybe at minumum we need to on the legal front reduce all marriage to "domestic partnership licenses". If only because I refuse to be coherced by the State in calling something a marriage natural law and divine revelation tell me is not.

B. Prokop said...

Has Linton finally lost it? Can anyone make any sense whatsoever out of his last posting?

Papalinton said...

And yes. It is the same Kolasinski. Dig it out for yourself. Due diligence has been observed.

He is also cited in this odious article at FIRST THINGS. The article; weaving marriage into some grandiose form of high office to which people are called. Crapola.

And while I am very happy to note Bob is not a bigot, again it demonstrates, as an institution, the Catholic Church is both a harborer and enabler emboldening pious bigotry under the cover of religious freedom of expression against ordinary people who through the vagaries of genetic circumstance not of their choosing are born homosexual. This is blatant and unwarranted discrimination no matter how one slices it. In the case of Kolasinski, an economist from Washington University, it demonstrates the level of dishonesty a believer is prepared to go in order to defend the faith. Under the guise of 'secularism' he mischievously argues a case without once declaring his religious interests.

But I am greatly heartened by many of the comments that the article attracted which very much reflect good, decent and proper thinking who simply lambast the content of that article. It is simply indefensible.

B. Prokop said...

"This is blatant and unwarranted discrimination no matter how one slices it."

Uber-serious question here, Linton: Do you believe it is "blatant and unwarranted discrimination" to not allow first cousins to marry? (It's illegal in my state)

If not, then you agree with me that lines must be drawn somewhere. All we are disagreeing on is where the line should be drawn. No bigotry - no discrimination. Just a difference of honest opinion.

BenYachov said...

Paps I am still not getting what the fact doctrine teaches us that God is Sovereign in the granting of Grace but Man has true free will has too do with SSM?

Victor Reppert said...

Sorry, but it important for people to have free expression without the "bigotry" card inhibiting that expression.

Probably the strongest case against SSM requires the development of a full-blown natural law ethics. In introductory ethics courses the smorgasbord presented usually doesn't include that--they give you Kantian theory, and virtue ethics, and utilitarianism, and on the religious side a divine command theory which is not presented with the sophistication of a Robert Adams.

Papalinton said...

Bob
Uber-serious question here, Linton: Do you believe it is "blatant and unwarranted discrimination" to not allow first cousins to marry? (It's illegal in my state)."

Tell you the truth, I haven't thought about it. But I do understand that there are dire genetic consequences for offspring of incest and other close familial relationships and one would have to ask whether any couple wanting to have children that in all likelihood will suffer such malady is a responsible decision. And more broadly whether the community is prepared to accept responsibility for caring for these children for probably the whole of their lives There is a real and adverse genetic imperative with the progeny of such close relationships, empirically verified. Not so with homosexual relationships.

Papalinton said...

Victor
"Sorry, but it important for people to have free expression without the "bigotry" card inhibiting that expression."

Yes I agree. Free expression means discussing issues for which there is fact and evidence. It does not mean promulgating dogma. We must go beyond 'what the bible says, or what God says, or what divine revelation says'. Some of the commentary is predicated on Scripture as the arbiter on the matter. This is hardly free expression.

Crude said...

Victor,

Probably the strongest case against SSM requires the development of a full-blown natural law ethics. In introductory ethics courses the smorgasbord presented usually doesn't include that--they give you Kantian theory, and virtue ethics, and utilitarianism, and on the religious side a divine command theory which is not presented with the sophistication of a Robert Adams.

You know, I agree that natural law ethics provides one of the stronger ways to provide a case against SSM. But at the same time - and I say it as a guy who accepts NL - I don't think even that's necessary. And I'll point out, natural law isn't even on 'the religious side'. It may be popular among some religious, but that doesn't make it religious in and of itself.

Sorry, but it important for people to have free expression without the "bigotry" card inhibiting that expression.

The more radical end of people who support SSM have zero interest in free expression. Casting all opponents of SSM as bigots who want to kill gays or see them burn in hell was essential to achieve as much success as they have so far. Absolutely avoiding arguments and discussion like the plague and appealing almost purely to emotion was successful.

I've run into multiple professional philosophers who have said that the very question of whether homosexual acts are moral should not be allowed to be asked, because the answer not only is 'obviously yes', but that the very act of asking that question calls homosexual acts into question, which is hateful and wrong and makes LGBT people depressed. That really is where the debate is at this point for some people: you can't even have it, because the very act of questioning means you're a hateful bigot.

And people are only going to put up with that for so long.

Crude said...

Bob,

Has Linton finally lost it? Can anyone make any sense whatsoever out of his last posting?

Uh, you want sense out of him? He is literally an old man going to his final days, consumed by hatred of Christians and lamenting that not only will he pass in a world where Christianity is not persecuted by force, but quite possibly under the reign of Abbot too. His religion's equivalent of the Antichrist.

Do what I do, gents. Ignore him, save for the times where he says something so stupid that you can expose him and have some fun with it, like with his past plagiarism. Otherwise, even Marcus was vastly more worthy of discussion.

Victor Reppert said...

Linton strikes me as so far inside the atheist ideology that make it impossible to think outside that box.

B. Prokop said...

"Linton strikes me as so far inside the atheist ideology as to make it impossible to think outside that box. "

If any evidence were needed to support the veracity of that statement, Linton supplied it himself, here:

"Some of the commentary [on this website] is predicated on Scripture as the arbiter on the matter. This is hardly free expression."

!!!!!

BenYachov said...

>Linton strikes me as so far inside the atheist ideology that make it impossible to think outside that box.


I believe he was always in the box even when religious.
He has just swapped out some pieces. To go from a narrow fundamentalist Christianity to an equally narrow fundamentalist atheism.

HyperEntity111 said...

Crude: ''You tried to lead with the 'BIGOT!' charge, and it turns out that doesn't work nearly as well as you may be used to it working. Once again, what you're tasting there is a taste of the future.''

Hmmm...

Suppose we say:

'Christians are not necessarily stupid. But a person cannot be both a Christian and an atheist.'

'Women aren't necessarily irrational and confused creatures. It's an open question.'


Marcus: 'Your insertion of 'necessarily' is just thinly disguised bigotry.'

Crude: ''You're being oversensitive! What, just because he stated that Christians aren't necessarily retarded, he's implying that it's the norm for Christians to be retarded? Are denying that it's possible for women to be confused? How can you possibly read negative intentions into these innocent statements? You must be so thin skinned!''

Yeah, I have to agree with Marcus. If you want to argue like that go ahead. But acting as if alternative interpretations of these statements are somehow implausible is just straight bullshit.

Papalinton said...

I think crude outlines it best:
"I've run into multiple professional philosophers who have said that the very question of whether homosexual acts are moral should not be allowed to be asked, because the answer not only is 'obviously yes', but that the very act of asking that question calls homosexual acts into question, which is hateful and wrong and makes LGBT people depressed. That really is where the debate is at this point for some people: you can't even have it, because the very act of questioning means you're a hateful bigot."

A couple of things:
1. When crude refers to 'professional philosophers' he means of the type he agrees with. You will not find a Danial Dennett, Steven Law, a Fred Miller or other internationally renowned philosophers in his retinue.
2. The question of who is the bigot in these exchanges of views has much to do with timing and history. For 2,000 years under the aegis of 'christian love' homosexuals have been pilloried, persecuted and punished by the faithful. There is no denying the history of the church in their treatment of homosexuals by way of dogma, mantra and doctrine. But it is the secular community that is pressing for change many of whom are christians without doubt, and are to be applauded for their commonsense stance against not only the discrimination and maltreatment of homosexuals by the multitude of bigots among them but also bravely standing against the religious mandate that their christian organisation to wrongfully perpetrates. To continue to hold such ignorant and uncivilized notions in this day and age is an abominable outrage and an unwarranted attack on members of the community who simply want to get on living their private lives in a community that values them, is simply a testament of meanness and small-minded bigotry.
3. Religion held sway for centuries. One would have thought it would have had the grace and the decency of resolving this social issue long ago in the interests of the community. But no, it doggedly [dogma-edly(?)] persists in promulgating outdated and outmoded social mores better suited to medieval times. For the reason it continues to persecute homosexuals for nothing other than scriptural cleanliness, religion by and large is not interested in the community but rather exercising power over what does and what does not constitute acceptable behaviour. The religious have had their day in the court of public opinion and in the public square for centuries now. The issue remains unresolved. A new way and fresh way must be explored. Organised religion is now being called to account for its ludicrous and risible position and abysmal record by and large resulting in the victimizing, oppressing and bullying people who are now known to be born gay. Being gay is not a matter of choice but of genetic happenstance.
4. In this historical context those that persistently espouse anti-homosexual bile are, in short, bigots. They have had their way. It has not resolved the issue. Sit down and shut up, for decency's sake. There is nothing more that the religious experience can bring to this debate.

Victor:
"Linton strikes me as so far inside the atheist ideology that make it impossible to think outside that box".
You say that as if it is a bad thing. It is unfortunate that you have no appreciation of who is or who is not able to think outside the ubiquitous box. I've been in your box for close to 30 years. I found it unimpressive, unconvincing and not very useful. I have since moved to a different box which simply has the light of reason unimpeded by the shadow of religious woo.

Crude said...

Hyper,

Suppose we say:

'Christians are not necessarily stupid. But a person cannot be both a Christian and an atheist.'


That just seems disjointed. What's supposed to be the scary thing implied here - that you have to be an atheist to be intelligent? But you just said Christians aren't necessarily stupid.

'Women aren't necessarily irrational and confused creatures. It's an open question.'

And this is just a bad comparison. Keep in mind what was said here:

Gays are not necessarily bad parents - but a gay couple automatically is a couple that lacks either a mother or a father.

That's not an 'open question'. It's goddamn true. And notice: this isn't about any single individual, but a pair. The focus is on whether two male or two female parents are less than ideal for raising a child.

In fact, you can completely remove the homosexual aspect if you want. Two straight men or two straight women raising a child? They are not necessarily bad parents individually. And it stills is an open question whether that arrangement is problematic.

Yeah, I have to agree with Marcus. If you want to argue like that go ahead.

Feel free to, but when you're picking examples to try and justify his view that are not only heavily strained (just as Marcus' initial claim was heavily strained) but fail to even compare relevantly, you're not in a position of strength here.

Your position, like Marcus, seems to be: the very act of questioning whether two gay parents may be on the whole substandard because the household lacks a mother or a father is a terrible question. Just asking it is enough to make you a bigot. You must conclude automatically that they are not problematic.

Sorry man, but Marcus was being predictably oversensitive as a way to squelch debate, and that's the same bullshit you're engaging in. That flies in other venues. Around here, expect to be called on it and to actually have to provide arguments - and, frighteningly enough, deal with dissent in the process.

Crude said...

1. When crude refers to 'professional philosophers' he means of the type he agrees with. You will not find a Danial Dennett, Steven Law, a Fred Miller or other internationally renowned philosophers in his retinue.

Right, of course. I mean, I was talking about professional philosophers who argue that the morality of homosexual acts, the rightness of same sex marriage, etc, is not only taken as moral and true, but that this is so clear that any dissent from the topic should not be allowed.

Oops, wait. That's not what I said at all, and it's obvious I'd disagree with these philosophers. I think I located the problem: Linton is a goddamn moron who doesn't understand what he reads, which is why he plagiarizes to try and appear informed.

And back you go into the ignore pile until you say something unfathomably stupid and easily shown to be such. So, see you in two hours I suppose. ;)

Crude said...

Victor,

Linton strikes me as so far inside the atheist ideology that make it impossible to think outside that box.

Pretty much. Though I'd be hesitant in saying he's 'so far inside atheist ideology'. He doesn't understand most of what he talks about, and certainly not most of what he pastes - which is why I always harp on his past plagiarism, precisely because it gives away his game. He is a chinese room, a parrot - he regurgitates information he doesn't understand, save for vaguely being aware 'this is what atheists say' or 'this is what theists say'.

The fact that he's self-aware of his own limitations is one reason he's so bitter. Really, think about what he does. Imagine what sort of person you have to be to, every single day, not only mindlessly attack - not discuss, not read about, but mindlessly attack - people in comboxes, /using information you don't understand to attack arguments you do not comprehend.' How much hate has to be in their life?

So I think you may give him too much credit. People beholden to an ideology at least understand it. Cult of Gnu atheists? There's something else at work.

im-skeptical said...

"Sorry, but it important for people to have free expression without the "bigotry" card inhibiting that expression."

Nobody's right to express their bigotry is being inhibited, as is clear from the OP, which does exactly that. I find it fascinating that when such expression elicits a natural reaction from those who are disgusted by it, they are accused of suppressing free speech. It's simple. You have the right to express your bigotry. I have the right to call you a bigot. Too bad if that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Crude said...

Nobody's right to express their bigotry is being inhibited,

Hey Skep. Buddy.

Do you see anyone in this thread saying 'my free speech is being threatened!'? The only person to bring up freedom of speech was Marcus - to which I said that was a red herring.

Victor is talking about an in-practice effect, not a legal prohibition. I know this is hard for you to grasp, first because you're not quite intelligent, and second because you're a fanboy of Dawkins (Who I see just got punked on twitter by an urban legend - he keeps the hits coming), who advocates the use of social bullying on people who have dissenting opinions. But to everyone else? It's pretty clear what he means.

Still, I'll help you out. Imagine, for a moment, if every time an atheist opened his mouth about how he believes there is no God, he was shouted down as an asshole, an idiot, and possibly a closet lover of rape porn. Now, going by your standards, so long as he was able to say those things - we have no problem! Freedom of speech still in force. Even if the harassment in practice forces him into silence owing to his willful recoiling. Even if it doesn't stop until he's down on his knees, tears in his eyes, blubbering - meekly - about how he believes in God now.

If that sounds rotten - if that sounds like a cultural behavior that should be discouraged, as I believe it should be discouraged - then you get a pat on your head and a graham cracker, because you're starting to see Victor's point. If we truly value rational debate, then we can't needlessly jump the gun to 'bigot!' comments just because someone is dissenting.

Of course, I realize few people value rational debate on these subjects. Wonderful. But the point is still easy enough for even you to comprehend.

Oh, and if you do comprehend it, but you still want to defend playing that intellectual bullying card? Well then shine on you crazy diamond. Oh, and if you ever find yourself or your loved ones in the situation the above hypothetical atheist did? Suck it up.

im-skeptical said...

"Linton is a goddamn moron who doesn't understand what he reads, which is why he plagiarizes to try and appear informed."

You say this after agreeing with Ben and Bob that none of you understand the point of his post about Kolasinski. Really? The point was perfectly clear.

Papalinton said...

Crude must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21stC. It is no longer proper nor fitting to remain in a perpetual state of religious somnambulism about important social and community issues. It is simply unacceptable today to tout religious intolerance under the guise of free expression. It is also simply ridiculous to hold to the:
"Also, 'gay couples cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female' is not 'unscientific' - it is, like it or not, the truth."

Again crude demonstrates his ignorance of the many and varied forms of successful models that can constitute a 'family'. Any reasonable text in Anthropology 101 would promptly dispel his unilateral and blinkered definition of family. Ignorance is not blessed. Indeed there are successful family relationships in societies where the raising of children is not the responsibility of the biological parents but of other members of the wider direct familial group. There are still other m,any successful templates which have a greater success rate than the Western nuclear family. Indeed the nuclear family falls about the middle of the pack, not as stable or as capable as other broader models of responsibility for child-rearing and care. One need only to review research into family structures, both anthropologically and sociologically, to appreciate how the nuclear family is a relatively recent manifestation and our particular lifestyle necessitated a withdrawal to the nuclear family model predominately for pressing economic reasons. In earlier times we enjoyed a wider family circle. And in the interim years most well-to-do families took no responsibility for the children which was vested in a permanent nanny in residence. So crude's rather misconstrued and blinkered notion that a female and male parent is an essential requisite for the proper care and responsibility for children simply does not hold water, by any measure. Love, respect and care are the principal ingredients required not the makeup of one's genitalia.

