From several posts...

Doctor Fate wrote:Then maybe I don't understand. I have been declining to engage in a debate over Christian morality. It is an utter waste of time. It is Danivon who keeps wanting to debate it.

We are debating marriage, and it's definition. You talk about the moral definition (which it is clear is actually the Christian definition, as you see it), and are debating how that differs from the legal definition.

The law is the law. However, the law does not define morality. If that were the case, I would have to agree that abortion is moral. I would have to agree that adultery, pornography, and any number of other sins are moral. I don't.

I can obey the law and not view it as the definition of morality. I'm not surprised that others may want to invert that--it's their right and I won't debate that.

The only person who I have seen come close to suggesting this, and mainly in other contexts, is bbauska, mainly in that what is not legal is also wrong to do (but if it is legal, then there's not a moral problem, as long as you want to do it).

I do not claim that the law sets morality. Quite the reverse - the law often (but not always, and sometimes at a lag or ahead of time) reflects the prevailing view of morality.

First, since your hobby is to pick at nits, there is no "new legal position." No one has declared that homosexual marriage is the law of the land from sea to shining sea.

There is indeed a new legal position. Before the USSC ruling, the Federal State effectively imposed a ban on recognising gay marriage, and allowing gay marrages the same rights as heterosexual marriage. Now that is no longer the case, it seems that States (or other jurisdictions, if allowed) can fully implement gay marriage that has to be recognised for the up to 1100 provisions which apply Federally.

That is indeed a change in the law. If it was not significant, why was it so controversial?

danivon wrote:There is indeed a new legal position. Before the USSC ruling, the Federal State effectively imposed a ban on recognising gay marriage, and allowing gay marrages the same rights as heterosexual marriage. Now that is no longer the case, it seems that States (or other jurisdictions, if allowed) can fully implement gay marriage that has to be recognised for the up to 1100 provisions which apply Federally.

That is indeed a change in the law. If it was not significant, why was it so controversial?

I don't agree. Many States had homosexual marriage. The rulings changed some Federal guidelines, but they did not create anything new.

Why were the rulings so controversial?

The CA ruling because it's idiotic. It permits any governor to simply ignore laws he doesn't like--across the board. Why? Because only the governor/AG have standing in such matters according to the ruling. That was foolhardy given that it was a law passed by the voters of CA.

The DOMA ruling because of the language Kennedy used. I never thought DOMA was a legitimate Federal law. States should decide marriage.

"some federal guidelines"? Over 1000 federal provisions, you mean? You may claim that tge States get to define marriage, but if it is not recognised by all levels of government, it is not the same thing. A major difference is in inheritance and pensions.

I am not in major disagreement with your point on the CA decision. I think that sponsors of the referendum would have standing (if not random voters) to appeal it being nullified.
t would be more satisfying to have had it heard by the Supremee Court and a verdict given, either way.

On DOMA, however, just because you don't have a problem with it does not make it uncontroversial. Before Kennedy's statement, before it went to the USSC, it was controversial, and DOMA had strong backing. There was opposition to the repeal, and it was (as so often) a 5-4 decision with a strong (if, in my opinion flawed) set of minority arguments.

From a while before...

Doctor Fate wrote:However, if there is one morality, that issued and designed by God, then what Hindus, Buddhists, and secularists believe is immaterial in terms of altering morality. They may declare "moral" whatever they like; it won't change what IS moral. That is unalterable.

...

I've said over and over again that you may believe as you please. I don't know what else to say. I'm not going to argue morality with someone who believes it evolves. There is no objectivity in such a world view and so it is a complete waste of time to debate with someone whose footing can easily shift.

I think I need to clarify, as you are making an assertion about my beliefs that I think is unwarranted:

I don't believe that morality evolves.

I believe that my particular morality is as solid as yours - what I believe is right and wrong I believe was always right and wrong, and will always be right and wrong.

Similarly, I expect that Hindus and Buddhists and Jews feel just as strongly as you do as a Christian that their religious morality is the unalterable truth, and that whatever you believe is immaterial. The key word in the first sentence of yours I quoted is 'if'. Morality may not come from God, and even if it does, it may not be the God that you believe in that is the source.

I could be wrong, you could be wrong, maybe every single human being in history has and always will be wrong about what truly is moral. We aren't going to ever prove it, that much I can say, and each of us will remain believing that their morality is the right one.

Now, I may change my mind - just as someone who grew up in one religion and later on in life embraced another (or moved between denominations of the same religion, or moved to/from atheism), but that's not the same as having footing that can 'easily shift'. Not being closed-minded and at the same time not being easily swayed is pretty much a common standpoint, I assume. A convicing moral argument may change someone's mind. For example, perhaps you could convince me that the Biblical position on divorce, which does not explicitly allow for it in the case of physical abuse, is more moral than my position (which says that if a spouse is abused then it would be wrong to insist that they stay married to their abuser).

