"Blood-libels". Wow! Such a strong term. I had no idea that that little French preppie meant so much to you.
"despite their possible imprecision" Really? Now what *did* your denomination teach you about Calvin's life and example? Was it some sort of Reformist version for Calvin of Elena Whiteside's "The Way: Living in Love" whitewash of VPW's life and example?
That Calvin ran Geneva with an iron fist from behind the scenes is well documented to anyone who has read about Calvin from sources that aren't directly funded by the Reformed Church. Nothing unique there; as lots of churches and church leaders back then were quite strict and punative towards those whom they considered 'heretics' (Need links to prove that too, a$$wipe?). For example, Martin Luther had a serious anti-Jewish problem that made VPW's anti-semitism look pale by comparison. And of course you have your Catholic Church who was famous for the Inquisitions, a fact not lost on Calvin himself in his rantings against the 'Popish Church'. So I seriously don't think that its a 'blood libel' to nail Calvin's a$$ to the wall when he partakes of that same or similar practice.
So blow me. And no, I'm not going to provide you with each and every link to 'prove' every point I make, as I'm not presenting a historical doctrinal thesis to some university board of regents here. If you don't want to believe me, fine. But heck, since we're on the 'prove it to me or else' approach, why not you show me counter evidence to support your claims that Calvin didn't do these things.
And bringing up (or should I say hiding behind) these 'blood libels' is an effective means of challenging what I said re: your ad hominum snide swipe at Excathedra? Or anything else that I might bring to your attention?
"Hi Cynic. Nice weather we're having, isn't it?"
"Well?? Where are the other 23 victims of Calvin, you Unitarian, blood libeling, polemic, heretical hack?!? Huh??"
??? --> "Damn man, take some Midol!"
Perhaps you need to take a more reasoned approach to deal with me 'getting in your face', y'think?
-->
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
I intend to do some investigation of Garth's links, though on a cursory reading only one of the links seemed relevant to the question at hand. For tentative consideration, here's another:
I'm not by any means agreeing with everything Zixar and Cynic have posted, but both bring up some good points, IMO. (Speaking only of the topic, not the sidetracks.)
A few disclaimers: The Bible is not even a rule of faith and practice for me. I don't look upon this as a religious issue, and certainly not a church vs. state issue. I don't care about people's sexual preferences.
Now...
Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals (people with no sexuality or sexual desire, if such people exist) have exactly the same marriage rights, privileges, and responsibilities as do heterosexuals. Any of them can marry a person of opposite gender, subject to certain restrictions.
Unmarried people, no matter what their sexual preference may be, have legitimate concerns that have been brought to light by gay rights activists. (I mean nothing negative by "activist.") Other than official societal sanctioning of homosexual unions, most of those concerns can be addressed through wills, powers of attorney, and contracts. To the extent that they can't, there seems to be fairly broad support in many locations for changing laws to address those concerns, to the extent in some locations of establishing civil unions that are, within the corresponding jurisdiction, essentially the same as marriage.
This issue is about none of the above things. It is about forcing society to legally recognize homosexual partnerships as being the same as, or at least indistinguishable from, heterosexual marriages. They are not, and never will be, even if the drastic changes in technology and practice that I mentioned earlier become reality.
For all the societal faults that have weakened many marriages, and perhaps the institution of marriage itself, I and many others believe that the traditional marriage and family structure of one man and one woman marrying for life and together raising a family is an ideal worthy of special societal promotion and protection. We recognize also that many people's lives don't conform to that ideal. Heck, mine doesn't. I intended to marry for life, and did my utmost to make that happen, but I ended up as a divorced father, raising my daughter on my own.
I don't care for the way Zixar presented his argument, but I think the thrust of it is similar to the above paragraph. The traditional marriage and family is an ideal that is clearly beneficial to society and worthy of its promotion and protection. From a societal point of view, other arrangements may be worthy of some legal protection, but probably not of promotion, and neither to the same extent as traditional marriages.
I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually.
Note that nothing I've said has been religiously based.
One of your problems is that you are a cheap liar.
Mistaken opinion on various points? No doubt, as sooner or later I'll get something wrong. No denial there.
But a deliberate liar I am not. And the fact that I have little regard for John Calvin is of no consequence in such. And I see no need to have any more respect nor honor for Calvin than I have for Weirwille.