So it is in no one's interest, least of all the children, to accord crude any overt or tacit approval, endorsement or even validation for the sort of malarkey he espouses. It bodes for continued persecution of gays.

B. Prokop said...

"The point was perfectly clear."

Well, I for one still fail to see what he was trying to get at. Kindly explain to me what his point was. The entire posting seems to be one giant non sequitur.

ingx24 said...

The point of Papalinton's earlier post, if I am not mistaken, was that the author of the article in the OP had already put out an article demonstrating that he was a Catholic (which Linton, for some reason, felt the need to copy and paste in full), meaning that the author's credibility in making secular arguments is automatically gone. (Where I come from, this is called an "ad hominem circumstantial", if I'm remembering the terminology correctly.)

Crude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crude said...

Again crude demonstrates his ignorance of the many and varied forms of successful models that can constitute a 'family'.

Again Linton demonstrates that he's a goddamn moron who doesn't read.

Let me rub your nose in this one too: that a gay couple raising children necessarily lacks either a mother or a father is, as has been pointed out, a tautology. Even if the two are not a romantic couple - even if they're homosexual - they will necessarily lack either a male or a female.

Now, moron - hot on the heels of you insisting that I only refer to 'professional philosophers' I agree with as such, right as I am explicitly naming some who I disagree with, you fumble this one too. I did not 'express ignorance of the many different models of family' - I damn well am aware of them. *I have, in this conversation, named some of them.* The existence of those 'other models of family' hasn't been called into question, certainly not by me.

Do you have any more stupidity to share today, Linton? You've already bungled two simple statements I've made and displayed that you couldn't even comprehend them. Do you want to go for three? Five? Ten? And then pretend we shouldn't laugh in your face whenever you try to act like an expert on anything beyond 'being humiliated by people catching you plagiarizing in an attempt to fake having knowledge you know you lack'? Oh look, Linton's talking about anthropology and sociology - surely he's an expert on the softest of the soft sciences. He can't comprehend a sentence half the time, but that's probably just masking knowledge, not even greater stupidity?

Like I said - I don't really need to wait long for you to say something godawful and demonstrably stupid, Linton. The only reason you didn't swing it within the two hour timeframe I mentioned is likely because you were asleep at the time. ;)

Crude said...

You say this after agreeing with Ben and Bob that none of you understand the point of his post about Kolasinski. Really? The point was perfectly clear.

I didn't 'agree' with anyone, you feeb. Marcus made a stupid claim that I disputed wholly - his 'okay the tautology isn't bigoted but his choice of words sure was!' is still inane and wrong. Linton then walked in with a post about Catholicism, and I mentioned that Linton's a rube who habitually fails to offer anything worth engaging. Surprise! He proceeded to then show how damn stupid he was not once, but twice.

And yes, Linton is a goddamn moron. Saying that the only people I call 'professional philosophers' are those I agree with, RIGHT when I'm giving an example of some who I flatly disagree with, is classic "Durrr, I copy and paste but I sure as shit don't understand" Linton.

Just as 'Skep, wildly misunderstanding something, but posting with confidence about it' is classic you. ;)

HyperEntity111 said...

Crude: ''... when you're picking examples to try and justify his view that are not only heavily strained (just as Marcus' initial claim was heavily strained) but fail to even compare relevantly, you're not in a position of strength here.''

Consider the following statements:

''Blacks are not necessarily inferior to whites. But a black man is not a white man.''

''Women are not necessarily terrible at science. But a woman is not a man.''

If I came across the first statement in the context of an article claiming that blacks shouldn't marry I would assume that the author is a bigot.

If I came across the second statement in the context of an article explaining why having more women in science would be 'less than ideal' I would assume that the author is a bigot.


Now perhaps you wouldn't see anything wrong these statements. Perhaps you look at them and say

'He's just stating goddamn facts! These are entirely innocent statements. Stop being so oversensitive!'

Or perhaps you'll say

'How do you know he's bigot? Why does leaving it an open question whether or not more women should be in science equate to bigotry? And maybe he doesn't hate blacks-he just doesn't want to see them married. You're just crying bigotry to squelch the debate over whether blacks are in general inferior to whites! Are you denying that some blacks are inferior to some whites? Are you denying that it's possible that blacks are indeed inferior to whites? Are you saying it's impossible for there to be arguments against black marriage?'

And if you want to run those arguments feel free. But you have to be remarkably obtuse to deny that an interpretation attributing bigotry to the author is legitimate.

Final point: If I were in a message board where most people held such views, I might say what I think. I wouldn't think that by voicing my opinion I was squelching free debate. This is because the idea of squelching free debate on the internet by voicing your opinion (esp. in a place where most people disagree with you) is just silly. That wasn't my (or Marcus') intention and that wasn't the result. So the accusation that by registering my opinion I'm trying to silence others on this combox is simply false.

B. Prokop said...

"The point ... was that the author of the article ... was a Catholic ... meaning that the author's credibility in making secular arguments is automatically gone."

O-o-o-o-oh, now I get it! So by Linton's logic, since Catholics (and, I presume, all other persons of faith) are ineligible to make secular arguments, then neither may professed atheists make any comment on religious matters. Or at the least, he must surrender all credibility when doing so.

I could live with that.

B. Prokop said...

"That wasn't my (or Marcus') intention and that wasn't the result. So the accusation that by registering my opinion I'm trying to silence others on this combox is simply false.

You may not be trying to silence others, but Linton demonstrably is. How else can one interpret his revealing statement?

"Some of the commentary [on this website] is predicated on Scripture as the arbiter on the matter. This is hardly free expression."

Crude said...

Bob,

The best part is this. Here's something Marcus said:

When people say things like "Are all Christians stupid? Inquiring minds want to know." they can (and should!) be criticized.

Now, here's one from Linton:

If it is the same person, I find it difficult that as a Catholic he could ever make a 'secular' case against SSM. And if he is the same person, then it simply demonstrates the lies and untruthfulness he is prepared to promulgate his agenda as a 'secular' cause.

Alright, Marcus. If you're still there, I say it's put up or shut up time. I say Linton just engaged in a flat out condemnable (bigoted?) act by your standards. He asserts that merely being Catholic is sufficient to demonstrate 'lies and untruthfulness he is prepared to promulgate his agenda'. He couldn't have said it better if he was a klansman lighting a cross up in a front yard.

Will you criticize him? Hey Skep - will you?

Considering I regularly rail against people who condemn LGBT people just for their same-sex attraction, or who regard them all as immoral, impure, etc just because of said attraction, I think I'm in vastly better shape on that particular front.

Now let's see who here will take Linton to task for straight-up anti-Catholic bigotry.

Crude said...

Hyper,

Consider the following statements:

Alright.

Now perhaps you wouldn't see anything wrong these statements. Perhaps you look at them and say

'He's just stating goddamn facts! These are entirely innocent statements. Stop being so oversensitive!'


You're just digging the hole even deeper here, Hyper: the entire thrust of your argument on these points relies on an imagined 'greater context' you dislike, and which does the work for you.

Here's a couple more statements:

Fathers are not necessarily less important than mothers. But a mother and a father typically fulfill different roles in their children's lives.

Christians are not necessarily less intelligent than Jews. But jews on average tend to rank higher than Christians in standardized tests.

Let's say the context of the first statement is in the justification of mothers being more likely to get awarded custody than fathers after a divorce.

Let's say the context of the second statement is that a disproportionate amount of jews are present among Nobel prizes compared to Christians.

Bigoted? No, I don't think so. And you know what? Even if their arguments are wrong, even if their conclusions are distasteful, it's *still* not bigoted. That's your problem here: you seem to think that if you dislike the conclusion an argument leads to, then suddenly you can just baptize utterly benign, even tautological statements in the piece as 'bigoted' by default. Because what, it's infectious? Did Adolf Hitler exclusively drink bigot water out of bigot glasses?

And if you want to run those arguments feel free. But you have to be remarkably obtuse to deny that an interpretation attributing bigotry to the author is legitimate.

What, deny an attribution of bigotry to an imaginary author about arguments you just made up?

I'll give you another example. Imagine Linton on an average Tuesday, ranting like this on some atheist forum:

'Catholics are vile and despicable creatures, who should be rounded up, their children forcibly taken away from them, and then put into re-education camps! They pray to God, for crying out loud! They shouldn't even be allowed to breed!"

Guess what? The out and out hate and bigotry does not somehow make 'They pray to God!' a bigoted statement. It's not even incorrect.

This is because the idea of squelching free debate on the internet by voicing your opinion (esp. in a place where most people disagree with you) is just silly.

Oh really? I already gave an example of the lone atheist being name-called and attacked viciously whenever he speaks about his belief that God doesn't exist. If you don't think this is 'squelching debate' - even if the atheist is still technically quite legally capable of saying what he does - then I think the only one of us being obtuse is you.

im-skeptical said...

"I didn't 'agree' with anyone, you feeb. Marcus made a stupid claim that I disputed wholly - his 'okay the tautology isn't bigoted but his choice of words sure was!' is still inane and wrong. Linton then walked in with a post about Catholicism, and I mentioned that Linton's a rube who habitually fails to offer anything worth engaging."

Ben: "Can anyone here figure out what Paps' point is with the last post?"

Bob: "Has Linton finally lost it? Can anyone make any sense whatsoever out of his last posting?"

crude: "Uh, you want sense out of him?"

crude is a liar, just like Kolasinski. You not only agreed with them, but you demonstrate again that you don't understand what he was saying. The point was that Kolasinski is lying about presenting a secular view on the matter of gay marriage.

He's actually presenting a religious view, and judging by the number of times his paper has been cited by religious people and even religious authorities, it's clear he's in lock-step with them. He's a shill. He's a liar.

And crude is too.

ingx24 said...

im-skeptical,

You and Paps are committing what is known as an ad-hominem circumstantial:

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
- HERE

You are assuming that, since Kolakinski is a Catholic, his arguments can only be religiously motivated, and therefore need not be taken seriously. This is circumstantial ad-hominem. Arguments have to be judged on their own merits, not dismissed based on the circumstances or motivations of the person making the argument.

BenYachov said...

ingx24 is correct

I could in theory (& for all I know ingx24 might in fact) drop the Catholic doctrinal imperatives regarding God's sovereignty in Grace and Man having true free will & still hold too the secular argument against gay marriage(which again ingx24 could hold in theory not that I am saying he does hold in fact).

So this charge of "lying" is bullshit.

im you need to start thinking and get off the Dawkins plantation.

Really dude!

im-skeptical said...

ingx24,

You don't listen any better than crude.

Person A claims to be making a secular case against gay marriage.

Person A makes a case that is bigoted and appears to be pretty much the same case that many religious people make (but without any reference to god), and in fact religious people everywhere agree with it.

Person B believes that he's not really making a secular case at all, because the argument sounds too much like the religious arguments he's heard so many times. Person B attacks the claim that person A's argument is secular by showing evidence that he has religious beliefs. Person B does not attack person A's argument as a whole, but a specific claim made be person A.

Person C believes that he is the master of logical thinking, and wants to prove that person B has made a logical fallacy. Person C hasn't paid attention to what person B was saying, so he makes his case by saying person B was trying to attack person A's argument, when in fact, person B was attacking a specific claim made by person A.

Person C's accusation of logical fallacy has fallen flat on it's face, and person C has shown that he's not so smart after all.


Papalinton said...

The history of religious piety when punctured for the vanity it is reveals an ugly beast. Now utterly stripped of pretense crude resorts to the personal. Character assassination, name-calling, abusive language and insults are his weapons of choice. Gone are the arguments, the reasoning, the rationale behind the POV, gone are the ideas. Vindication turns to vindictiveness, justifying to crucifying, defence of proposition to offensive language.

The sum of his argument is imprudent folly

B. Prokop said...

The history of gnu atheism when punctured for the vanity it is reveals an ugly beast. Now utterly stripped of pretense, Mr. Wilson resorts to the personal (calling Catholics liars and bigots). Character assassination, name-calling, abusive language and insults ("woo", anyone?) are his weapons of choice. Gone are the arguments, the reasoning, the rationale behind the POV, gone are the ideas (to be replaced by verbatim block quotes from Wikipedia). Vindication turns to vindictiveness, justifying to crucifying, defense of proposition to offensive language ("putrescent corpses", anyone?).

Linton, you are the pot calling the kettle black. Don't get me started on calling you out for bad manners.

Crude said...

Bob,

Linton, you are the pot calling the kettle black. Don't get me started on calling you out for bad manners.

This difference in this case is that the 'kettle' ain't black. ;)

As always, since it's a fresh thread, I'll happily point out that my calling Linton a plagiarist is not mere namecalling. It's the truth. When asked to describe the very idea he was criticizing in his own words, he copied and pasted. Bluffed, lied. Because he hasn't a goddamn clue.

When I point out he's a slow-wit who can't read, I do so in a thread where he huffs about how 'Crude only calls those he agrees with 'professional philosophers'', literally quoting me in the process of talking about professional philosophers I /sharply/ disagree with. That, you have to admit, illustrates my claim perfectly. He calls me a bigot without grounds to do so and in the face of evidence to the contrary, then whines like a baby when I turn around and point out that *by the very standards of the person he was clumsily defending*, he is a bigot.

The key here is, I don't engage in character assassination. Linton's character committed suicide a while ago. There's no crime committed in pointing at the corpse, or noting a new incident of rot.

Oh, by the way - I notice the resident hypocrites are turning a blind eye to Marcus' admonition about anti-Christian bigotry on Linton's part. In fact, Skep's just doubled down and endorsed the bigotry. Good job, gentlemen! Cult of Gnu "reasoning" at its finest. ;)

B. Prokop said...

Sincere apologies for any unintended insult, crude. My point was how utterly hilarious it is to see Linton castigating others for the very sins he is guilty of, to wit:

Character assassination
name-calling
abusive language
insults
vindictiveness
offensive language

(These are the very charges Mr. Wilson has made, verbatim.)

If he cannot see his own face in the mirror when reading these, then there is little anyone (other than possibly an exorcist) can do for him.

Crude said...

Bob,

Oh, no insult taken. I was just taking your turn of phrase and running with it.

Papalinton said...

Boys you must not let your intense rage subsume the better nature of your character. Just because I rail against your belief system that should not be confused with or regarded as a personal attack. Because it isn't. Nothing you have written in the last few comments is an example or evidence that I attacked your personal character. I try very hard to refrain from the cheap tactic of personal abuse, examples of which are cited below:
1. "Again Linton demonstrates that he's a goddamn moron who doesn't read."
2. "He is literally an old man going to his final days",
3. "I'll give you another example. Imagine Linton on an average Tuesday, ranting like this on some atheist forum:

'Catholics are vile and despicable creatures, who should be rounded up, their children forcibly taken away from them, and then put into re-education camps! They pray to God, for crying out loud! They shouldn't even be allowed to breed!".

4. "he regurgitates information he doesn't understand"
5. "He can't comprehend a sentence half the time, but that's probably just masking knowledge, not even greater stupidity?"
6. "Ignore him, save for the times where he says something so stupid that you can expose him and have some fun with it, like with his past plagiarism."
7. "Linton's a rube"
8. "He proceeded to then show how damn stupid he was not once, but twice."

Can these comments be understood as not a direct assault on one's personal character ? Can they be construed, interpreted or understood as anything other than a direct comment on my person? How then is it crude can claim: " I don't engage in character assassination. Linton's character committed suicide a while ago"?

So, all the statements above are not as a result of crude's own actions and thoughts. And if he did they appear because I have committed character suicide? Right? I made him say all these things because I committed suicide, right? So crude has nothing to do with these statements and accepts no responsibility for them. Indeed in his thinking these comments cannot be construed as character assassination or personal abuse or prejudicial discrimination. Why? Because he doesn't engage in character assassination. I let others be the judge.