However, what I was talking about was not 'morality', but 'the view of morality', and that is something that we know varies between and within societies over time and place. You are right that I can believe what I want and you can believe what you want. Thus, as I argue and I think you are avoiding, while to any one individual there may be only one 'moral definition' for something, over a society (which in the US means across about 300,000,000 individuals) that moral definition can and will vary quite a lot. Which means that the individual view, while important to that person, does not mean much compared to the consensus view of society at large.

However, we also need to consider what 'marriage' is. It is not simply between the people involved (and God or any other deity/ies for those who believe in them), but it has significance in society beyond.

It always was bound up with law, whether it came to property (inheritance, ownership, rights etc) or taxes (allowances, inheritance, joint filing) etc. When you are married you automatically become next-of-kin to your spouse, which has a huge rance of implications, such as who can be given information or make decisions about medical matters, or who may share the burden of financial liabi

Doctor Fate wrote:I did not do that. All I said was I think the comparison is so nutty as to discredit the author because he is looking for an explanation into a phenomena I don't believe exists (alien abductions).

His explanation is that there is no such thing as alien abduction.

Here is part of his conclusion:

Now, if I did not know anything about demons or Satan I would probably assume that these experiences were “alien encounters” because that is the most common way that society defines an experience like this. There really isn’t much difference between what I have experienced and your typical “alien encounter” with the only difference being that I was able to stop it.

And the good news for anyone who is being troubled by demons masquerading as “aliens” is that if they will place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, repent from their sins, be baptized and lead a life that seeks Him first in all things they too can experience that same victory over “alien abductions”.

Whether you believe in alien abductions or not, you cannot deny the fact that people claim to have experienced them. Jennings is comparing those claims, and his conclusion is (like yours) that alien abductions do not exist - they are, in his opinion, actually experiences of demonic possession.

I find it helps to actually read what people have written before using it to accuse them of being nutty and thus dismissable on any and every subject. Now that you can see what he's saying, are you actually telling us that he's 'nutty' because he believes in demonic possession?

I think he's wrong, and deluded, but what both articles show is that he's a diligent recorder of evidence. I don't agree with his conclusions (in either article), but I don't deny the evidence off-hand, because I know that (a) lots of Christian thinkers have given views on marriage and they haven't always agreed - sometimes those differences are a part of denominational splits - and, (b) whether alien abductions or demonic possession are real or not, there are people who report them happening to them.

Besides, I know plenty of people who believe in phenomenon that I don't think exists (a god), but that doesn't mean they are nutty, per se. It would be quite intolerant, I submit, to make such a blanket categorisation. Quite a lot of religious people I know are quite cojent and rational, and worthy of listening to (some, errr, less so). I just disagree with their belief in a supreme deity.

Please be aware - this is not me attempting to get you to debate alien abduction or demonic possession, it's me arguing that your premise is based on a misrepresentation of the article you linked to. And also, pointing out that while you may have called my responses earlier 'intolerant', it seems to me that dismissing someone as a nut who can be ignored on all subjects because you don't believe in something they do is more intolerant than that.

For the record, I don't think you are a nut, just wrong. I don't dismiss your opinions or observations on the game of Diplomacy, in particular the value of playing it face-to-face, just because you believe in God. That would be intolerant.

Danivon,
Do you think it is intolerant to have the opinion that marriage is only between a man and woman?
Do you think it is intolerant to have the opinion that marriage is between any combination of 2 people regardless of sex?

Does it become intolerance when you force the actions of other people to conform to your opinions?

I think THAT is intolerance.

But it's not intolerance because he is supporting the disadvantaged, the minority who only wants equality....unless that person wants to wed three or more people, even though they are in love and have every same reason as the gay couples to marry, then since it does not fit into his personal viewpoint, then it's not intolerance at all!?

In what way have I forced your actions?

danivon wrote:From a while before...

Doctor Fate wrote:However, if there is one morality, that issued and designed by God, then what Hindus, Buddhists, and secularists believe is immaterial in terms of altering morality. They may declare "moral" whatever they like; it won't change what IS moral. That is unalterable.

...

I've said over and over again that you may believe as you please. I don't know what else to say. I'm not going to argue morality with someone who believes it evolves. There is no objectivity in such a world view and so it is a complete waste of time to debate with someone whose footing can easily shift.

I think I need to clarify, as you are making an assertion about my beliefs that I think is unwarranted:

I don't believe that morality evolves.

I believe that my particular morality is as solid as yours - what I believe is right and wrong I believe was always right and wrong, and will always be right and wrong.

Similarly, I expect that Hindus and Buddhists and Jews feel just as strongly as you do as a Christian that their religious morality is the unalterable truth, and that whatever you believe is immaterial. The key word in the first sentence of yours I quoted is 'if'. Morality may not come from God, and even if it does, it may not be the God that you believe in that is the source.

I could be wrong, you could be wrong, maybe every single human being in history has and always will be wrong about what truly is moral. We aren't going to ever prove it, that much I can say, and each of us will remain believing that their morality is the right one.

This is where we differ and why it is impossible to debate. I don't believe that it is my belief that secures the question of morality with regard to marriage. It is far beyond my capacity to establish what is moral and what is not. God establishes morality; man rebels against it.

However, what I was talking about was not 'morality', but 'the view of morality', and that is something that we know varies between and within societies over time and place.