And whatever killing of intelligent debate is just as much to do with your anal and derisive attitude as it is to my 'polemics'.
And with that, I'll leave this thread back to Trevor with my apologies for my part in the derailment. I wonder if the other party will do the same.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually.
Now see...here's something I can "hear" and consider.
Thanks, Long Gone! Your whole post is something that I can wrap my mind around and think about. What a breath of fresh air right now. :D-->
With all respect to you, Trefor, I am very resistant to the idea of gay marriages. If I've understood your arguments in favor, they seem to boil down to two issues (or perspectives). To put it in political terms, one argument might appeal to the more liberal thinkers by urging fairness, saying that marriage laws are currently discriminatory, since they are restricted to two people of different genders. The other argument is more utilitarian and appeals to the conservative thinkers by touting traditional values found in stable, long-term, monogamous relationships, where partners can find individual happiness. Both arguments are, in my opinion, ultimately self-indulgent.
I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage.
Homosexual couples do not need the protection of law in order to be monogamous, committed, and faithful. Neither partner is at a disadvantage, and society does not have an interest in whether that relationship endures. Society does have an interest in preserving institutions that help ensure stable families, which means marriage between one man and one woman.
Trefor, if you ever decide to affirm or reaffirm your vows to whomever you choose to have as your mate, I will rejoice with you and I wish you every happiness.
Gosh, I go to bed and when I return to this thread after a night's sleep there are two more pages, there is name calling and discussions about the Reformation! :D-->
zix:
quote: homosexuals must currently make the same choice if they want to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If they cannot choose that path, no one will force them to. But just as single people must also marry if they want marriage benefits, should they be able to just claim they don't want to marry and receive them anyway? Of course not.
It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
You are still making the same old "take it or leave it argument", that the status quo is the best that there is or ever will be. You are still comparing chalk and cheese. Single heterosexual people have a choice to marry if they want the benefits, homosexual people do not have that choice of marrying the person thay they love.
You may be surprised to know that here in the UK first cousins may marry and have children without any legal restriction. The fact that it is illegal elsewhere does not invalidate the marriage and I am sure that were two cousins who had got married elsewhere were to immigrate the the US that their marriage would be still accepted - after all it's one man and one woman!
cynic:
quote: Why should homosexual relationships be grouped with heterosexual relationships, rather than with relationships historically viewed as aberrant in biblically influenced cultures, for the purposes of assigning legal standing?
Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been "historically viewed as aberrant" does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this "historical view" is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there.
laleo:
quote:Homosexual couples do not need the protection of law in order to be monogamous, committed, and faithful. Neither partner is at a disadvantage, and society does not have an interest in whether that relationship endures. Society does have an interest in preserving institutions that help ensure stable families, which means marriage between one man and one woman.
For centuries a woman that got married became a chattel of her husband. She had no legal rights, all her property went to him as did the children, should he desire, if they separated. Men had a legal right to have sex, forced if necessary, with their wives, were allowed to beat them also without legal penalty or redress. One therefore has to question the amount of advantage to the woman that she supposedly gets than if they did not marry.
Children only have stability when a relationship has stability and looking at the statistics for divorce I find this argument hard to swallow. There is no evidence that children brought up by a same sex couple are any less disadvantaged when the "parents" remain together. Some have argued that they are missing the vital role model of a father or a mother but many children are already devoid of one or the other because of divorce.
I have said so before but I will repeat it - marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children - it may be an expectation but it is not obligatory and the inability to have children is no barrier or the complete lack of interest in having any is no bar to marriage.
Any relationship exists when two parties consent to it, male and female, male and male, female and female, they do not require anybody else's approval. Men and women can, however get their relaitonship legally recognised should they wish it. Benefits, prvileges and responsiblities flow from that.
A gay man whose partner dies however is not considered to be his next of kin. He may lose the home they have built up, he may even be excluded by the family from his partner's funeral. If the partner had been in hospital beforehand he may have been refused access. He could lose out on survivor and pension benefits which would have been his otherwise.
Thanks for your kind wishes, when I have a mate about vows. Vows are, however made, to each other, before God and witnesses. A religious marriage is not in itself sufficient to make a marriage in the eyes of the state - it has to be registered as a contract for all the legal recognitions etc to ensue.
Divorce always requires a legal act and in some churches, such as the Roman Catholic church, even a civil divorce does not invalidate the marriage. But that's another story.