Papalinton said...

Bob
"The history of gnu atheism when punctured for the vanity it is reveals an ugly beast. Now utterly stripped of pretense, Mr. Wilson resorts to the personal (calling Catholics liars and bigots). Character assassination, name-calling, abusive language and insults ("woo", anyone?) are his weapons of choice. Gone are the arguments, the reasoning, the rationale behind the POV, gone are the ideas (to be replaced by verbatim block quotes from Wikipedia). Vindication turns to vindictiveness, justifying to crucifying, defense of proposition to offensive language ("putrescent corpses", anyone?)."

"Woo", "putrescent corpse", These are not about you. These refer to the nonsense belief system you subscribe to. None of these are directed at your person. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you, but it seems you have been caught up in the swirl of gang or mob mentality of a blood-baying vigilante lynch party. Because I consider Catholicism more a social bad than a social good doesn't translate into saying you are bad person. Indeed you are not, only misguided. But it is no more a personal attack on your character than my accepting crude's continued referencing to my silly stunt at plagiarism. That I don't deny because it happened and is something that I will always regret. But none of it is a personal attack your good person.

Where have I called you or catholics liars and bigots? If you can I stand corrected. Read again carefully what I wrote: "If it is the same person, I find it difficult that as a Catholic he could ever make a 'secular' case against SSM. And if he is the same person, then it simply demonstrates the lies and untruthfulness he is prepared to promulgate his agenda as a 'secular' cause." Is this about you or Catholics in general? What are the clauses or phrases that direct you to claiming I call all catholics liars and bigots?

Character assassination
name-calling
abusive language
insults
vindictiveness
offensive language

If I have directed any of these to anyone's personal character be he to cast the first stone.

I do not deny that they have been used to great effect to characterize religious woo, theological claptrap, and superstitious supernaturalism, as the shamanic practice that it is. Religious crapola gets no free swings from me. It is the last vestigial remnant, the last remaining ju-ju link with humanity's primitive origins.

Crude said...

Linton,

None of these are directed at your person.

Little man, you quoted a paper by Kolasinksi where he made his Catholic faith clear - and used that as a launching point to talk about the 'lies and untruthfulness' he is prepared to spread. Because, God forbid - he made a secular argument while being Catholic.

Surprise! That's an attack on his person, as well as all of us who make secular arguments for our beliefs. So too is it an attack on our person to refer to our beliefs as 'delusions' and - as you have in the past - say that we only believe them because of this or that psychological reason, or the like. Remember this blast from the past?

What wrong, Bob? Isn't lying for jesus satisfying your emotional needs enough now that christians aren't allowed to burn heretics at the stake any more?

And on bigotry, in this thread?

In this historical context those that persistently espouse anti-homosexual bile are, in short, bigots. They have had their way. It has not resolved the issue. Sit down and shut up, for decency's sake. There is nothing more that the religious experience can bring to this debate.

Please, Linton - continue with the 'b-b-b-but I n-never attack your person! Please, stop saying mean things!' line. You apparently haven't learned the little lesson about 'google' and how easy it is to pull up your lies.

So no. Demonstrably, you engage in ample amounts of attacks on persons, and always have. All of us here tried to engage you fairly at first. Most still do. Me? I have little problem pointing out your stupidity anymore.

And that's what really hurts you here. It's not merely that I call you stupid or a liar. It's that I have the evidence to prove it. Your multiple blunders in this thread alone, combined with your usual desperate pleading, suffice to show that you really are a slow-wit who can't even follow most conversations. When I call you a 'plagiarist', it's with established, caught-red-handed evidence in the past, that I can produce at my leisure. And, trust me - I can produce even more.

Crude said...

I made him say all these things because I committed suicide, right?

Yes, Linton. The only one who ever assassinated their character is you.

I didn't make you into a plagiarist. That was an act (actually, acts) you committed on your own, when confronted with a request to actually demonstrate you really had the knowledge you claimed to have had. By the way? That also sufficed to expose you as a liar. I didn't call you stupid or incapable of easily comprehending simple sentences without warrant. You demonstrated that all on your own, and again, even in this thread.

You've namecalled, you've mocked, you've belittled, you've insulted. I'm content to ignore that normally, because really, you are a small man, and yours is more a psychological coping with something that happened in your past more than any real intellectual motivation. But when the opportunity arises to point out yet another lie by you, yet another incident of stupidity, I take it. Because - and this is key - you love to degrade and insult people. I don't take this attitude with Dan Gillson, an atheist. I don't take it with Steve Hays, whose blog I got banned from. I don't take it with many of the other people who I strongly disagree with, even when arguments get heated.

But no. You mistook the civility many Christians have treated you with in the past as a sign of weakness. You, like a typical bully, sought out to insult and degrade only those who you were pretty sure would not turn around and give you the same treatment. Now, with you outgunned - there are no instances of plagiarism I've engaged in, among many of your other failings - you beg and whimper. Insults! Character assassination! This is terrible!

Do us all a favor. Take your internet equivalent of a bloody nose off to that apologist for "mild pedophilia" you so admire, Richard Dawkins, and tell him this: "Mister Dawkins, Sir, my savior. I... think, perhaps, we should reconsider your advice to try and mock and belittle those who disagree with us. It turns out... *whimper* ... that some fight back."

Crude said...

Oh, and one last thing.

But it is no more a personal attack on your character than my accepting crude's continued referencing to my silly stunt at plagiarism. That I don't deny because it happened and is something that I will always regret. But none of it is a personal attack your good person.

First, yours was not a 'silly stunt'. That was you, being asked to merely *describe in your own words* the very thing you were criticizing, and plagiarizing a response from someone else for the express purpose of making it look as if you understand what you clearly did not.

Second, while I'm not engaging in character assassination, I am certainly calling 'your good person' into question. See, here's the key difference: character assassination typically involves lies. But I'm not lying. When I call you a plagiarist, I have proof catching you so red-handed you were forced to admit it. When I say you can't even comprehend most of what you read and quote, I back that up with you unmistakably failing to comprehend what you read and quote. When I say you're not very bright, I point at a long, long list of dumb mistakes, some of them recent, on your part.

You, meanwhile, do engage in character assassination. You flat out called someone a liar for daring to give secular arguments despite being Catholic, as if Catholics can't give secular arguments or have secular views. Anyone of us who present secular arguments for our beliefs on these matters - surprise! it's everyone in this thread! - has their character impugned by that stupid move.

You seem to be from the school of thought where, if a man is repeatedly caught on tape stealing from a cash register, bringing this up when he's being offered a job as a bank teller is 'Character assassination!' Sorry, gent - it ain't. And when someone points out that he's a thief, and he finds trouble getting a job, the blame doesn't lie with the person highlighting the point. It lies with the thief.

So once more: I didn't assassinate your character - you killed it. I simply delivered the news. And I'll be playing Paperboy on that front each and every time I see you engage in another sloppy, stupid move, or insult people on here (including atheists), or otherwise behave like you always do. Don't like it? Then perhaps it's time for you to find a blog I don't frequent. Try Loftus' blog, if they aren't tired of you there yet.

Papalinton said...

"" And on bigotry, in this thread?
In this historical context those that persistently espouse anti-homosexual bile are, in short, bigots. They have had their way. It has not resolved the issue. Sit down and shut up, for decency's sake. There is nothing more that the religious experience can bring to this debate."


That's true. I did say that those that persistently espouse anti-homosexual bile are, in short, bigots. And as you identify yourself as one of those about which I was talking, this is no less an admission your are indeed one of those that persistently espouses anti-homosexual bile. How else would you identify yourself otherwise?

Well? Go on. Has christianity resolved the question of homosexuality in the community in any meaningful way in its 2,000 year history? How has Christianity resolved this great social malaise? And if the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality has been resolved, why is it then in the 21stC homosexuals continue to be excised by the religious from the community, remain the butt [pardon the pun] of persistent and unrelenting christian expurgation and persecution? What are your personal reasons for the unseemly perpetual verbal maltreatment of homosexuals? What possible merciful and humanitarian excuse can you give that justifies your continued questioning of their apparent immorality? And what gives you the right to continue such unabashed gay-bashing? And for what purpose?

No Crude. It is clear. Let me make it plain as I can. You. Are... A... Bigot...

And the cap fits ....

Crude said...

How else would you identify yourself otherwise?


Gosh, idiot, I don't know. Maybe by the fact that you unjustly describe non-bigoted and non-'anti-homosexual bile' as bigotry? Are you really this slow?

No Crude. It is clear. Let me make it plain as I can. You. Are... A... Bigot...

Okay everyone. Remember what this liar of low intellect and less scruples said earlier? Let's repeat it:

Where have I called you or catholics liars and bigots? If you can I stand corrected.

I point out that he actually has been calling people bigots, and when backed in a corner he drops his previous line of BS. Yet another red-handed lie for the list.

Oh, by the way...

What are your personal reasons for the unseemly perpetual verbal maltreatment of homosexuals?

Considering I routinely chew out any Christian OR non-Christian (including atheists and agnostics) for 'verbal maltreatment of homosexuals', you're barking up the wrong tree, little man. And while I'm certainly aware that the Cult of Gnu perpetually wishes to wash its hands of both anti-theism's and secularism's past sins, it's worth noting that atheists and the irreligious have certainly engaged in sins against people with same-sex attraction - just as they do against Christians and anyone else who doesn't or didn't toe their line.

You want to see me arguing with people, condemning them for believing it should be acceptable to fire people merely for being gay? You want to see me admonishing them for regarding homosexuals as child molestors? You want to see me arguing with other people - Christians AND atheists - that people with same-sex attraction deserve to be treated as people first and foremost? Call me on it, Linton. I keep tight tabs on my track record far more closely than I do yours.

Once again, Linton - you are outgunned. You really are a liar, a plagiarist, and a man of low intellect. To top it off, yes, you're a would-be bully, a cruel, petty old man who takes out the disappointments that haunt his life online, against those he thinks are most likely to succumb to his insults. I pray that you change your mind and start acting like a civilized human being, but in lieu of that, I'm more than happy to take your virtual hand it press it against the stove until you learn your lesson.

The directive of 'mild pedophilia' apologist Richard Dawkins is deplorable, and I'm more than happy to tell off his wannabe underlings.

HyperEntity111 said...

Crude: ''Hyper: the entire thrust of your argument on these points relies on an imagined 'greater context' you dislike, and which does the work for you.''

Well there's a context alright but it's not imagined. Gays have a history of persecution which continues to this day in many parts of the world. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was a criminal offense in America. And today gays still have to put up with homophobia and bigoted politicians who trot out absurd 'arguments' to justify their intolerance. These are all facts. This is why my examples are more appropriate than yours. Trying to abstract away this context and comparing it to 'Jews have more Nobel prizes than Christians' (as if there has been a systematic campaign with government backing to stop Christians winning Nobel prizes) is just bizarre.

A person who believes that gays are in general bad parents because they are gay is homophobic in precisely the same way that a person is a racist if he believes blacks, by virtue of being black, are are less able parents than whites. In both cases the person holds a false belief which can negatively impact the lives of real people (and actually already has).

'' Even if their arguments are wrong, even if their conclusions are distasteful, it's *still* not bigoted.''

Consider a person who says:

''I genuinely and honestly believe that blacks are in general inferior to whites. I read a number of books on this topic proving being black makes you a worse person. I believe our legal system should reflect this fact. But I don't hate blacks I'm just following the evidence the where it leads!''

Yeah fine. But you're still a racist. You are the definition of a racist. And this examples applies to the gay parenting case as well.

Contrary to what you may believe this is not an open question. The overwhelming evidence from the social sciences tells us that being gay does not negatively affect one's ability to parent. All the major psychological associations agree on this. So person who wants to start a 'debate' over this question is like someone trying to 'debate' whether or not whites are better than blacks.

People who initiate such debates tend either to be very ignorant or plain bigoted. People who initiate such debates and arrive at the conclusion that whites are better than blacks (or, say, that being gay is a mental illness) are by definition racists (or homophobic) even if (like the guy in my example) they at this conclusion completely devoid of hatred for gays (or blacks) and simply on a mistaken evaluation of the evidence before them (and let's be real: these people are extremely rare).


''Oh really? I already gave an example of the lone atheist being name-called and attacked viciously whenever he speaks about his belief that God doesn't exist.''

Are you seriously arguing that these two situations are analogous? You're actually trying to use this example as a premise to justify your claim that I'm attempting to stifle debate?

im-skeptical said...

"Because, God forbid - he made a secular argument while being Catholic."

No. He made an argument that was motivated by his religious beliefs, including his bias against gay people. It was not a secular argument. He's playing the IDists game. It's not ad hominem to call out conflicts of interest (see Wikipedia) or lies (including lies of omission) in one's arguments. It is ad hominem to call someone "little man".

"So no. Demonstrably, you engage in ample amounts of attacks on persons, and always have."

Pointing out that people who make bigoted statements are bigots is not an attack on one's person. If I say "people who tell lies are liars", I'm not attacking anyone's person. If I say crude is a liar, I'm directly attacking you, and I back it up with facts (see earlier in this thread).

"Second, while I'm not engaging in character assassination, I am certainly calling 'your good person' into question."

You are a liar and a hypocrite, "little man".





B. Prokop said...

What I find most curious about this debate about SSM is that, by and large, proponents of the issue wish to "win" by default. Linton says, "Sit down and shut up!" (great debating tactic, there) Marcus begins his case by pulling the bigot card. (How convenient! You don't even have to consider another point of view if it's bigoted.) Hyper punts to fake analogies like racism, which in this issue is a complete non sequitur. Skep announces his intention from the get-go to ignore all opinion from any person who can be identified as "religious" - even if his religious faith is irrelevant to this issue.

This is a pure case of one side of a debate (the SSM side) acting in the most intolerant manner possible, any yet maintaining that it is the other side which is bigoted.

Gimme a break!

HyperEntity111 said...

Bob posted: ''Hyper punts to fake analogies like racism, which in this issue is a complete non sequitur.''

Why is it a non sequitur?

im-skeptical said...

Bob,

"Sit down and shut up" was specifically addressed to bigots. If the shoe fits, wear it.

"Marcus begins his case by pulling the bigot card."

Marcus was addressing the merits of Kolasinski's argument that was based in part on impugning the ability of gay people to be effective parents. Such a claim has no factual foundation, but is based on nothing more than bigotry. That's relevant.

"Hyper punts to fake analogies like racism, which in this issue is a complete non sequitur."

His analogy was right on the money. It might seem to irrelevant to someone who is blind to his own bigotry.

"Skep announces his intention from the get-go to ignore all opinion from any person who can be identified as "religious" - even if his religious faith is irrelevant to this issue."

You're wrong. You want to turn a blind eye to what has a major issue at the heart of this debate. If Kolasinski wants to make a case based on his religious belief, let him do so. Let's debate the merits of his argument.

If he wants to do what the IDists do, which is pretend to be secular by presenting a religious case without using the word 'god', then his argument is not secular, and he is a liar. His religious faith is very much relevant to the issue. And it was he that made it relevant.

B. Prokop said...

It is a non-sequitur because restricting marriage to "one man, one woman" is not discrimination!!! Everyone is treated exactly the same. I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. So does any person of any race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, political persuasion, or sexual orientation. We all have an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise, we are all prohibited (under traditional law) from marrying first cousins, parents, children, or persons of the same sex. And this prohibition is applied, once again, with total equality and no discrimination whatsoever.

So yes, bringing up "racism" is a total non sequitur.

ingx24 said...

It is a non-sequitur because restricting marriage to "one man, one woman, same race" is not discrimination!!! Everyone is treated exactly the same. I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and same race. So does any person of any race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, political persuasion, or sexual orientation. We all have an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex and same race.