See above why this is immaterial.

It always was bound up with law, whether it came to property (inheritance, ownership, rights etc) or taxes (allowances, inheritance, joint filing) etc. When you are married you automatically become next-of-kin to your spouse, which has a huge rance of implications, such as who can be given information or make decisions about medical matters, or who may share the burden of financial liabi

Ultimately, this thinking may well lead to all sorts of different forms of marriage--if "marriage" is primarily about property rights, medical matters, financial liability, etc., then there really is no reason to restrict it to two people, or force those people to be unrelated. In fact, the fastest way to social equity might be having everyone in America marry everyone else. That way we're all responsible for each other.

However, that's really not a marriage. You can call it whatever you like, even "marriage," it will simply have no meaning.

You also wrote:

His explanation is that there is no such thing as alien abduction.

Right. Saw that. It's no less crackers (no racial overtone implied).

Whether you believe in alien abductions or not, you cannot deny the fact that people claim to have experienced them. Jennings is comparing those claims, and his conclusion is (like yours) that alien abductions do not exist - they are, in his opinion, actually experiences of demonic possession.

Crackers.

I think he's wrong, and deluded, but what both articles show is that he's a diligent recorder of evidence.

You may believe that. What it tells me is he's willing to take evidence and squeeze, fold, and reshape it to fit his worldview. He has NO objective reason to presume reported alien abductions are instead demonic possessions. He subjectively concludes that. How am I to know he did not do the same thing with his historical analysis?

Oh, right. I should go back and investigate every case and thus disprove it?

No thanks. Life is too short to disprove every crackpot someone references on the Internet.

bbauska

Does it become intolerance when you force the actions of other people to conform to your opinions?

What does this mean?
Are you against the formation of laws or the protection of rights?
If someone is of the opinion its okay to keep slaves .... he shouldn't have to follow the law?

Marriage is a contract. Laws changing the eligible categories (there are only three combinations of adults allowed to marry anywhere), change the legal definition of marriage must now be respected by the US federal government.
You are still free to keep your personal opinion that a legal marriage between two men is "not really a marriage". Just so long as you respect the law that defines their union as a legal contract.

danivon wrote:In what way have I forced your actions?

Not my, or anyone's actions, have you personally forced. This is a hypothetical.

You just don't get it do you?
Allowing same sex marriage is (to liberals) a protection of rights, even if the entire definition of marriage must change, we must protect all! You see this as a right and we must all believe your way of thought. But when it does not agree with your thinking, then it's simply wrong.

Conservatives: Same sex Marriage is wrong
Liberals: same sex marriage is a right

Conservatives: multiple partner marriage is wrong
Liberals: multiple partner marriage is wrong

so when it suits you, it's a right and conservatives are wrong, bad bad conservatives blocking peoples rights! But when it doesn't suit your position of the day, then it's ok to be wrong and to hold fast to the definition of marriage, it's ok to block these peoples rights because it's what you happen to believe!?

Let me continue the hypothetical...

Marriage between male/female is wrong; same sex marriage is the "way it has always been".

A person does not want to perform male/female weddings, but is forced by the state to provide services for the wedding or face discrimination charges.

Is it intolerant to not want to provide services?

Is it intolerant to be forced (through discrimination charges) to provide services for something you do not agree.with (different sex marriage)?

Is tolerance a good thing and intolerance a bad thing?

Bbauska, your hypothetical is weird, but I don't think it is actually very 'intolerant' to stop people from discriminating against homosexual couples or against heterosexual couples. It is, in reality, intolerance of intolerance itself.

Some things I would argue should not be tolerated. We no longer tolerate slavery in our nations. We should not tolerate violent crime. Now, someone could claim that their moral code does not see slavery or pederasty or fraud or any kind of thing that society has deemed immoral enough to be illegal. Even if they claim that their religion holds that one man can be the property of another, or that 8 year olds are sexually adult or that women should submit to male power, or whatever, does this mean we should tolerate it?

A classic example from US history, concerning marriage is the change made to Utah law to ban polygamy before it could join the Union. It was intolerant of the USA to stop Mormons from marrying several women. But was that a bad thing? Not the same question.

danivon wrote:Some things I would argue should not be tolerated. We no longer tolerate slavery in our nations. We should not tolerate violent crime. Now, someone could claim that their moral code does not see slavery or pederasty or fraud or any kind of thing that society has deemed immoral enough to be illegal. Even if they claim that their religion holds that one man can be the property of another, or that 8 year olds are sexually adult or that women should submit to male power, or whatever, does this mean we should tolerate it?

So, I'll ignore the obvious, whiny complaint that it seems you're comparing traditional values to pederasty . . . but, should churches be permitted to "discriminate" against homosexual couples wanting to get married in them?

A classic example from US history, concerning marriage is the change made to Utah law to ban polygamy before it could join the Union. It was intolerant of the USA to stop Mormons from marrying several women. But was that a bad thing? Not the same question.

Actually, it is. That law was not about the subjection of women, but about traditional marriage. You may not see it as the same thing now, but at that time it was exactly the same question.