Personally it is not what you call a legally recognised relationship that is important. I am quite content with the arrangements that are being made over here in the UK. If the USA offered similar accomodations and called it something other than marriage I would not object but in the absence of such accomodations being proposed or even opposed I must speak my mind.
Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc.
"It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice."
Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition.
"It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. "
I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you...........
""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents."
And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why?????????
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
[This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]
Coolwaters raised the most clearly stated, logical argument for permitting same-sex marriage I've yet seen in this thread: It's a legal contract.
So why should anyone be denied the right (or privilege--either way) to enter into that legal contract? Denying one segment of the population this right/privilege certainly doesn't seem just or right to me.
Zix, you're calling upon tradition to argue against homosexuals marrying? (Why do I picture you dancing around like the Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof? "TraDItion!"
Some traditions are good; some can stand a tune-up, and I think this is one of them.
Cynic, you're invoking the inerrancy of your denomination's take on the Bible to bolster your argument. I also hold the Scriptures in extremely high regard, but I am willing to acknowledge:
(a) that my understanding of portions of the Bible could be incorrect, or
(b) that over the centuries, maybe, just maybe, the men who chose what went into the Bible and what didn't, and how it all should be interpreted into English, might have been mistaken on some points, or they might have had their own agendas that crept in, whether intentionally or not.
Tradition is no basis for such determinations, Zixar. Others have made that argument in this thread, and made it well. Traditions change as people's needs change, as society changes. (And NO, I'm not saying let's have a free-for-all and let everyone do as they like. I'm talking about permitting something that doesn't cause harm to anyone else.)
Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence?
Excath: You did NOTHING to disrupt this thread. Cynic's just diverting attention from the flaws in his argument by calling your opinions/questions disruptive. Ignore him and ask/say what you want.
laleo: Your argument that marriage affords women and children protection is good in terms of being a reason why marriage is beneficialfor heterosexuals. But I don't understand how extending the right to marry to people of the same gender would compromise that protection. Please explain.
Linda Z
[This message was edited by Linda Z on February 07, 2004 at 8:26.]
"I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. "
That sounded so reasonable and logical, Laleo. But it really isn't. Because traditionally, a married woman was the property of her husband, who had the right to force sex upon her if she refused, and who and the final say in how many children were to be had. About the only thing a marriage offered a woman, traditionally, was some degree of financial security.
Then came the sixties, abortion, birth control, and equal rights. New laws to protect married women were created and old laws done away with or changed. A woman could use birth control, a woman could legally tell her husband no to sex and expect that decision to be respected, a woman could go out and get a job and demand something closer to equal pay. NOW there is empowerment and protection for a woman.
With those changes, divorce rates doubled, tripled, skyrocketed to a rate of 50+%. The concept of the traditional marriage has been changing ever since. People resist change, change is often scary to them. But not all change is bad.
Today, marriage really doesn't offer any special protection to a woman and she doesn't even need it anyway. There are still many flaws to be worked out and some of these changes have brought up issues which we still haven't resolved. But I for one am very glad we no longer have those traditional protections offered by marriage which basically made a woman the property of her husband.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
quote: And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why?????????
A good question. I often wonder if many things are illegal because those who have the power don't like them rather than any real or demonstrable damage to the public good.
I have somewhere a list of really weird local laws and prohibitions no doubt because somebody there didn't like a particular thing.
Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to deal on point of law, not on their own individual viewpoints or to pander to the interest group that they may have been nominated by. They are human like everyone else, as are legislators but they have greater security of tenure and therefore can afford to be a little more dispassionate.
That it was illegal for the slaves to have a voice once did not guarantee that viewpoint for ever.
It's funny also how reasoning you may not agree with has to be dubious zix, no doubt any that you yourself agree with has to be wonderful! :D-->
If God is so opposed to homosexuality, why weren't there 11 commandments instead of 10, to include: "A man shall not love another man, and a woman shall not love another woman"?
I'm not arguing that homosexuality was something God necessarily wanted or designed. After all, when he created Adam and Eve, He made their bodies wonderfully compatible--and I'd venture that the design hasn't changed a whole lot since then. And Adam and Eve had to populate the earth, so it made sense to have them be attracitve to each other. But I'd say by now the earth is more than adequately populated, and letting the small percentage of homosexuals on this planet marry sure as heck isn't going to keep the heterosexuals from having children.