Likewise, we are all prohibited (under traditional law) from marrying first cousins, parents, children, persons of the opposite race, or persons of the same sex. And this prohibition is applied, once again, with total equality and no discrimination whatsoever.

ingx24 said...

If the edited version of Bob's quote in my last post can't be used to argue against inter-racial marriage, why can the original quote be used to argue against same-sex marriage?

B. Prokop said...

Because, Ing, your statement is self-contradictory. Your re-editing doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone logical sense. There is no such problem in the sentence I wrote.

BenYachov said...

>If the edited version of Bob's quote in my last post can't be used to argue against inter-racial marriage, why can the original quote be used to argue against same-sex marriage?

There is nothing in natural law that can be used to argue against inter-racial marriage anymore than natural law can be used to argue against opposite sex persons with different eye colors from being married.

The essence of marriage is it be between two human persons of the opposite sex. Their secondary physical traits (eye color, skin shade, certain ethnic facial features etc) are merely accidental not essential.

You need a man and woman to reproduce. Not a white man and a white woman etc....

Of course Bob is making the mistake of arguing in a utilitarian with our foes. So he is making a bad argument. But Hyper, Skept, and Paps are making ad hominid fallacies & dogmatic degrees that no religious person can make a secular argument against SSM.

The basis of being against SSM is essentialist in nature not utilitarian.


Stay away from utilitarianism.

BenYachov said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BenYachov said...

As a dude I can no more marry a man then I could marry my dog even if the dog was female. Even if you genetically engineered the dog to make it intelligent I doubt that would make a difference.

Sex and species are essential traits. I can be human and any color that is natural to my species & I can be either male or female.

BenYachov said...

QUOTE"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met."END QUOTE

By nature a heterosexual relationship propagates the human species. The homosexual one does not. Even Gay adoptions requires the participation of a heterosexual relation to provide a child.

So why should the state treat them as equals when nature has not made it so?

Race is an accidental difference not an essential one.

My wife is of pure Italian Mediterranean stock. I am half of what she is & my other half is Anglo-Scotch Celtic. She has hazel eyes I have brown.

If one of us had dark brown skin what would that matter to the essential fact we are male and female?

Papalinton said...

"So too is it an attack on our person to refer to our beliefs as 'delusions' ..."

Said just like the archetypal Muslim jihadist, crude. Attack the Prophet you attack me. Attack my beliefs you attack me. Your beliefs are delusional, as delusional as believing Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse or that a three-day old putrescent corpse revivified to full physical health with no adverse effect. To imagine these were real events is a function of delusion. And claiming miracle is an excuse for the delusion not an explanation of it. You may well be a normal person [not being your psychiatrist], and I suspect you are, but your beliefs are delusional, just as your beliefs about the great sin and abomination [biblical words] of being born homosexual is a delusion. Being born a homosexual is no more different than being born autistic. Both are the result of genetic happenstance. And the only distinction between the two that characterizes the radically different forms of maltreatment, public humiliation and vilification by the religious? Homosexuality is an affront to christian psychosexual sensibilities.

It does your cause no good remaining a gay-baiter.

Papalinton said...

And claiming miracle is an excuse for that delusion not an explanation of it.

B. Prokop said...

Whatever.

im-skeptical said...

Ben,

"The essence of marriage is it be between two human persons of the opposite sex."

Your religious essentialism is showing. Who dictates what the 'essence' of marriage is? Could it be your religious teaching? Can you justify that claim without resorting to such rationale?

"So why should the state treat them as equals when nature has not made it so?"

I always find it interesting that a died-in-the-wool get-government-off-our-backs right-winger like yourself would make an argument about using government to restrict the natural freedom of people. Why SHOULDN'T the state treat them as equals? In the eyes of the state, marriage confers legal rights and responsibilities - guardianship, tax liabilities, etc. The state has no interest in whether your marriage is for purposes of procreation. Such restrictions do not exist (except as preventative - the traditional restriction on incest, which is known to produce defective offspring). The minute any government tries to place other restrictions on marriage related to procreation, lots of people will be up in arms - elderly couples, the infertile, those who simply don't want to have children.

In the eyes of the church, marriage is something different. It's not about legal status, but rather about your status in the church - whether or not your child is 'legitimate', or whether you are living in sin. And yes, this is where the 'abomination' of homosexuality comes into play. The state should have no such interest.

Please stop trying to turn a religious argument into a secular one.

Papalinton said...

Bob
"What I find most curious about this debate about SSM is that, by and large, proponents of the issue wish to "win" by default. Linton says, "Sit down and shut up!" (great debating tactic, there) ..."

It's the context that is important here. Telling christian homophobes to sit down and shut up follows after 2,000 years of debate. What more can a crude-clone contribute to the debate from a christian perspective that is different from the last two thousand years. All I see is continued vilification, persecution and perpetuation of the same old same old catholic arguments into the future. Not a pretty sight really. A fresh and new way must be found to acknowledge that homosexuality can and should be a normal part of the spectrum of life. Just because the bible says it is an abomination doesn't make it so.

B. Prokop said...

"A fresh and new way must be found to acknowledge homosexuality"

Granting that for the sake of argument, it still does not equate to automatic support for SSM. A person can rationally hold that there should be no discrimination against homosexuals, and live that belief in his dealings with others, and still hold that marriage is defined in such a manner that excludes same sex partners. No bigotry, no discrimination (as I pointed out above, the rules apply equally to all indifferently), no "homophobia" (a ridiculous term in any case, I know no one who is "afraid" of homosexuals).

I personally have no "fear" of homosexuals - I know at least two good people who are such in my astronomy club, I have regular business dealings with others, and I'm fairly convinced that my older brother is one, for Pete's sake. Yet I remain unimpressed by the arguments that somehow the definition of the word marriage needs to be changed at this time. I also take seriously the "slippery slope" arguments. I have yet to see anyone give a defense of SSM that could not be used just as well for polygamy, incest, polyandry, etc.

If that's bigotry, then so be it. I guess I'll simply have to get used to proudly wearing the label. Perhaps I'll sew a Scarlet "B" onto my shirts.

But don't say I didn't warn you when the time comes that the word "bigot" has lost any discernible meaning (the way the words fascist and socialist have been drained of content in contemporary political discourse).

im-skeptical said...

"But don't say I didn't warn you when the time comes that the word "bigot" has lost any discernible meaning (the way the words fascist and socialist have been drained of content in contemporary political discourse)."

Ha! Because discrimination against gay people is not 'real' bigotry. It's just what our religious handlers teach us.

BenYachov said...

@IM

You are so mercifully lacking in the ravages of intelligence

>Your religious essentialism is showing.

No my philosophical essentialism is showing. After all this time you still equate religion with philosophy.
BTW Your knee-jerk positivism is showing as well as your anti-philosophy philosophy. Typical Gnu.

>Who dictates what the 'essence' of marriage is? Could it be your religious teaching?

The first question you need to ask is "Do things have an essence or not?". If the essence of marriage has no content then it makes no more sense to say gays can be married vs gays can't be married. Since neither would have meaning.

>Can you justify that claim without resorting to such rationale?

Of course by Natural Law. I don't have to bring the gods into it or at least any God that gives binding divine revelation.

But then again you have refused to read anything on Aristotle, Aquinas, Natural philosophy or theology etc…& we all know you have no desire too.

>I always find it interesting that a died-in-the-wool get-government-off-our-backs right-winger like yourself would make an argument about using government to restrict the natural freedom of people.

Since when is Bob a conservative? I don't advocate arresting adult people who privately having adult gay sex & if they want to find a liberal Unitarian clergy person to have some ceremony that calls them "married" what businesses is it of mine? They are free to do this. I don't advocate laws that punish consensual adult gay sex. It serves no good purpose to arrest two dudes having it off and throw them in jail with other dudes where they will be having it off anyway.

>Why SHOULDN'T the state treat them as equals? In the eyes of the state, marriage confers legal rights and responsibilities - guardianship, tax liabilities, etc. The state has no interest in whether your marriage is for purposes of procreation.

You are not talking about a marriage. You are talking about mere romantic relationships some of which involve same sex ones, not marriage.

You are equivocating.

>Such restrictions do not exist (except as preventative - the traditional restriction on incest, which is known to produce defective offspring).

The problem with this utilitarian approach is you would have no basis for restricting an incest "marriage" where one or both parties to the brother/sister, Father/daughter, mother/son relationship was sterile or both promised not to have children.

>The minute any government tries to place other restrictions on marriage related to procreation, lots of people will be up in arms - elderly couples, the infertile, those who simply don't want to have children.

Rather the idea of marriage licenses is a late western invention. Rather then agitate for "equal marriage" they should simply reduce all committed romantic relationships to the status of domestic partnerships. That is if you insist on defining marriage solely in terms of a committed romantic relationship between consenting adults.

From a Natural Law perspective you can only make marriage between a man and a woman who even from a utilitarian perspective procreate the human race so that might merit special consideration on that brute biological fact.

BenYachov said...

>In the eyes of the church, marriage is something different. It's not about legal status, but rather about your status in the church - whether or not your child is 'legitimate', or whether you are living in sin. And yes, this is where the 'abomination' of homosexuality comes into play. The state should have no such interest.

No your relativist utilitarian perspective defines marriage solely in terms of a romantic relationship which is justified by virtue of the fact both parties have romantic love for one another.

Rejecting all belief in a God who gives divine revelation by natural law principles I can deduce the final end of a relationship between a man and woman is children for the propagation of the human race. Two dudes & two babes(or more) don't have that end.

>Please stop trying to turn a religious argument into a secular one.

Learn philosophy & stop pretending philosophy and religion are the same thing.

Stop making everything political. too. That is such a Gnu thing to do.

BenYachov said...

>Ha! Because discrimination against gay people is not 'real' bigotry.


Rather unjust discrimination is bigotry. For example I couldn't be given an award for "best actress" being a dude & it doesn't matter if I am a friend of Dorothy.

It's perfectly just to discriminate against giving me an award for best actress. It's perfectly just discriminating against my Father by not giving him the mother of the year award.

It is also perfectly just in recognizing same sex romantic entanglements do not by their very nature & essence contribute to the propagation of the human race.

Thus they don't merit the same consideration of those who do by nature.


>It's just what our religious handlers teach us.


You have made a religion out of hating religion.

Tis Silly!

BenYachov said...

BTW Paps & Skept even other Atheists here have noticed you both have this deep hatred toward religion and religious people.

So how are either of you morally superior?

You are not. You are gnus.

Crude said...

Hyper,

Trying to abstract away this context and comparing it to 'Jews have more Nobel prizes than Christians' (as if there has been a systematic campaign with government backing to stop Christians winning Nobel prizes) is just bizarre.

No, it's apt. Your basic argument at this point is that a statement of fact - even a tautological statement - somehow automatically becomes 'bigoted' if you can imagine some context where it's being said and said context is... you know, I'm tempted to say 'bigoted', but really, it seems more like the answer is 'you dislike it'.

'Those Catholics believe in God!', even if uttered from the mouth of a bigot, is not a bigoted statement. Now, what comes before and after may well be bigoted. But that doesn't magically change that sentence into bigotry.

A person who believes that gays are in general bad parents because they are gay is homophobic in precisely the same way that a person is a racist if he believes blacks, by virtue of being black, are are less able parents than whites.

Not at all. For one thing, it's far more complicated than 'being gay'. Again, you're taking aim automatically at the individual, when it's the particular pairing in a child-rearing sense that's at issue. I don't think two heterosexual guys raising a child is necessarily ideal either - with apologies to Paul Reiser.

Contrary to what you may believe this is not an open question. The overwhelming evidence from the social sciences tells us that being gay does not negatively affect one's ability to parent. All the major psychological associations agree on this.

'All the major psychological associations', up until around the 1970s, classified homosexuality as a mental illness. Let me guess: 'well they were wrong, it was totally fine to resist the consensus then'?

Considering that what makes a 'good parent' is in hefty part ultimately a question of values and morals, and values are questions of metaphysics rather than science, I'm not too concerned about the APA's findings. What's more? We're talking about the softest end of the soft sciences here, where there's serious disagreement even about how mental illnesses are classified - worse, over a highly politicized subject.

So no, contrary to what you believe, this really is an open question. In fact, the nature of it means it's going to stay open regardless of whatever scientific studies are done.

Are you seriously arguing that these two situations are analogous? You're actually trying to use this example as a premise to justify your claim that I'm attempting to stifle debate?

I'm using this example to justify my claim that 'stifling debate' does not require legal restrictions on speech. People here are playing the card that 'your speech isn't being stifled, you can still legally say whatever you want!' Wonderful - so can the atheist in my example. If you concede his speech is being stifled, then you concede you can stifle speech by namecalling and vitriol.

From there, it's a very short jump to arguing that instinctive reactions of 'BIGOT!' to various arguments and questioning is stifling as well. And at that point, you may want to start arguing that it's sometimes justifiable to stifle speech.

Crude said...

Well, now that Linton's as usual been exposed as a liar, plagiarist and man of low mental capability - thanks buddy, I couldn't expose you without your willful actions - I can move on to some additional arguments about homosexuality and gay marriage. ;)

I'll take out the biggest mistake in the thread first: The idea that regarding homosexuality as a disorder is 'religious.'

For one, via the wikipedia entry, there's this key phrase: "In the late 19th century and early 20th century, pathological models of homosexuality were standard." Now, you can argue they were wrong. You can argue they misunderstood the science or had wrong standards. What you can't do is argue that these organizations were religious organizations - they were secular, scientific organizations.

Need more evidence? Here's some: In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.
The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.


Homosexuals were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties[12] across the globe during the 20th Century, as most communist parties followed the social precedents set by the USSR.

In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, where communist ideology has been replaced by Juche, LGBT rights are very limited and the subject of homosexuality remains fiercely taboo. While the government proclaims tolerance for gay people and has acknowledged its belief that homosexuality is not a choice and rather due to genetic factors, it rejects the alleged "promiscuity and classism" of gay culture in the West.

I could say more for now, but at this moment I'm zeroing in on a specific claim: that criticism of and opposition to homosexuality is, now or historically, exclusively (or even largely) a religious view. This view is dead in the water - boom, destroyed. Both secular and atheist organizations have, right or wrong, been incredibly discriminatory towards homosexuals. (And before anyone asks? I think, in large part, wrongly.)

I'll let that sink in before dealing with some other interesting aspects of this topic. But unlike a lot of what's been claimed in this thread, what I just demonstrated really isn't up for debate. It is historical fact.

Crude said...

Oh, actually, I'll throw in one more example of secular and atheist people and homosexuality.

Everyone knows about the 'anti-LGBT propaganda laws' in Russia. Here's some pertinent facts.

How much support do these laws have in Russia? Upwards of 80%.

What's the irreligious population in Russia? Around 13% atheist and non-religious, 25% 'spiritual but not religious', 5.5% undecided.

In other words? There's no way those poll numbers are reaching the results they are without substantial support from Russia's self-described irreligious.

So if you want to talk about the history and modern prevalence of opposition to homosexuality, you're going to have to suck it up and accept that on both counts, there is substantial support from atheists, seculars and irreligious on that front.

Those laws, by the way, may be of interest a bit later.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

"No my philosophical essentialism is showing."

Oh, really? And what part of philosophy tells you what is dictated by "natural law"? Who defines this law and what does the law say?

"Of course by Natural Law. I don't have to bring the gods into it or at least any God that gives binding divine revelation."

The only natural law I know of is physics. Being homosexual is not a violation of natural law - it actually happens naturally. Marriage is an institution of mankind. It's not natural at all. It only applies to people, and the 'rules' are entirely made up by people. In some places, the rules say you have to marry whoever your daddy decides you should marry. In some places, you can only marry people of the correct religion. In some places, you can have lots of wives. We used to have rules saying we couldn't marry people of the wrong race. And we still have rules saying we can't marry people of the wrong sex. There's nothing natural about any of that. They're just rules that people made up, often because of religious beliefs.

"Learn philosophy & stop pretending philosophy and religion are the same thing. "

So once again, tell me what part of philosophy teaches you this so-called natural law.

Crude said...

The only natural law I know of is physics.

...

Papalinton said...

Ben
"From a Natural Law perspective you can only make marriage between a man and a woman who even from a utilitarian perspective procreate the human race so that might merit special consideration on that brute biological fact."

No that's not right. The brute biological fact is that a man and woman can procreate without the thought of marriage even in consideration. Marriage is a social and cultural construct. And like all social and cultural artifacts changes with the sentiment of the community.

"Couple relationships provide people with love, companionship, support, and opportunities for having children and raising families. As such, couples are a fundamental building block of society. Changing social attitudes during the late 20th century have led to an increase in de facto and same-sex relationships as well as giving people more freedom to end relationships, start new relationships or remain single." [I am indebted to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the form of words here].

The quintessential aspect of society is not the convention of marriage but the forging of couples, be they hetero or homosexual. It is the relationship of the 'couple' that is the driving force and fundamental building block of society. The rise and rise of divorce is a testament to the nonsense that a marriage is made in heaven and a covenant with god. Clearly, marriage has been reduced to serial monogamy as demonstrated even by the huge numbers of Christian folk who have divorced and remarried, and that the covenant with god is meaningless rhetoric at best. So whatever meaning marriage may have once had has been neutered by the 40% divorce rate among evangelicals and 50% among the general US population. To desperately hang onto marriage as some form of commitment to the divine in todays society is a bit of obtuse religious wanking. Give it over to the community to define as it wants. It's going to anyway.

Papalinton said...

The citing of statistics:
"Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. The rate among religiously unaffiliated Americans is 50%." ChistianityToday.

Crude said...

Oh, and I will be watching to see if anyone contests my claim that, in both a modern sense and historically, opposition to "homosexuality" is every bit as much a secular, even atheist position as it it a religious position. Considering the evidence I've brought out to support my position, I either foresee a lack of opposition - or some really, really funny opposition.

Linton's been dealt with and is back in the 'liar and idiot, disregard' pile, and Skep is Skep, but there are some truly intelligent, civil agnostics and atheists in this thread. On the other hand, they haven't been painting criticism of homosexuality as an exclusively religious affair, so we'll see what happens on that front before I move on to additional considerations.

B. Prokop said...

"Considering the evidence I've brought out to support my position, I ... foresee a lack of opposition"

What I foresee is dead silence... no response whatsoever.

Crude said...

Bob,

What I foresee is dead silence... no response whatsoever.

Oh, I expect responses. Really, really stupid responses from the slower atheists in the thread. It's the more intelligent irreligious - Hyper and Ingx24 in particular, maybe Dan if he shows up, or some others - who I'm wondering about. But again, they haven't (as near as I can tell) been trying to whitewash atheists, secularists or even scientists from their present and historical role in all things "anti-homosexual". And they don't need to for their arguments to be made, necessarily.

But I think the evidence I've provided is knock-down for my claim. I'll give it a day, and unless something amazing happens, I'll file my claim under 'established' and simply move on to meatier LGBT discussion here.

Crude said...

Oh, a little more air-clearing.

If you'd like to know what the Russian 'anti-propaganda law' is about, here's a (not exactly friendly) source:

Here is what Article 6.21 actually says:

Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.

If you’re Russian. Individuals engaging in such propaganda can be fined 4,000 to 5,000 rubles (120-150 USD), public officials are subject to fines of 40,000 to 50,000 rubles (1,200-1,500 USD), and registered organizations can be either fined (800,000-1,000,000 rubles or 24,000-30,000 USD) or sanctioned to stop operations for 90 days. If you engage in the said propaganda in the media or on the internet, the sliding scale of fines shifts: for individuals, 50,000 to 100,000 rubles; for public officials, 100,000 to 200,000 rubles, and for organizations, from one million rubles or a 90-day suspension.

If you’re an alien. Foreign citizens or stateless persons engaging in propaganda are subject to a fine of 4,000 to 5,000 rubles, or they can be deported from the Russian Federation and/or serve 15 days in jail. If a foreigner uses the media or the internet to engage in propaganda, the fines increase to 50,000-100,000 rubles or a 15-day detention with subsequent deportation from Russia.


Not relevant and the moment, but it likely will be later in this thread.

im-skeptical said...

"Skep is Skep, but there are some truly intelligent, civil agnostics and atheists in this thread. On the other hand, they haven't been painting criticism of homosexuality as an exclusively religious affair ..."

As usual crude demonstrates his inability to read and comprehend. If he could could, he would realize that I never said what he claims. Or maybe it's just his basic dishonesty that prevents him from accurately representing my words. But I know there must be some intelligent religious people out there, so to them I give you this challenge (and based on history, I bet nobody will respond with a reasonable answer): answer the questions I asked Ben. What is this natural law he refers to? What does it say? How do you know? And while we're at it, what is the real essence of marriage, and how do you know that?

Crude said...

As usual crude demonstrates his inability to read and comprehend. If he could could, he would realize that I never said what he claims. Or maybe it's just his basic dishonesty that prevents him from accurately representing my words.

Wonderful! Then you concede that 'opposition to homosexuality' is not at all an exclusively or (particularly historically) even primarily religious position? That it's something secular people, atheists, even scientists have engaged in and do engage in?

By all means, Skep - tell me if I'm accurately representing your words. Of course, if you dig in your heels and say that opposition to homosexuality IS exclusively or almost entirely a religious position, then it looks like you're within my targeting sight after all.

Pick which prong you'd like to impale yourself on. Meanwhile...

But I know there must be some intelligent religious people out there, so to them I give you this challenge (and based on history, I bet nobody will respond with a reasonable answer): answer the questions I asked Ben.

Oh gosh, this is going to be hard.

What is this natural law he refers to?

Bam.

What does it say?

Once again, bam. It's a large body of metaphysical and philosophical reasoning.

How do you know?

By understanding and following the arguments, some of which are given above.

And while we're at it, what is the real essence of marriage, and how do you know that?

In this case, via natural law arguments. Would you like me to give you some references?

Bam, bam, bam, bam! That was easy.

But the whole 'the only natural law I know of is physics' quip is admirable in one way. At least you've admitted you are completely, and I mean completely, in the dark on this topic for a change. You didn't try to bullshit your way through it, you didn't plagiarize and lie. So good on you, man. Seriously. You're improving.

Crude said...

Oh, and to head off claims that 'natural law' is essentially religious...

Bam!

im-skeptical said...

"Bam, bam, bam, bam! That was easy."

I'm tempted to say, "poor crude, it must be difficult to get through life in your condition", but that would assume you were intelligent enough to recognize that you are so disabled. Actually, I think you are completely oblivious to your problem.

Now, this is what you said earlier: "And I'll point out, natural law isn't even on 'the religious side'. It may be popular among some religious, but that doesn't make it religious in and of itself." So I want to know about this non-religious natural law that everybody is touting here. And your answer is the religious-philosophical natural law of Aquinas? That's not what I was asking about. Tell me about this supposed non-religious natural law, not Thomism.

Crude said...

Skeppy,

So I want to know about this non-religious natural law that everybody is touting here. And your answer is the religious-philosophical natural law of Aquinas? That's not what I was asking about. Tell me about this supposed non-religious natural law, not Thomism.

See, Skep, this is precisely why you should read the links I supply. Here's a quick quote from one:

Now there is some truth in what Fincke says, but it is not the whole truth and his account suffers from some systematic ambiguities. On the one hand, I would agree that the teleological properties of natural substances, including human beings, can in principle be known whether or not one believes in God, precisely because they are natural. That is what makes natural law possible. You can know just by studying trees that their roots have among their natural ends the taking in of water and nutrients, and that it is objectively good for a tree that its roots carry out this function and bad for it if for some reason the roots are unable to do so. You don’t need to make reference to God to see this.

See, Skep - here's your problem.

You admitted you didn't know anything about natural law. I gave you a link, you briefly scanned it, saw the name 'Aquinas' and went "a-ha! So natural law is based on religion!" But if you actually bothered to, you know... read the links? Tried to understand them? Well, then you would have saved yourself from making yet another embarrassing error.

This, Skep, is why I repeatedly point out that you're quite slow: you speak with authority about things you know next to nothing about. Here I thought you were improving by admitting your ignorance and then asking questions - but alas, you dumb'd your way into another pratfall.

Clearly you learn at the knee of Linton. You really need a better teacher. ;)

Crude said...

By the way, during this foray into natural law arguments, I also plan on holding Skep's feet to the fire (along with any other atheist's) on what I previously said:

Wonderful! Then you concede that 'opposition to homosexuality' is not at all an exclusively or (particularly historically) even primarily religious position? That it's something secular people, atheists, even scientists have engaged in and do engage in?

By all means, Skep - tell me if I'm accurately representing your words. Of course, if you dig in your heels and say that opposition to homosexuality IS exclusively or almost entirely a religious position, then it looks like you're within my targeting sight after all.


I look forward to your answering my question, Skep. Personally, I don't think you have the guts to answer it - but you may well prove me wrong. ;)

Crude said...

Oh, and just to be thorough, here's another nice bit from a link within my previous links:

Dougherty notes that if someone accepts Aristotelian essentialism, it seems to follow that he ought to allow that morality can have a foundation even if there is no God. For from an Aristotelian point of view, what is good for a human being, and thus how we ought to treat human beings, is determined by human nature, and human nature is what it is whether or not there is a God. Well, I think Dougherty is more or less right about that much, though I would qualify what he says in ways I’ll explain presently. And as I’ve argued elsewhere (e.g. in The Last Superstition), it isn’t atheism per se that threatens the very possibility of morality, at least not directly.

This point is expanded on and referenced to in the links I gave. Which is pretty obvious, unless you don't read the damn things.

Bam. ;)

im-skeptical said...

So, Feser digs up a supposed atheist who thinks teleology is not religious. Again, I say, tell me about this supposed non-religious natural law, not Thomism.

ingx24 said...

I'm gonna be honest: I did not know that anti-homosexuality was the law of the land in Soviet Russia, of all places. This is news to me - I honestly thought that it was mostly a religious phenomenon.

I don't really have much to say here that I haven't said already. I think that natural law is really the only rational grounds for seeing homosexuality as disordered, and for various reasons I don't think natural law ultimately works as an ethical system. Natural law ultimately seems to collapse into the idea that there is such a thing as a "normal" person, that people who are not "normal" are automatically disordered or defective, and that one's behavior should be guided by what is "normal" for a person to do. I understand that there's a complex metaphysical underpinning for this system, but honestly, natural law seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of the metaphysical premises that led up to it rather than a logical consequence that should be embraced.

Just my two cents.

Crude said...

So, Feser digs up a supposed atheist who thinks teleology is not religious. Again, I say, tell me about this supposed non-religious natural law, not Thomism.

No, Feser argues and explains why natural law arguments are not religious - they do not rely on revelation. Hell, the arguments about natures, essences, and morality (which in turn are exactly what we're discussing with homosexuality, gay marriage, etc), make no reference to, nor do they rely on, God or God's existence.

Read, Skep. Read, and comprehend, for once. Or, I suppose, you can keep on your current path - which is basically 'admit you aren't reading, or can't comprehend'.

And in the meantime, I'm still waiting for your reply. So far? This isn't going so well for you. ;)

Crude said...

ingx24,

I'm gonna be honest: I did not know that anti-homosexuality was the law of the land in Soviet Russia, of all places. This is news to me - I honestly thought that it was mostly a religious phenomenon.

Fair enough, and like I said, I didn't see you saying otherwise in this thread. But do me one favor: ask yourself if the impression you've gotten about laws and attitudes critical of homosexuality may possibly have been delivered to you dishonestly. I'm not even asking you to discuss it in this thread.

It's not just Soviet Russia. There was secular reasoning and motivation against it in various places - it was regarded as a mental illness even in secular, scientific organizations for quite a while. I'm not saying they were right. I'm saying that the idea that this was some religious phenomenon is demonstrable historical nonsense.

Oh, as an added bonus: the next time someone talks about how 'religion' leads to suppression of science, take a good look at the Soviet's track record there too. I'm still amazed they were hostile to the Law of Large Numbers, aka, something you can demonstrate, alone, on your desk, with dice and a notepad.

im-skeptical said...

"Bam. ;)"

And before you divert the topic too far away from the question I asked and you haven't answered, I have always said that human morality is naturally evolved. Now tell me why gay people shouldn't get married.

Crude said...

And before you divert the topic too far away from the question I asked and you haven't answered, I have always said that human morality is naturally evolved.

I've answered your questions thoroughly, Skep. You're blustering and backed in a corner as usual. But I won't let you off the hook. ;)

My question again:

Wonderful! Then you concede that 'opposition to homosexuality' is not at all an exclusively or (particularly historically) even primarily religious position? That it's something secular people, atheists, even scientists have engaged in and do engage in?

By all means, Skep - tell me if I'm accurately representing your words. Of course, if you dig in your heels and say that opposition to homosexuality IS exclusively or almost entirely a religious position, then it looks like you're within my targeting sight after all.


Moment of truth time, Skep. What's that answer?

im-skeptical said...

"Moment of truth time, Skep. What's that answer?"

Yes, there are stupid and bigoted people in all walks of life. I never said otherwise. I will also agree that there are intelligent and wise people everywhere, too. But you are not one of them.

Now you need to admit that you have not responded to my challenge. I want to know about this natural law (that is not religious) that says gay people shouldn't get married. Don't tell me about the natural law of Aquinas, because that's as religious as it gets. Any takers out there?

Crude said...

Yes, there are stupid and bigoted people in all walks of life.

Wonderful! A glorious concession.

Some of the arguments against homosexual activity were based on secular reasoning, right or wrong. We're in agreement.

Now you need to admit that you have not responded to my challenge. I want to know about this natural law (that is not religious) that says gay people shouldn't get married.

Hold on there, kiddo. This is a new question. You asked what natural law is, what does it say, etc. This bit about 'natural law arguments that says gay people shouldn't get married' is new.

First off? The natural law argument is against same-sex sexual behavior, etc. There's no natural law argument against a 'gay' man marrying a woman, etc.

Second, the argument's outline is simple. (Specifics get more complicated, but the outline? Simple.) If you accept that there exist essential natures, and that orgasms and sex in humans is ordered towards reproduction - that is the 'purpose' of sex, the final cause and end of the desires and the acts - then it's going to follow that uses of sex for ends other than these is an abuse that frustrates the end. So, it's immoral and to be avoided.

Now, you can argue that this argument does or doesn't work, or has this flaw or that. But once you accept essential natures and final causes, then the prohibition against not only same-sex sexual activity, but a good share of heterosexual sexual activity (anal sex, etc), falls out pretty much naturally. No divine revelation being relied on here - not even for acknowledging natures/essences.

Once again, "Bam." ;)

RD Miksa said...

For all the SSM proponents out there, a few quick questions.

First, consider these situations:

A father marries his five daughters, and all of them are of age and consent to this marriage.

A sister marries her brother (both love each other and consent to it), and starts a family with her.

An entire family, all of whom are of age and consent to the arrangement, marry each other.

Now, here are the questions:

1) Is it bigoted to argue against these marital arrangements? Why or why not?

2) Are you incestuophobic or polygamouophobic if you argue against these marital arrangements? Why or why not?

3) Is it discriminatory to claim that these marital arrangements may not be ideal for the raising of future children? Why or why not?

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

"Once again, "Bam." ;)"

You flatter yourself without reason.

"Hold on there, kiddo. This is a new question. You asked what natural law is, what does it say, etc. This bit about 'natural law arguments that says gay people shouldn't get married' is new."

No, it isn't. It's exactly what I was asking about. The previous discussion with Ben:


"The essence of marriage is it be between two human persons of the opposite sex."
>Can you justify that claim without resorting to such rationale?
"Of course by Natural Law. I don't have to bring the gods into it or at least any God that gives binding divine revelation."