Do you think God din't know there would be homosexuals? Why, then, if He wanted so badly to condemn homosexuality, didn't He outlaw it in the days of Moses? I can't think of one crime man can commit against man that isn't covered by those 10 commandments. Not one. Yet, wonder of wonders, homosexuality is glaringly absent.
"Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been 'historically viewed as aberrant' does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this 'historical view' is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there."
*****
Trefor,
I have looked at Mr. Truluck's site. It is not exegesis or biblical theology that informs his arguments. He does victimology, self-pity, loudmouthed denunciations, heresy and some spoof-texting. He is a manipulator.
Again, why should ideas about equality and liberty form a controlling basis for evaluating whether a government should offer recognition for homosexual relationships, yet not form such a basis for evaluating whether a government should do the same for a wide range of aberrant relationships that occur or that might occur among adults?
Oh, and Cynic: I'm accustomed to the stilted manner in which you epxress yourself. Hey, if you don't want people to know what the heck you're saying because you're hellbent on sounding scholarly, have at it, but it makes for lousy communication outside the ivory tower.
One question, though: You said, "I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated."
What is "spirated," because I can't find it in any American English dictionary. Maybe you meant "inspired"?
Wouldn't you say the ten commandments encompass subsequently given commands? I would. Subsequent commands might be more specific, but they certainly seem to me to come under the umbrella of those ten.
It is a word I came across some years ago in a theological handbook written by a guy who apparently used it for its stronger semantic character than equivocally used words such as inspired or inspiration.
How one defines rights as opposed to privileges can be difficult, I agree. Even if you think marriage a privilege rather than a right, the inequality nevertheless remains that one part has this privilege and another does not. Looking at a level playing field any adult citizen who fulfils their obligations of citizenship, pays their taxes etc, contributes to society should expect the same privileges to be accorded to them as each other.
When it comes to framing documents the general rule of thumb is normally that what is not specifically forbidden or covered must be allowed and where the language is not watertight or capable of more than one interpretation, that is when the courts have to be brought in. This can happen in any country where the legislation is unclear and the judiciary is called in to rule upon points of law - it happens here in the House of Lords just as much as it does in the Supreme Court.
It is unfair to accuse the judiciary of interference - they are making rulings upon points of law that are brought before them precisely because the law is unclear. It is for the legislators to ensure that the laws being made are not flawed and unless they do then the judgements must stand until overruled by legislation or by a reversal.
There are literally whole libraries of case law precedents on all kinds of matters precisely because the legislation was badly framed and they remain in force unless or until fresh legislation replaces it.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
You are right, there are literally law libraries full of precedents...
There is one area where your analogy falls apart. This is an area of long-standing precedent of one man - one woman. In Maryland, the law goes back to the 1670s; I am sure, in Mass., the law goes back even further (here I'm talking about case law in addition to legislation). The court has turned over hundreds of years of common law and statutory law by fiat.
The issue of civil rights is a good analogy to this situation here.
People were being discriminated upon based upon their skin color, an immediately identifiable biological trait. Here, people are discriminated upon based upon (depending on your view) a behavior pattern or a biological trait that manifests itself in a behavioral pattern. So, the analogy is not perfect and I acknowledge that.
Despite that, the common thread is discrimination.
The color-based discrimination issue is being resolved based upon the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution. The courts have reviewed and continue to review law, regulation, and practice based upon that constitutional law. Whether you agree or disagree with the individual decisions of the courts, they can hang their hats upon that amendment.
In the case, there is no law, except for the law "created" by judicial fiat. Laws created by judicial fiat are, in my mind, an abomination. As a postscript, I will repro an extract of the Mass. court's ruling and the extract of the Mass. constitution that they "claim" to hang their hat on. It's a stretch, at best, imho.
Still, that is not what causes my blood to boil. First, recognize that I am a resident of Md., not Mass. I have absolutely no say in how they make their law, how their courts are run, or anything else to do with that state. If this judicial fiat is allowed to stand, the law in my state will be irrevocably impacted. The "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution demands that all states give full faith and credit "to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, regardless of how my state decides the situation, we will have to honor and respect the rules created by this other state's court. And there is NOTHING I can do about it.
If not for the implications of the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution, I wouldn't care one way or another. I don't live there and its none of my business. Even with the "full faith and credit" clause, I still wouldn't be that upset, had the legislature of Mass. decided to pass the appropriate law. But, when a state court creates law in another state that will impact me and I am powerless to do something about it, that makes my blood boil.
quote:Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach.
The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution protect both "freedom from" unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and "freedom to" partake in benefits created by the State for the common good. . . . Both freedoms are involved here. Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family -- these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights. . . . And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations.
Now I searched the Mass. constitution and so far as I can tell, I think what that court is referring to is:
quote:All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
I hate to agree with Cynic, but if this article justifies same sex marriage, it also justifies polygamy/polygyny. It also justifies a whole lot of behaviors (use your imagination), under the guise of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Cynic
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky:
It's "abstruse."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
"Blood-libels". Wow! Such a strong term. I had no idea that that little French preppie meant so much to you.
"despite their possible imprecision" Really? Now what *did* your denomination teach you about Calvin's life and example? Was it some sort of Reformist version for Calvin of Elena Whiteside's "The Way: Living in Love" whitewash of VPW's life and example?
That Calvin ran Geneva with an iron fist from behind the scenes is well documented to anyone who has read about Calvin from sources that aren't directly funded by the Reformed Church. Nothing unique there; as lots of churches and church leaders back then were quite strict and punative towards those whom they considered 'heretics' (Need links to prove that too, a$$wipe?). For example, Martin Luther had a serious anti-Jewish problem that made VPW's anti-semitism look pale by comparison. And of course you have your Catholic Church who was famous for the Inquisitions, a fact not lost on Calvin himself in his rantings against the 'Popish Church'. So I seriously don't think that its a 'blood libel' to nail Calvin's a$$ to the wall when he partakes of that same or similar practice.
So blow me. And no, I'm not going to provide you with each and every link to 'prove' every point I make, as I'm not presenting a historical doctrinal thesis to some university board of regents here. If you don't want to believe me, fine. But heck, since we're on the 'prove it to me or else' approach, why not you show me counter evidence to support your claims that Calvin didn't do these things.
And bringing up (or should I say hiding behind) these 'blood libels' is an effective means of challenging what I said re: your ad hominum snide swipe at Excathedra? Or anything else that I might bring to your attention?
"Hi Cynic. Nice weather we're having, isn't it?"
"Well?? Where are the other 23 victims of Calvin, you Unitarian, blood libeling, polemic, heretical hack?!? Huh??"
???
--> "Damn man, take some Midol!"
Perhaps you need to take a more reasoned approach to deal with me 'getting in your face', y'think?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I intend to do some investigation of Garth's links, though on a cursory reading only one of the links seemed relevant to the question at hand. For tentative consideration, here's another:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mara...9202geneva.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
.
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:42.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trefor,
As it might concern an intelligent debate on issues, this thread -- through no doing of yours -- appears to be dead.
Another day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I'm not by any means agreeing with everything Zixar and Cynic have posted, but both bring up some good points, IMO. (Speaking only of the topic, not the sidetracks.)
A few disclaimers: The Bible is not even a rule of faith and practice for me. I don't look upon this as a religious issue, and certainly not a church vs. state issue. I don't care about people's sexual preferences.
Now...
Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals (people with no sexuality or sexual desire, if such people exist) have exactly the same marriage rights, privileges, and responsibilities as do heterosexuals. Any of them can marry a person of opposite gender, subject to certain restrictions.
Unmarried people, no matter what their sexual preference may be, have legitimate concerns that have been brought to light by gay rights activists. (I mean nothing negative by "activist.") Other than official societal sanctioning of homosexual unions, most of those concerns can be addressed through wills, powers of attorney, and contracts. To the extent that they can't, there seems to be fairly broad support in many locations for changing laws to address those concerns, to the extent in some locations of establishing civil unions that are, within the corresponding jurisdiction, essentially the same as marriage.
This issue is about none of the above things. It is about forcing society to legally recognize homosexual partnerships as being the same as, or at least indistinguishable from, heterosexual marriages. They are not, and never will be, even if the drastic changes in technology and practice that I mentioned earlier become reality.
For all the societal faults that have weakened many marriages, and perhaps the institution of marriage itself, I and many others believe that the traditional marriage and family structure of one man and one woman marrying for life and together raising a family is an ideal worthy of special societal promotion and protection. We recognize also that many people's lives don't conform to that ideal. Heck, mine doesn't. I intended to marry for life, and did my utmost to make that happen, but I ended up as a divorced father, raising my daughter on my own.