That's what I was asking about. I also asked about the essence of marriage. And nobody has answered. Least of all you, but then again, I did direct my challenge to the intelligent ones.

Crude said...

You flatter yourself without reason.

I said 'Bam'. You must despise Emeril Lagasse. ;)

The previous discussion with Ben:

Was not what I quoted you asking, nor what I gave my reply to. You wanted to know what natural law was (since you said the only 'natural law' you were aware of was physics), what did it say, how did we know, and what was the essence of marriage.

These were answered both by myself, and in the links I gave.

That's what I was asking about. I also asked about the essence of marriage. And nobody has answered.

Again, buddy - I've given you multiple links, as well as an argument summary right here. You didn't even read them, or at least didn't comprehend them, since you schpieled right into 'but I want non-religious ones!' - despite my links including explanations of why the arguments don't rely on God's existence. More swings and misses from you.

The arguments given against same-sex sexual activity (as well as various kinds of heterosexual activity) help to illustrate why this is the case that gay marriage (among other kinds) is invalid. Indeed, why it's not even 'marriage', no matter what a law says - because 'marriage' is defined, at least by NL proponents, on NL terms.

While I'm glad you conceded the role of secular thought and government in the role of past laws and negative views against same-sex sexual acts - should I take your inability to face up to your question being answered here as an incident of cowardice, or the usual 'Skep can't read' stuff? Sometimes, it's hard to tell.

Bam! ;)

im-skeptical said...

"Was not what I quoted you asking, nor what I gave my reply to."

Because you don't read and comprehend. And from what you say, it was not dishonesty (this time), it was just stupidity.

"While I'm glad you conceded the role of secular thought and government in the role of past laws and negative views against same-sex sexual acts"

I didn't concede anything. I only said what I have said all along. Since you have no idea what that is, I'll say it now (in slightly different words): not all people who are bigots are religious (no bigotry on my part, right?). I do believe that the argument presented by Kolasinski is religious in nature, and he's trying to pass it off as secular. If the argument rests on 'natural law', it is definitely religious. My challenge stands for anyone to show me otherwise.

Crude said...

Because you don't read and comprehend.

Oh, I both read and comprehended. That much is clear. What's happening now is you're trying to backtrack - and as usual, it won't work.

Since you have no idea what that is, I'll say it now (in slightly different words)

Slightly different words. Of course. ;)

I've provided multiple examples of secular, even state atheist governments condemning and outlawing homosexual acts. You, little man, are sunk.

If the argument rests on 'natural law', it is definitely religious. My challenge stands for anyone to show me otherwise.

Oh, no. See, that challenge cashes out to 'Get Skep to admit he was wrong about this' - and that's a fool's game. I already gave you multiple links showing you were wrong, and a clear argument that was not religious. Your 'belief' that Kolasinski's argument - right or wrong - is 'religous in nature' rests on nothing but your own anti-religious bigotry, and your inability to understand when you're engaging in a logical fallacy. "He's Catholic. His argument must be religious then! It... it just has to be! *sob*"

You've already been proven wrong on your own terms. What you need is the honesty and the intelligence to understand/admit as much. I can provide arguments, Skep - but I can't make your more honest or raise your IQ. In the former case, you'll need to some soul-searching. In the latter? Uh... miracles and/or a brain surgeon will be required. Probably both, at this point.

BenYachov said...

Skept does not know what natural law is & has no interest in learning about it yet will fight against it never the less.
Its like listening to a YEC say he will fight godless evolution but never pick up a biology text.

My brain will melt if I try to answer his stupid bullshit. I will instead answer ingx24 since it is more intelligent and challenging. Maybe even be above my pay grade in which case if it comes to that I will simply own my lack of skill and retreat.

>Natural law ultimately seems to collapse into the idea that there is such a thing as a "normal" person,

Well no! You either have intellect and will and thus are a person or you don't. Even if you have a defective intellect & will you are still a person in essence. Essentialism has no equivocation in reductionism.

> that people who are not "normal" are automatically disordered or defective, and that one's behavior should be guided by what is "normal" for a person to do.

People who are not "normal" suffer from some natural or moral privation. But that privation is usually in the form of some accident in their nature. Nature & essence are unchainable and ineffable. You can't change something's essence you can at best destroy it.

> I understand that there's a complex metaphysical underpinning for this system, but honestly, natural law seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of the metaphysical premises that led up to it rather than a logical consequence that should be embraced.

Maybe you shouldn't equivocate between reductionism and essentialism? I've heard the silly claim made by gays that calling homosexuality a disordered passion means that gay people are disordered.

Tedious.

im-skeptical said...

"Skept does not know what natural law is & has no interest in learning about it yet will fight against it never the less.
Its like listening to a YEC say he will fight godless evolution but never pick up a biology text."

It was you who said it wasn't religious. And here you are spewing Thomism: "People who are not "normal" suffer from some natural or moral privation. But that privation is usually in the form of some accident in their nature. Nature & essence are unchainable and ineffable. You can't change something's essence you can at best destroy it."

BenYachov said...

Like I said brain melting stupidity.

>It was you who said it wasn't religious. And here you are spewing Thomism:

What does St Thomas' or Aristotle's philosophy of nature have to do with the gods? Nothing! AsCrude pointed out.

Copernicus was a Catholic Priest & Gregor Mendel was a monk. I guess their views on Astronomy and or empirical findings in genetics are now religious and not science in your little Gnu world.

> "People who are not "normal" suffer from some natural or moral privation. But that privation is usually in the form of some accident in their nature. Nature & essence are unchainable and ineffable. You can't change something's essence you can at best destroy it."

Go read Oderberg's REAL ESSENTIALISM about how essences cannot change. Oh and you won't find God mentioned once in that book.

Wait who am I kidding? Skep will never read anything beyond the God Delusion. and he will never learn philosophy or science.

Like Paps.

BenYachov said...

>If the argument rests on 'natural law', it is definitely religious. My challenge stands for anyone to show me otherwise.

You already admitted not knowing what natural law is but you somehow know it is "religious"?

Also you now want to challenge us to show you that it is not religious even thought you don't really know anything about it but somehow know it to be religious because some religious people hold to it along with some Atheist people which you ignore?

IM I told Paps this now I will tell you. Lay off the drugs.

You must be smoking some serious shit!!!!

Crude said...

Ben,

You already admitted not knowing what natural law is but you somehow know it is "religious"?

Skep decided that Kolasinski's arguments had to be religious (and therefore Kolasinksi was a liar for saying he was advancing secular arguments) on the grounds that the man is Catholic. There's a very good chance Skep doesn't even know what the word "secular" really means, much less natural law.

As usual he's been wrung and hung out to dry. On the other hand, there's been some nice progress here - people have been made aware of the history of secular and atheist thought with regards to 'homosexual rights'. It ain't pretty. If a few more people are made aware of that (along with the atheist treatment of science under the Soviets), all's the better.

For now, I'm going to argue with some person who believes that it's okay to fire gay people just for being gay (even celibate gays, yeesh - as if firing on that basis alone was bad enough) while Skep and Linton get their hate on with the anti-religious bigotry. Not much room for love and respect in the Cult of Gnu, y'see. ;)

Papalinton said...

From crude:
” Need more evidence? Here's some: In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor.”



Guess what? The hegemony of Christianity along with the Arch-Christian crusader, Vladimir Putin, proudly wearing his crucifix against his bare macho chest has even made publishing, reporting on or supporting homosexuality a crime, punishable under the law.



Whoopsie-fuckin'-do. Go Christianity in Russia.



And then in typical christian intellectual dishonesty crude selectively cites some statistics that are in the main either peripheral or incidental to the argument driving the fundamental reasons for the anti-homosexual crusade in Russia. In this CBS news report the most significant and worrying aspect is the involvement of the church. In part it reports:

"Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, but anti-gay sentiment remains high. Russia also is considering banning citizens of countries that allow same-sex marriage from adopting Russian children.
Earlier Tuesday, dozens of anti-gay activists picketed the Duma. One of them held a poster that read: "Lawmakers, protect the people from perverts!" while others held Orthodox icons and chanted prayers.
That's the Russian Orthodox church, that is. The report continues: "The widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by much of Russia's political and religious elite."

What's that I read? "The widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by much of Russia's religious elite." And guess what? Sure enough: From the online newspaperRUSSIA TODAY a news report:

"These Russian Orthodox Christians are likely taking their cue from their leader, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill.
The patriarch believes that the recognition of same-sex unions by Western countries is a harbinger of impending of doom. In July, Russia Today reported that after a liturgy in Red Square's Kazan Cathedral, Kirill said, “This is a very dangerous apocalyptic symptom, and we must do everything in our powers to ensure that sin is never sanctioned in Russia by state law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on a path of self-destruction.”
Kirill called on Russians to “fight for freedom from sins,” saying, “Where sin is elected through freedom, there comes death, terror and dictatorship.”
Putin reportedly has been strengthening his alliances with the Russian Orthodox Church in the past few years.
In a September 2012 piece entitled “Putin’s God Squad,” Newsweek’s Peter Pomerantsev observed, “After near extermination under Communist rule, the church and religion are back at the heart of [Russia’s] politics ... Since Putin’s reelection, a parade of priests have been loudly denouncing forces aligned against the president.”


CONT.

Papalinton said...

Cont.
Crude, I think it is time you immigrated to a country more in keeping with your diseased religious-inspired bigotry, or perhaps Uganda where Christian Missionaries from the US had earlier trailblazed and helped Ugandan Christians enable draconian anti-homosexual laws in that country, a crime punishable by death. "From 5 to 8 March 2009, a workshop took place in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, that featured three American Evangelical Christians: Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organisation devoted to promoting "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ". ....[Scott] Lively's emphasis was on the cohesion of the African family, that he said was being threatened by "homosexuals looking to recruit youth into their ranks". According to Kaoma, during the conference, one of the thousands of Ugandans in attendance announced, "[The parliament] feels it is necessary to draft a new law that deals comprehensively with the issue of homosexuality and...takes into account the international gay agenda... Right now there is a proposal that a new law be drafted." See HERE



Have a look at the countries in this list from National Geographic. Every single one of them are dominated by religion, most particularly Christian and muslim. 



Welcome to the Dark Ages. Welcome to Crudeworld where Christians can gay-bait with impunity with the chief American gay-baiter himself. I suspect there is a concerning level of sociopathy portrayed in crude's commentary.

Papalinton said...

""The widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by much of Russia's political and religious elite."
The CBS news report is HERE.

Papalinton said...

Russia under Christianity today.
From NEWSWEEK magazine:

"“The enemies of Holy Russia are everywhere,” says Ivan Ostrakovsky, the leader of a group of Russian Orthodox vigilantes who have taken to patrolling the streets of nighttime Moscow, dressed in all-black clothing emblazoned with skulls and crosses. “We must protect holy places from liberals and their satanic ideology,” he tells me>"

Well blow-me-down. The Communist KGB replaced by Putin's God Squad. Christian vigilantism is now is now the natural order in the streets of Moscow in the shadow of night. A place made in heaven custom fitted for crude.

grodrigues said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grodrigues said...

Responding to intellectually dishonest, ignorant idiots is a waste of time, but just in case someone out there is puzzling over the alleged religious nature of natural law theory (or theories, there is not only one) I leave the following:

From here:

"While he is certainly not the first to say something that might be construed as suggesting the idea of natural law, a fairly reasonable starting point for the history of natural law theory in Western civilization is Cicero. In De Re Publica he gives what clearly has all the elements of a natural law theory, which is to say, an account of human practical reason based on principles natural to it that is also an account of law. It forms one of the key elements of Cicero's theory of a republic or commonwealth."

B. Prokop said...

"You must despise Emeril Lagasse."

All my cookware has his name on it. Just made a giant batch of chicken vegetable soup in one of his pots yesterday. Not sure what Emeril's religious beliefs are, though...

im-skeptical said...

Ben,

"What does St Thomas' or Aristotle's philosophy of nature have to do with the gods? Nothing! AsCrude pointed out. "

Read the Stanford article on natural law. It's the one that crude linked without knowing what was in it.

WMF said...

I'm gonna be honest: I did not know that anti-homosexuality was the law of the land in Soviet Russia, of all places

How did you manage to miss that? It's been all over the news for quite some time.

im-skeptical said...

grodrigues,

From your article:

"Aquinas himself is quite clear that the source of natural law is God, on whom human beings depends; and because the whole human community depends on God, God is the natural caretaker of what is common to the whole human community. As he puts it, natural law is the human participation of the eternal law of God by which God providentially orders the whole universe"

BenYachov said...

>Read the Stanford article on natural law. It's the one that crude linked without knowing what was in it.

Rather what I said stands. Crude is right. You believe the mere fact a person is religious means no secular argument can be made by them.

What is the point of you gnu?

B. Prokop said...

"How did you manage to miss that? It's been all over the news for quite some time."

Not quite. What's been "all over the news" is that homosexuality is banned in Russia. Crude's reference was to the Soviet Union - huge difference.

BenYachov said...

>From your article:
>"Aquinas himself is quite clear that the source of natural law is God


A classic Theist believes God is the source of all existing things. God is the source of natural law in the same way God is the source of Evolution.

So according to Gnu-boy's logic Evolution is no longer a secular theory nor can operate as one if argued for, believed in or advocated by a Theist.

Skept you are at Paps' level in terms of intelligence.

That is not a good place to be & it only makes you pathetic.

WMF said...

Bob: Thanks for pointing that out, that makes more sense.

im-skeptical said...

Ben,

Don't try to tell me your religious mumbo jumbo is the same as genuine scientific theory, because it all comes from god. You're full of it. But if you believe that, then please answer the questions I asked: what does this law say, and how do you know it? And also tell me about the non-religious "essence of marriage" that excludes same-sex relationships.

Papalinton said...

Crude
I missed this bit:
"The measure is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin's rule."

It's in this NEWS ITEM.

Good old Christianity, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we must stop this very dangerous apocalyptic symptom says Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Fr Kirill.

You've gotta love him, crude, don't you? eh? Now there's a man with balls.

I am reminded of an earlier comment from Im-skeptical:
""Bam, bam, bam, bam! That was easy."
I'm tempted to say, "poor crude, it must be difficult to get through life in your condition", but that would assume you were intelligent enough to recognize that you are so disabled. Actually, I think you are completely oblivious to your problem."


It is important that an earlier comment be reiterated for the sake of human decency: "In this historical context those that persistently espouse anti-homosexual bile are, in short, bigots. You have had your way for 2,000 years. You have not resolved the issue. Sit down and shut up, for decency's sake. There is nothing more that your religious experience can bring to this debate", crude. Bigots against gays are not welcome in civilized society.

BenYachov said...

>Don't try to tell me your religious mumbo jumbo is the same as genuine scientific theory,

No it's philosophy of nature not religion not science. But your freaky meme mandates if a religious person is talking about either philosophy of nature or science he must be talking about religion.

You are so thick Gnu-boy.

Like I said Paps level of stupidity.

BenYachov said...

>But if you believe that, then please answer the questions

I don't believe you have any sincere questions that want to be answered. So why should I waste my time?

BenYachov said...

Why is Paps trying to get a bunch of Catholics to defend the Schismatic sometimes anti-Catholic Russian Orthodox Church?



Oh that's right he is Paps therefore he is stupid.

Perhaps he would like us to defend Oliver Cromwell while we are at it?

im-skeptical said...

"I don't believe you have any sincere questions that want to be answered. So why should I waste my time?"

Because you don't have an answer that is not religious. Anybody? How is Kolasinski's argument not religious?

Papalinton said...

What's the difference between anti-homosexual law in the Soviet Union under Communism and anti-homosexual law in today's Christian Russia?