I don't care for the way Zixar presented his argument, but I think the thrust of it is similar to the above paragraph. The traditional marriage and family is an ideal that is clearly beneficial to society and worthy of its promotion and protection. From a societal point of view, other arrangements may be worthy of some legal protection, but probably not of promotion, and neither to the same extent as traditional marriages.
I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually.
Note that nothing I've said has been religiously based.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mistaken opinion on various points? No doubt, as sooner or later I'll get something wrong. No denial there.
But a deliberate liar I am not. And the fact that I have little regard for John Calvin is of no consequence in such. And I see no need to have any more respect nor honor for Calvin than I have for Weirwille.
And whatever killing of intelligent debate is just as much to do with your anal and derisive attitude as it is to my 'polemics'.
And with that, I'll leave this thread back to Trevor with my apologies for my part in the derailment. I wonder if the other party will do the same.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Now see...here's something I can "hear" and consider.
Thanks, Long Gone! Your whole post is something that I can wrap my mind around and think about. What a breath of fresh air right now.
:D-->
?????????????
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
(checking to see which forum this thread is in!) so nice to be in a forum where such civil discourse is appreciated. goodness!
A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:49.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
With all respect to you, Trefor, I am very resistant to the idea of gay marriages. If I've understood your arguments in favor, they seem to boil down to two issues (or perspectives). To put it in political terms, one argument might appeal to the more liberal thinkers by urging fairness, saying that marriage laws are currently discriminatory, since they are restricted to two people of different genders. The other argument is more utilitarian and appeals to the conservative thinkers by touting traditional values found in stable, long-term, monogamous relationships, where partners can find individual happiness. Both arguments are, in my opinion, ultimately self-indulgent.
I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage.
Homosexual couples do not need the protection of law in order to be monogamous, committed, and faithful. Neither partner is at a disadvantage, and society does not have an interest in whether that relationship endures. Society does have an interest in preserving institutions that help ensure stable families, which means marriage between one man and one woman.
Trefor, if you ever decide to affirm or reaffirm your vows to whomever you choose to have as your mate, I will rejoice with you and I wish you every happiness.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Gosh, I go to bed and when I return to this thread after a night's sleep there are two more pages, there is name calling and discussions about the Reformation!
:D-->
zix:
You are still making the same old "take it or leave it argument", that the status quo is the best that there is or ever will be. You are still comparing chalk and cheese. Single heterosexual people have a choice to marry if they want the benefits, homosexual people do not have that choice of marrying the person thay they love.
You may be surprised to know that here in the UK first cousins may marry and have children without any legal restriction. The fact that it is illegal elsewhere does not invalidate the marriage and I am sure that were two cousins who had got married elsewhere were to immigrate the the US that their marriage would be still accepted - after all it's one man and one woman!
cynic:
Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been "historically viewed as aberrant" does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this "historical view" is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there.
laleo:
For centuries a woman that got married became a chattel of her husband. She had no legal rights, all her property went to him as did the children, should he desire, if they separated. Men had a legal right to have sex, forced if necessary, with their wives, were allowed to beat them also without legal penalty or redress. One therefore has to question the amount of advantage to the woman that she supposedly gets than if they did not marry.
Children only have stability when a relationship has stability and looking at the statistics for divorce I find this argument hard to swallow. There is no evidence that children brought up by a same sex couple are any less disadvantaged when the "parents" remain together. Some have argued that they are missing the vital role model of a father or a mother but many children are already devoid of one or the other because of divorce.
I have said so before but I will repeat it - marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children - it may be an expectation but it is not obligatory and the inability to have children is no barrier or the complete lack of interest in having any is no bar to marriage.
Any relationship exists when two parties consent to it, male and female, male and male, female and female, they do not require anybody else's approval. Men and women can, however get their relaitonship legally recognised should they wish it. Benefits, prvileges and responsiblities flow from that.
A gay man whose partner dies however is not considered to be his next of kin. He may lose the home they have built up, he may even be excluded by the family from his partner's funeral. If the partner had been in hospital beforehand he may have been refused access. He could lose out on survivor and pension benefits which would have been his otherwise.