Answer: [Brrrr] Nothing. The Russian people simply exchanged a temporal deity for the old previous supernatural deity. So no change at all. Whether the country is under Josef Stalin or under Jesus Christ, the long, honourable and glorious tradition of religious vilification and persecution of gays in Russia remains an unbroken historical fact. A total travesty under both spiritual leaders.

Papalinton said...

"Why is Paps trying to get a bunch of Catholics to defend the Schismatic sometimes anti-Catholic Russian Orthodox Church?

Because Christian crapola, no matter whether it's it Russian Orthodox or Roman Orthodox, is still crapola. Only the stench is different.

WMF said...

i'm-skeptical: define what exactly it means for an argument to be "not religious".

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

"i'm-skeptical: define what exactly it means for an argument to be "not religious"."

Without divine revelation or religious reasoning. Thomistic logic clearly does not qualify. The best thing would be some kind of objective source of law that we could all see and agree upon. Good luck with that. But a clearly laid-out logical argument that is strictly secular would do, if you can come up with one. None of this "privation of goodness" crap. I have never seen such an argument. It has always been based on religious or biblical mores.

WMF said...

But a clearly laid-out logical argument that is strictly secular would do, if you can come up with one.

So would it be sufficient if the argument contains no premises that, in conjunction, woulld be logically incompatible with naturalism?

Papalinton said...

Im-Skeptical:
"Anybody? How is Kolasinski's argument not religious?"

Interesting that you should ask. And probably unknown to Dr Reppert, i give him the benefit of the doubt on not withholding information, there is a critique of Kolasinski's argument in the very same publication.

It can be READ HERE.

BenYachov said...

>Without divine revelation or religious reasoning. Thomistic logic clearly does not qualify.

A judgment he renders on something he already admits to knowing nothing about.


Typical intellectually & mentally inferior Gnu.

HyperEntity111 said...

Bob posted: ''It is a non-sequitur because restricting marriage to "one man, one woman" is not discrimination!!!''

I was talking about whether gay people can be capable parents not whether gays should be allowed to marry. But since you brought up gay marriage I'll respond to your points.

''Because, Ing, your statement is self-contradictory. Your re-editing doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone logical sense. There is no such problem in the sentence I wrote.''


There's nothing logically incoherent about it. In his example the person is using 'discrimination' in a manner so restrictive that banning inter racial marriage is not discriminatory. You're being invited to consider the possibility that your use 'discrimination' is similarly over restrictive.

To reiterate the point, consider a possible world where homosexuality is the norm and SSM is the only acceptable form of marriage. There are just enough straight people in this world to propagate the species. One day the straights ask for the right to marriage. And a defender of the status quo replies:

'' Restricting marriage to same sex couples is not discrimination!!! Everyone is treated exactly the same. I have the right to marry a person of the same sex. So does any person of any race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, political persuasion, or sexual orientation. We all have an equal right to marry a person of the same sex.

Likewise, we are all prohibited (under traditional law) from marrying first cousins, parents, children, or persons of the opposite sex. And this prohibition is applied, once again, with total equality and no discrimination whatsoever.''

Would you agree that straight people are being discriminated against in this case? If you do then you will begin to appreciate the frustration gay people will feel upon reading passages like yours.

Ben posted: '' But Hyper, Skept, and Paps are making ad hominid fallacies & dogmatic degrees that no religious person can make a secular argument against SSM.''

You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks and dogmatic decrees that a religious person cannot make a secular argument against gay marriage (i.e. an argument that depends entirely on non religious premises). I don't believe I've ever said such a thing. Can you quote me saying this?


''QUOTE"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met."END QUOTE''


Actually, the onus is on this person to explain why the purpose of marriage is to make babies. WTF?? So marriages between infertile couples shouldn't be recognized by the state? Or marriages between people who decide not to have kids? Has it occurred to this person that gay couples can benefit society in other ways (e.g. adopting kids)?

''If one of us had dark brown skin what would that matter to the essential fact we are male and female?''

Marriage is a social construct which predates Christianity and Catholic natural law philosophies. Saying it's 'essentially' between one man and one woman is like money is 'essentially' paper and metal coins or monarchy is 'essentially' the best form government. Quite frankly, the fact that leads to such conclusions is a reductio ad absurdum of the view. So I reject the essentialist premise in your argument.


BenYachov said...

Also Skept begs the question with the phrase "religious reasoning".

As if a religious person concludes 2+2=4 differently than a secular one.

im-skeptical said...

"So would it be sufficient if the argument contains no premises that, in conjunction, woulld be logically incompatible with naturalism?"

It would be sufficient if the source of anti-gay bias was clearly identified. Kolasinski's argument contains such language, but he certainly can't cite the objective source. Here's an example:

"In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."

He simply claims that the state has an interest in promoting procreation. No citations, no justification. In fact, the real reason states restrict gay marriage is bigotry, plain and simple. Show me the real logical or scientific justification.

grodrigues said...

@im-skeptical:

"Without divine revelation or religious reasoning. Thomistic logic clearly does not qualify."

I know what is intensional logic, modal logic, intuitionistic logic, fuzzy logic, many-valued logic, etc. but I do not know what is Thomistic logic.

Either way, since all natural law theories, from Cicero to new natural law theorists a la George, Finnis, Grisez, etc. are accounts of practical reason that make no appeal to divine revelation or religious reasoning, they pass your "test".

Furthermore, since by your "reasoning" (giggle), since "Thomistic logic" does not qualify, presumably because of its tainted religious source, then so does "Atheistic logic" does not qualify, and everything you have said about Kolasinski applies to a T, and even more, to your idiotic brand of gnuism -- after all, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

"The best thing would be some kind of objective source of law that we could all see and agree upon. Good luck with that."

So what you are saying is that moral and ethical reasoning is impossible, since presumably, there is no "objective source of law that we could all see and agree upon", from which it follows that even if you had any arguments, which you do not, you have just invalidate them. From which it follows, that whatever you say in favor of SSM is likewise invalidated, because there you have it, I do not agree with it.

"I have never seen such an argument."

You would not recognize an argument if it bit your nose off.

im-skeptical said...

Ben,

"As if a religious person concludes 2+2=4 differently than a secular one."

No, that logic is based on universally accepted axioms. It doesn't come from any bible, and it isn't based on the religious mumbo jumbo of Aquinas. We all know that it is not religious in nature.

BenYachov said...

@Hyper

>You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks and dogmatic decrees that a religious person cannot make a secular argument against gay marriage (i.e. an argument that depends entirely on non religious premises). I don't believe I've ever said such a thing. Can you quote me saying this?

No I cannot. This is the fight I have been having with Paps and Skept if this is you way of disavowing their mentally challenged Mishigoss then go in peace I have no argument with you.

>Actually, the onus is on this person to explain why the purpose of marriage is to make babies.

Says who? Shouldn't the onus be on those who wish to redefine historic marriage?

You are begging the question here. Why must marriage be a priori defined merely in terms of a romantic relationship between two (or more?) adult people who love each other?

>WTF?? So marriages between infertile couples shouldn't be recognized by the state? Or marriages between people who decide not to have kids? Has it occurred to this person that gay couples can benefit society in other ways (e.g. adopting kids)?

Rather the state should recognize heterosexual relationships by nature propogate the human race & thus for that deserve special consideration.
'

>Marriage is a social construct which predates Christianity and Catholic natural law philosophies.

Natural Law predates Christianity. Learn to read.
The social contract of marriage is tied to reproduction.


>Saying it's 'essentially' between one man and one woman is like money is 'essentially' paper and metal coins or monarchy is 'essentially' the best form government. Quite frankly, the fact that leads to such conclusions is a reductio ad absurdum of the view.

No it says nothing of the sort & only broadcasts your deep ignorance of Natural Law philosophy.

>So I reject the essentialist premise in your argument.

You are rejecting what you haven't bothered to learn. So your statement is about as meaningful to me as the YEC with a 5th grade understanding of biology rejecting Evolution.

Hyper if you are not interested in learning Natural Law theory that is fine. Do whatever amuses you. But then you have no rational basis to intelligently respond to any natural law argument.

It's up to you to follow the path of a Rational Atheist or devolve into Skept or Paps.

HyperEntity111 said...

Crude posted: ''I'm using this example to justify my claim that 'stifling debate' does not require legal restrictions on speech.''

I agree that stifling speech doesn't require legal intervention. But nobody has said anything here that has had the effect of stifling free debate. And with possible exception of Paps I don't anybody has said anything with the intention of stifling free debate.


''No, it's apt. Your basic argument at this point is that a statement of fact - even a tautological statement - somehow automatically becomes 'bigoted' if you can imagine some context where it's being said and said context is... you know, I'm tempted to say 'bigoted', but really, it seems more like the answer is 'you dislike it'.

The argument is not that factual statements are bigoted. The point is that factual statements when expressed in a certain manner, in certain contexts, can be evidence that the person stating them is a bigot. If you refuse to accept this then I don't know what to say to you.


''All the major psychological associations', up until around the 1970s, classified homosexuality as a mental illness. Let me guess: 'well they were wrong, it was totally fine to resist the consensus then'?''

Yes. Pretty much. You obviously think by acknowledging this it becomes fine for you to resist the current consensus. To my ears that's like trying revive phrenology, 'racial science' and Lombroso's theory of inherited criminality on the grounds that they were once respected and the current consensus against them is merely the product of a left wing conspiracy to squash debate on these politically charged topics. And anyway these are the social sciences so everyone's opinion is equal! There is such a thing as progress in knowledge you know.


''Considering that what makes a 'good parent' is in hefty part ultimately a question of values and morals, and values are questions of metaphysics rather than science, I'm not too concerned about the APA's findings.''

Honestly, when I read that I imagined someone quoting Hegel on how the Prussian state is the apex of human progress. And when you point that by a variety of empirical measures this not the case you are greeted with 'I don't care about any of that. This is a metaphysical issue and and my metaphysical arguments show that Hegel was right even if it seems he was obviously wrong.'

The fact is, from a scientific perspective it's a closed question. And for legal purposes that's really the most important perspective. When anti gay lobbyists push out bullshit 'studies' that show that gay parents harm their kids they are flat out wrong.

If all the evidence suggests that most kids with gay parents have their material needs met, are not experiencing physical or psychological harm at the hands of those parents and report being just as as happy as kids with straight parents that's going to count for a lot. We are confronted with facts which are more easy to verify then obscure metaphysical arguments.

Yes questions like 'Is homosexual behavior right or wrong?' are the domain of ethics. But even there the consensus is against you. From a philosophical perspective, most philosophers are not Thomists, most philosophers do not accept natural law ethics and I'll wager that most philosophers are not against gay marriage. A philosopher who comes along with an argument to show that we should ignore all this because 'the essence of marriage' has been violated will be regarded as arriving at a conclusion which constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of his position.








im-skeptical said...

grodrigues,

""reasoning" (giggle), since "Thomistic logic" does not qualify, presumably because of its tainted religious source, then so does "Atheistic logic" does not qualify"

And what is this "Atheistic logic"?

I've read plenty of Aquinas. I know that he attributes all human reasoning to god, and that his logical foundations come mainly from Aristotle, including all the mumbo jumbo about act and potency, essence, etc. That's the religious reasoning that leads to "The essence of marriage is it be between two human persons of the opposite sex."

Now please tell me what "Atheistic logic" is, and why it's no different.

"So what you are saying is that moral and ethical reasoning is impossible, since presumably, there is no "objective source of law that we could all see and agree upon", from which it follows that even if you had any arguments, which you do not, you have just invalidate them. From which it follows, that whatever you say in favor of SSM is likewise invalidated, because there you have it, I do not agree with it."

So now you're turning it into a question of morality. How very secular of you.

BenYachov said...


>I've read plenty of Aquinas.

You have read snapshots for proof-texting nothing more.

Any YEC does that with biology text books and the ORIGIN OF SPECIES. He doesn't really read it or try to understand it.

You don't know philosophy, science, natural philosophy, natural theology, revealed theology etc from a hole in your head.

What is the point of you Gnu?

im-skeptical said...

"Either way, since all natural law theories, from Cicero to new natural law theorists a la George, Finnis, Grisez, etc. are accounts of practical reason that make no appeal to divine revelation or religious reasoning, they pass your "test"."

If that's true, please state what the law says with regard to SSM, and how you know it, as I have been asking.

Papalinton said...

Hyper
"I agree that stifling speech doesn't require legal intervention. But nobody has said anything here that has had the effect of stifling free debate. And with possible exception of Paps I don't anybody has said anything with the intention of stifling free debate."

How so? Or is your comment just a little bit of gratuitous play-on to keep crude on side?

grodrigues said...

@im-skeptical:

"I know that he attributes all human reasoning to god"

Wrong.

Stop saying you have read or you know about what Aquinas says, or about pretty much anything whatsoever, because it is transparent to those that actually have read and know, that you are bullshitting.

"and that his logical foundations come mainly from Aristotle, including all the mumbo jumbo about act and potency, essence, etc. That's the religious reasoning that leads to "The essence of marriage is it be between two human persons of the opposite sex.""

So the philosophy of nature inherited from Aristotle is "religious reasoning"? Really? So par for the course, as I said, your "mumbo-jumbo" "Atheistic reasoning" (giggle) is equally invalid.

"So now you're turning it into a question of morality. How very secular of you."

First, I was not turning the question into one of morality; I made a reductio about one claim of yours.

Second, the issue *is* (1) a "question of morality" and (2) how moral laws should be reflected in society. Claiming that killing an innocent human being is wrongful doing is a claim about morality; to say that the law should punish murderers is a claim about the relation of law with morality. Presumably, you would not say that those that claim that murderers should be punished are arguing in non-secular ways?

"If that's true, please state what the law says with regard to SSM, and how you know it, as I have been asking."

So now that you have been proven a complete ignorant (again. And again), you just change the issue and pose a completely different question.

As I said above, this is a complete waste of time.

im-skeptical said...

"So now that you have been proven a complete ignorant (again. And again), you just change the issue and pose a completely different question."

It's not a new question. I knew you wouldn't answer.

HyperEntity111 said...

Says who? Shouldn't the onus be on those who wish to redefine historic marriage?

It's not redefining 'historic marriage' because there was never anything such thing. Marriage is a social institution that varies from culture to cultures. There have historically been polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages and same sex marriages. Marriage between one man and one woman is only one kind (among many kinds) of marriage that has existed in the history of the world. If anyone is begging the question it's you by insisting that your definition is the 'true' definition and that all those other marriages are 'invalid' and should not be recognized. Only one type of marriage should be recognized. Why?


''Rather the state should recognize heterosexual relationships by nature propogate the human race & thus for that deserve special consideration.''

Not all of them. And allowing gay marriage is consistent with allowing heterosexual relationships that propagate the human race.

''Natural Law predates Christianity. Learn to read.''

Yes Ben I'm aware that natural law predates Christianity. Are you aware that this fact is consistent with observing that marriages occurred before the Catholic contribution to natural law ethics?

''Hyper if you are not interested in learning Natural Law theory that is fine. Do whatever amuses you. But then you have no rational basis to intelligently respond to any natural law argument.

It's up to you to follow the path of a Rational Atheist or devolve into Skept or Paps.''

Well I'm not an atheist so I won't be following the path the 'Rational Atheist'. That said I actually don't know that much about natural law or natural law arguments against SSM. The first natural law argument against SSM was in a blog post that was critical of that argument (rightfully so I think).* So if you could point me to some texts (particularly on the latter) that would be nice.

*http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/posts-on-ethics-of-same-sex-relations.html

This link (and maybe something on Feser's blog) constitutes the sum of my knowledge of the NL case against gay marriage.

HyperEntity111 said...

Paps posted: ''How so? Or is your comment just a little bit of gratuitous play-on to keep crude on side?''

You posted: "Some of the commentary [on this website] is predicated on Scripture as the arbiter on the matter. This is hardly free expression."