Thanks for your kind wishes, when I have a mate about vows. Vows are, however made, to each other, before God and witnesses. A religious marriage is not in itself sufficient to make a marriage in the eyes of the state - it has to be registered as a contract for all the legal recognitions etc to ensue.
Divorce always requires a legal act and in some churches, such as the Roman Catholic church, even a civil divorce does not invalidate the marriage. But that's another story.
Personally it is not what you call a legally recognised relationship that is important. I am quite content with the arrangements that are being made over here in the UK. If the USA offered similar accomodations and called it something other than marriage I would not object but in the absence of such accomodations being proposed or even opposed I must speak my mind.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc.
"It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice."
Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition.
"It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. "
I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you...........
""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents."
And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why?????????
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
[This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Coolwaters raised the most clearly stated, logical argument for permitting same-sex marriage I've yet seen in this thread: It's a legal contract.
So why should anyone be denied the right (or privilege--either way) to enter into that legal contract? Denying one segment of the population this right/privilege certainly doesn't seem just or right to me.
Zix, you're calling upon tradition to argue against homosexuals marrying? (Why do I picture you dancing around like the Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof? "TraDItion!"
Some traditions are good; some can stand a tune-up, and I think this is one of them.
Cynic, you're invoking the inerrancy of your denomination's take on the Bible to bolster your argument. I also hold the Scriptures in extremely high regard, but I am willing to acknowledge:
(a) that my understanding of portions of the Bible could be incorrect, or
(b) that over the centuries, maybe, just maybe, the men who chose what went into the Bible and what didn't, and how it all should be interpreted into English, might have been mistaken on some points, or they might have had their own agendas that crept in, whether intentionally or not.
Tradition is no basis for such determinations, Zixar. Others have made that argument in this thread, and made it well. Traditions change as people's needs change, as society changes. (And NO, I'm not saying let's have a free-for-all and let everyone do as they like. I'm talking about permitting something that doesn't cause harm to anyone else.)
Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence?
Excath: You did NOTHING to disrupt this thread. Cynic's just diverting attention from the flaws in his argument by calling your opinions/questions disruptive. Ignore him and ask/say what you want.
laleo: Your argument that marriage affords women and children protection is good in terms of being a reason why marriage is beneficialfor heterosexuals. But I don't understand how extending the right to marry to people of the same gender would compromise that protection. Please explain.
Linda Z
[This message was edited by Linda Z on February 07, 2004 at 8:26.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. "
That sounded so reasonable and logical, Laleo. But it really isn't. Because traditionally, a married woman was the property of her husband, who had the right to force sex upon her if she refused, and who and the final say in how many children were to be had. About the only thing a marriage offered a woman, traditionally, was some degree of financial security.
Then came the sixties, abortion, birth control, and equal rights. New laws to protect married women were created and old laws done away with or changed. A woman could use birth control, a woman could legally tell her husband no to sex and expect that decision to be respected, a woman could go out and get a job and demand something closer to equal pay. NOW there is empowerment and protection for a woman.
With those changes, divorce rates doubled, tripled, skyrocketed to a rate of 50+%. The concept of the traditional marriage has been changing ever since. People resist change, change is often scary to them. But not all change is bad.
Today, marriage really doesn't offer any special protection to a woman and she doesn't even need it anyway. There are still many flaws to be worked out and some of these changes have brought up issues which we still haven't resolved. But I for one am very glad we no longer have those traditional protections offered by marriage which basically made a woman the property of her husband.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Abigail:
A good question. I often wonder if many things are illegal because those who have the power don't like them rather than any real or demonstrable damage to the public good.
I have somewhere a list of really weird local laws and prohibitions no doubt because somebody there didn't like a particular thing.
Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to deal on point of law, not on their own individual viewpoints or to pander to the interest group that they may have been nominated by. They are human like everyone else, as are legislators but they have greater security of tenure and therefore can afford to be a little more dispassionate.
That it was illegal for the slaves to have a voice once did not guarantee that viewpoint for ever.
It's funny also how reasoning you may not agree with has to be dubious zix, no doubt any that you yourself agree with has to be wonderful!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Question:
If God is so opposed to homosexuality, why weren't there 11 commandments instead of 10, to include: "A man shall not love another man, and a woman shall not love another woman"?