Comments like this can be very plausibly interpreted as evidence that the person making them would like to quash free debate. But you'll notice that instead of saying 'exception' is said 'possible exception'. I actually left it an open question whether that was your intention (because I'm nice like that).

BenYachov said...

>It's not redefining 'historic marriage' because there was never anything such thing.

I don't agree.


>Marriage is a social institution that varies from culture to cultures. There have historically been polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages

They are marriages between men and women not SSM.
Natural Law can't really be used to argue against polygamous marriage. Only Same sex "marriage".


>and same sex marriages.

Sorry you are equivocating between romantic relationships & or sexual ones between members of the same sex and marriage.

>Not all of them. And allowing gay marriage is consistent with allowing heterosexual relationships that propagate the human race.

Sorry but by the brute facts of nature gay relationships can never propagate the human race.

>Yes Ben I'm aware that natural law predates Christianity.

Good we are on the same page.

>Are you aware that this fact is consistent with observing that marriages occurred before the Catholic contribution to natural law ethics?

Am I aware Natural Law cannot and historically has not been used to object to polygamy. Yes I am do you realize Natural Law theory can't & has never been used to object to polygamy.

Aquinas makes practical arguments against Polygamy post Christian era. He doesn't say it's against nature as with homosexuality and beastality.


>Well I'm not an atheist so I won't be following the path the 'Rational Atheist'.

Insert Skeptic, Deist, Agnostic, General Theist etc.....

You can define yourself. I don't care.


>That said I actually don't know that much about natural law or natural law arguments against SSM.

Socraties said the first step in wisdom is the words "I don't know".


>The first natural law argument against SSM was in a blog post that was critical of that argument (rightfully so I think).* So if you could point me to some texts (particularly on the latter) that would be nice.

I will see what I can do thought I think Grod or Crude might be better at it then moi.

>This link (and maybe something on Feser's blog) constitutes the sum of my knowledge of the NL case against gay marriage.

This helps thank you for contributing to rational discussion.

Peace to you.

im-skeptical said...

Before I leave this thread behind, just let me say it's been interesting watching all the squirming and diversion of the theists who, when presented with a very straight-forward question, can't come up with any reasonable answer.

They claim that the SSM issue is a matter of natural law, not based on any religious consideration. So naturally, I would like to know what this natural law is, what it says, and how they know it. Nobody answered. Sorry, pointing me to a Stanford article that describes Aquinas' natural law (complete with plenty of religious references) does not answer my question.

The truth is, there is no secular natural law that proscribes same-sex marriage. If there were such a thing, I'm sure I'd have plenty of answers to my question. They'd be all over it. But instead, they divert.

The truth is, this anti-gay bias is based on tradition and religious sources, not any kind of secular reasoning. We all know it, and you all refuse to admit it.

Instead I'm treated to the usual abuse from the usual people. Why should I expect otherwise? It's how they make their case, time after time.

Someone said it's a complete waste of time. I agree.

BenYachov said...

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out skept.

I can already feel the collective IQ raise significantly & it would go up an order of magnitude if it wasn't for the enormous drag of Paps.

BenYachov said...

>Comments like this can be very plausibly interpreted as evidence that the person making them would like to quash free debate. But you'll notice that instead of saying 'exception' is said 'possible exception'. I actually left it an open question whether that was your intention (because I'm nice like that).

Hyper is showing others who shall be nameless how it's done.

Crude said...

Hyper,

I agree that stifling speech doesn't require legal intervention. But nobody has said anything here that has had the effect of stifling free debate. And with possible exception of Paps I don't anybody has said anything with the intention of stifling free debate.

I won't get into 'intention' arguments, because they're a rabbit hole. If everyone has the instinctive reaction of shouting 'BIGOT!' whenever they see an argument they dislike, their intention to stifle debate is a non-issue. The question is whether they are stifling debate at that point, and whether it's a problem that they're doing so. THAT, I argue, is pretty clear.

The atheist in my example will be stifled, even if that's not on the minds of everyone involved.

The argument is not that factual statements are bigoted. The point is that factual statements when expressed in a certain manner, in certain contexts, can be evidence that the person stating them is a bigot. If you refuse to accept this then I don't know what to say to you.

And I think you're dead wrong. What leads to the conclusion that X is a bigot is not the factual statements - it's everything else. That's what's doing your heavy lifting here, and that does not go back and suddenly make the 'factual statement' itself bigoted.

Yes. Pretty much. You obviously think by acknowledging this it becomes fine for you to resist the current consensus.

No, what I think is that by bringing up my point, I have disabled the mere appeal to 'current consensus'. If consensus ends the conversation now, it ends the conversation then, and we have an inconsistency. You say there's such a thing as 'progress in knowledge' - there's also such a thing as bullshitting. No, I don't think this question has been settled, and in fact I gave reasons for recognizing why it can't be settled in the way you suggest it is.

Especially since, at that time, defenders of THAT consensus would have said 'sometimes there really is progress is knowledge' too.

And when you point that by a variety of empirical measures this not the case you are greeted with 'I don't care about any of that. This is a metaphysical issue and and my metaphysical arguments show that Hegel was right even if it seems he was obviously wrong.'

For one thing, everyone's talked about these 'varieties of empirical measures', but no one has actually provided them - and I can provide a few in turn. Second, yes - it ultimately is an issue of values, and insofar as it is, science doesn't settle the issue.

Now, you can settle some questions related to it. 'On average, do children from families headed up by two males report more molestation than male/female families, in this society, in this context?' But there's a big gulf between answering a question like that, and answering the question that's actually of interest here.

The fact is, from a scientific perspective it's a closed question.

In the exact same way it was a closed question a hundred years ago.

When anti gay lobbyists push out bullshit 'studies' that show that gay parents harm their kids they are flat out wrong.

So, pre-emptively, if the studies support your view, it's just more evidence for the scientific consensus, and criticisms of them are wrong. But if studies don't show what you like, they're just all bullshit automatically.

Again - welcome to the attitude of a hundred years ago.

Crude said...

If all the evidence suggests that most kids with gay parents have their material needs met, are not experiencing physical or psychological harm at the hands of those parents and report being just as as happy as kids with straight parents that's going to count for a lot.

When 'all the evidence' is remarkably thin, and the definition of 'harm' - particularly psychological harm - is as loose as it is, no, it's not going to count for very much at all. Especially when evidence that runs counter to the narrative - such as the Regnerus study - culminates not in simply criticism, but an out and out witch hunt.

Sorry man, but I laugh at this idea of 'the subject is closed!' on this, every bit as much as I do when someone says that the impact of violent video games on society is now fully understood - and that's arguably a vastly easier thing to investigate.

Yes questions like 'Is homosexual behavior right or wrong?' are the domain of ethics. But even there the consensus is against you.

Good Lord, not the consensus of philosophers! What will I do now?

Oh wait. I'll keep saying exactly what I do, because consensus doesn't matter. Arguments and evidence do, in both cases - and the arguments and evidence are far too weak to regard the matter as closed in the direction you favor.

And again, even you have rejected the idea that consensus in and of itself justifies regarding an issue as closed - because otherwise you have to argue that the past state (secular!) laws against homosexual acts and the like were, for a very long time, fully justified.

Papalinton said...

Hyper
If you have [possibly] interpreted that particular comment as a conversation stopper then it has indeed been interpreted incorrectly. I for one relish debate. Had I not,Ii don't think I would have remained all this time on Dr Reppert's site, given the personal flak I think you will agree I have received.

On reflection, perhaps my comment isn't as clear as I had imagined it was standing as it is. Much of the anti-homosexual debate on this thread is old, time-worn and unchanging. The same arguments, the same rationale, the same sentiment has been promulgated by those that are in the main, overwhelmingly supernatural believers to whom the very thought of homosexuality is an abomination, a terrible sin and unnatural. These are the exact same sentiments that are expressed in the Christian bible. Indeed the rhetoric of the anti-homosexual lobby on this site mirror scripture. It is in this context that I make the comment, ""Some of the commentary [on this website] is predicated on Scripture as the arbiter on the matter. This is hardly free expression."

If the bible informs that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination, a sin in the eyes of their God, it seems reasonable to infer that their comments are simply a reflection, an overt expression of their deeply-held and strongly influenced belief of the rightness of scripture on the matter of homosexuality. And in following then, it is reasonable to adduce that religious inculcation on the evils of homosexuality and the desire to preclude them from participating in the fundamentally important social and cultural occasions and other rites of passage that define us as a society is not an example of free expression. Promulgating anti-homosexual dogma under the cloak of debate is hardly free expression. It is the intoning of religious malice for no reason other than their religious sensibilities have been offended.

I have no intention of quelling debate. I have every intention of confronting head-on its hypocrisy, its falsehoods and deceit in science and society, its duplicitousness in government and civil administration, the unwarranted influence in public policy, and its pretense of universal love and charity. I have no intention of stifling debate, only exposing religious belief the sham that it is, from Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, to the Vatican cover-up of sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy on a global scale.

Interestingly, the latest damning revelation of Catholic complicity has been exposed recently at the Royal Commission into Chlid Sex Abuse in Australia. "Police records accesssed under Freedom of Information laws have revealed that the Catholic Church tried to strike an agreement with NSW police to allow it withold information about paedophile priests." Read the rest of the ABC [Australia that is] news report HERE

I say again. I do not think religious belief can constructively add anything more to the debate on homosexuality. The community at large has taken that responsibility out of the hands of the church to resolve this 2,000 year impasse. County by county, State by State, the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution of marriage is being legislated. The people have spoken. Whether it be California, New York, or the Australian Capital Territory [the equivalent of the US's Washington DC] gay marriages are becoming a reality, just as it rightfully should be.


Crude said...

Ben,

I can already feel the collective IQ raise significantly & it would go up an order of magnitude if it wasn't for the enormous drag of Paps.

No kidding.

The sad thing about Skep is that he chooses almost exclusively to fight lost battles. When he's shown to be dead wrong about anything from natural law to intelligent design, his response isn't to concede and walk back, but to double down. Because he looks at guys like his idol, Dawkins, who does the same exact thing whenever he's shown to be wrong and thinks 'well that must be how to deal with it!' And in the process, just looks all the worse.

Linton though? Linton's not merely slow, he's a self-parody. The sort of guy who the smarter atheists really wish would convert, because holy hell, people like that do not make atheism (particularly Cult of Gnu atheism) look all that great. ;)

im-skeptical said...

The echo in the chamber is getting louder.

Crude said...

The echo in the chamber is getting louder.

Sometimes, Skep, when a group of people demonstrate that you're pig-ignorant and wrong about a subject, the source of the problem isn't that they're mean, mean people out to get you.

The problem is that you're wrong. ;)

Crude said...

WMF,

How did you manage to miss that? It's been all over the news for quite some time.

This isn't about the current russian laws, which it seems like you're talking about. This is specifically about Soviet-era Russia. The story doesn't really improve in Maoist China either, among other places.

WMF said...

It would be sufficient if the source of anti-gay bias was clearly identified.

I was asking what makes an argument -- any argument, about anything -- "not religious", not just an argument that concerns anything even remotely related to homosexuality.

B. Prokop said...

"Would you agree that straight people are being discriminated against in this case?"

No, Hyper, I most definitely would not agree. If everyone is treated identically, then no discrimination is occurring. (Now it's a completely different kettle of fish as to how long your imaginary society would last. One/two generations maybe?)

Crude said...

Oh, and I want to comment on this, since looking up the context of what Bob just responded to drew my attention to it.

You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks and dogmatic decrees that a religious person cannot make a secular argument against gay marriage (i.e. an argument that depends entirely on non religious premises). I don't believe I've ever said such a thing. Can you quote me saying this?

I think Hyper is dead wrong on multiple issues on this front, but woaaaah I am not going to put him anywhere near the category of Linton or Skep. Not by a goddamn longshot.

Hyper argues forcefully, but intelligently. He sticks to the topic, he reads and comprehends (and certainly tries to read and comprehend) what his opponents are saying. He's in this argument disagreeing with me, but the thought of categorizing alongside those two is not a live option.

Credit should be given where it's due, and Hyper's performance in this thread merits credit. In my view anyway, and I'll defend that stance.

im-skeptical said...

WMF,

"I was asking what makes an argument -- any argument, about anything -- "not religious", not just an argument that concerns anything even remotely related to homosexuality."

The point of that wasn't that it was about homosexuality. It was that there is an implied basis for making a statement. He can't point to a secular document that says "propagation of society is a compelling state interest", I suspect. Those arguments originate from bias, and are largely driven by religious motivation. All that is open to speculation because the source or basis of his assertions is not identified. He simply makes these assertions.

Papalinton said...

Not one word. Not a single word in defence, or any acknowledgement to the evidence after evidence, plain fact after plain fact, featured prominently in some of the universally renowned news sources of our time, reporting the news as it happens. The reports have demonstrated not only the deep and close association between Patriarch Kirril and President Putin in this instant, both avowed Christians, on the matter of religious-inspired anti-homosexuality laws, but by recording the very words from the antagonists themselves in support of their investigations.

The ardent and the closet proponents of anti-homosexuality on this site remain mum. All sit on their hands. The few of us that robustly challenge their misplaced and misguided religious beliefs and the undeserved and unwarranted vilification of gays in our community, both explicitly and implicitly on this site, must run the gauntlet of Christian stridency and endure the onslaught of personal abuse. But then someone has to do it.

In the context of the very small contribution I make on this site to the larger social imperative of exposing and keeping the religious bigots off the backs of honest, decent law-abiding gay couples in our community, enduring such abuse is a small price to pay.

Institutional religion has surely lost any moral and ethical authority and credibility it once egregiously claimed as the sole arbiter on the matter of homosexuality in the community. The religious experiment has failed abysmally. State after State, community after community are rightfully correcting the religious travesty of our time. Just as divorce, once the great moral and religious no-no of Catholic dogma, marriage after remarriage after re-remarriage in the Catholic setting is now a normal and accepted position. So too will the Church be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21stC on the acceptability and respectability of homosexual marriage in our time. There is nothing surer than the Magisterium being informed by God that homosexual marriage is now deemed kosher in the eyes of the Lord. There is nothing surer that no truer a prediction can be made on this matter. It is simply a matter of time. That time has surely arrived.

Dr Reppert, would you mind posting the critique on Kolansink's secular argument against gay marriage on this site as a concession to balanced and fair treatment of the issue? HERE IT IS. Judging by your and other's lack of comment I doubt you have thought to read it. The respnse was written three days after Kolasinki's article in the same journal, The Tech.

Crude move to Russia or Uganda. Your emotional, social and psychological needs would be better served in those countries. You views are passé here.

;o) And I am reminded of the uncanny similarity between Dr Reppert's relationship with this thread and his God's relationship with the universe. Both sit on their hands watching the drama before them unfolding. Protection of gays in Russia? Nahhh. Protection of gays on this site? Nahhh.

Cale B.T. said...

Folks, if anyone's interested, I've written my comments for this thread in the thread about Scalia and Satan.

Crude said...

Bob,

Putting aside the plagiarist Linton and his minion for the moment, I will say - though it hasn't come up as much here - that opponents of same-sex marriage, and the shadier parts of LGBT "culture" in general, really need to do a better job of recognizing what really are the problematic parts of both those things, and how best to address and confront them.

Not that you or anyone else in this thread has failed to do that as near as I can tell, but the funny thing about a good portion of this conversation is I spend quit a deal of time arguing with some gay marriage opponents about their approach and perceptions when it comes to these problems.

One positive part of this whole conversation, however, is that the historical and current role of non-religious people - whether 'secular', 'atheist', or 'scientist' - in any perceived mistreatment of gays is being recognized, at least among what passes for our audience here. More of that needs to be done.

Just figured I'd say that.

Papalinton said...

A little off-topic but germane to the current discussion on religious involvement in community matters, I would be interested in readers' comments on this THIS REPORT

Dr Reppert?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»