I'm not arguing that homosexuality was something God necessarily wanted or designed. After all, when he created Adam and Eve, He made their bodies wonderfully compatible--and I'd venture that the design hasn't changed a whole lot since then. And Adam and Eve had to populate the earth, so it made sense to have them be attracitve to each other. But I'd say by now the earth is more than adequately populated, and letting the small percentage of homosexuals on this planet marry sure as heck isn't going to keep the heterosexuals from having children.
Do you think God din't know there would be homosexuals? Why, then, if He wanted so badly to condemn homosexuality, didn't He outlaw it in the days of Moses? I can't think of one crime man can commit against man that isn't covered by those 10 commandments. Not one. Yet, wonder of wonders, homosexuality is glaringly absent.
'Splain that to me, please.
Linda Z
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trefor wrote,
"Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been 'historically viewed as aberrant' does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this 'historical view' is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there."
*****
Trefor,
I have looked at Mr. Truluck's site. It is not exegesis or biblical theology that informs his arguments. He does victimology, self-pity, loudmouthed denunciations, heresy and some spoof-texting. He is a manipulator.
Again, why should ideas about equality and liberty form a controlling basis for evaluating whether a government should offer recognition for homosexual relationships, yet not form such a basis for evaluating whether a government should do the same for a wide range of aberrant relationships that occur or that might occur among adults?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The Ten Commandments do not, of course, constitute all OT commands
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Oh, and Cynic: I'm accustomed to the stilted manner in which you epxress yourself. Hey, if you don't want people to know what the heck you're saying because you're hellbent on sounding scholarly, have at it, but it makes for lousy communication outside the ivory tower.
One question, though: You said, "I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated."
What is "spirated," because I can't find it in any American English dictionary. Maybe you meant "inspired"?
Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Cynic, you can do better than that.
Wouldn't you say the ten commandments encompass subsequently given commands? I would. Subsequent commands might be more specific, but they certainly seem to me to come under the umbrella of those ten.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Linda Z wrote,
"What is 'spirated,' because I can't find it in any American English dictionary."
*****
According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christia...ogy-philosophy/ , "breathe forth."
It is a word I came across some years ago in a theological handbook written by a guy who apparently used it for its stronger semantic character than equivocally used words such as inspired or inspiration.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is one area where your analogy falls apart. This is an area of long-standing precedent of one man - one woman. In Maryland, the law goes back to the 1670s; I am sure, in Mass., the law goes back even further (here I'm talking about case law in addition to legislation). The court has turned over hundreds of years of common law and statutory law by fiat.
The issue of civil rights is a good analogy to this situation here.
People were being discriminated upon based upon their skin color, an immediately identifiable biological trait. Here, people are discriminated upon based upon (depending on your view) a behavior pattern or a biological trait that manifests itself in a behavioral pattern. So, the analogy is not perfect and I acknowledge that.
Despite that, the common thread is discrimination.
The color-based discrimination issue is being resolved based upon the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution. The courts have reviewed and continue to review law, regulation, and practice based upon that constitutional law. Whether you agree or disagree with the individual decisions of the courts, they can hang their hats upon that amendment.
In the case, there is no law, except for the law "created" by judicial fiat. Laws created by judicial fiat are, in my mind, an abomination. As a postscript, I will repro an extract of the Mass. court's ruling and the extract of the Mass. constitution that they "claim" to hang their hat on. It's a stretch, at best, imho.
Still, that is not what causes my blood to boil. First, recognize that I am a resident of Md., not Mass. I have absolutely no say in how they make their law, how their courts are run, or anything else to do with that state. If this judicial fiat is allowed to stand, the law in my state will be irrevocably impacted. The "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution demands that all states give full faith and credit "to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, regardless of how my state decides the situation, we will have to honor and respect the rules created by this other state's court. And there is NOTHING I can do about it.
If not for the implications of the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution, I wouldn't care one way or another. I don't live there and its none of my business. Even with the "full faith and credit" clause, I still wouldn't be that upset, had the legislature of Mass. decided to pass the appropriate law. But, when a state court creates law in another state that will impact me and I am powerless to do something about it, that makes my blood boil.
Now I searched the Mass. constitution and so far as I can tell, I think what that court is referring to is:
http://www.billericanews.com/laws/maconst.htm
I hate to agree with Cynic, but if this article justifies same sex marriage, it also justifies polygamy/polygyny. It also justifies a whole lot of behaviors (use your imagination), under the guise of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.